Aspirin

Quote
hwkmn05
With all these modern wonderful meds, why are we bothering with cheap 2000 yr old salicylates?

Many of these "modern wonderful meds have caused lots of problems for people, you can read about different drug reactions right on this site. So If a drug has lasted many years there must be something good about it, some drugs have been derived from plants which were used for centuries by the natives.

Quote
Elizabeth

Many of these "modern wonderful meds have caused lots of problems for people

Judging from their breakouts this week, no problems for shareholders anyway.

I think that medicine truly derived from plants or flowers would be substantially different than ones synthetically manufactured in the test tubes.

Quote
hwkmn05
I think that medicine truly derived from plants or flowers would be substantially different than ones synthetically manufactured in the test tubes.

What makes you think that?

Quote
Carey

I think that medicine truly derived from plants or flowers would be substantially different than ones synthetically manufactured in the test tubes.

What makes you think that?

Gosh Carey, I dont know, maybe due to the fact that meds are responsible for over 100,000 deaths in hospitals yearly? Dont mean to be contentious here, but I would just be guessing that chewing on willow bark tho not convenient, would be different than chewing on an aspirin.

Quote
hwkmn05
Gosh Carey, I dont know, maybe due to the fact that meds are responsible for over 100,000 deaths in hospitals yearly? Dont mean to be contentious here, but I would just be guessing that chewing on willow bark tho not convenient, would be different than chewing on an aspirin.

The only difference between taking an aspirin and chewing willow bark would be predictability of the dosage. I know how to avoid overdosing on aspirin but I don't know how to avoid overdosing on willow bark. I also don't know why you think that chemicals extracted from plants are safer than chemicals extracted from other sources. The plant kingdom produces some impressively toxic chemicals. And above all, since supplements aren't required to meet purity standards, I don't know how to avoid unscrupulous manufacturers who produce supplements tainted with heavy metals and other toxins. It's not like there's a shortage of examples of that.

The whole notion that "natural" supplements are safer than medications in general is a fallacy.

The whole notion that "natural" supplements are safer than medications in general is a fallacy.


Ho, ho, it would be rare if someone died from supplements, but there are many that die from drugs, it even has happened with Eliquis, one of your favorites.

Liz



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2018 02:13PM by Elizabeth.

Quote
Elizabeth
Ho, ho, it would be rare if someone died from supplements, but there are many that die from drugs, it even has happened with Eliquis, one of your favorites.
/quote]

I don't have any favorites and you just demonstrated the fallacy I'm talking about with the logic above.

Anyone taking Valsartan?

Carey - the "notion" isn't a fallacy...there is factual evidence in the literature confirming many drugs have far more safety issues than similar natural compounds.

hwkmn05 - Here's a confirmation of the efficacy and safety of white willow bark vs aspirin. If you do a search on the risks of taking aspirin - long term - versus Salix alba, you'll find an abundance of reports on the downside of aspirin - especially the GI damage risk - example...

CONCLUSION:
Data suggest that ASA causes significant gastroduodenal damage even at the low doses used for cardiovascular protection. These effects (both systemic and possibly local) may be pharmacodynamically distinct from the gastroduodenal toxicity seen with NSAIDs. Studies are required to establish strategies for improving the tolerability of low-dose ASA, allowing patients to continue to benefit from the cardiovascular protection associated with such therapy.
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

versus:

Phytother Res. 2015 Aug;29(8):1112-6. doi: 10.1002/ptr.5377. Epub 2015 May 22.
Efficacy and Safety of White Willow Bark (Salix alba) Extracts.
Shara M1, Stohs SJ2.

Abstract

Willow bark extract has been used for thousands of years as an anti-inflammatory, antipyretic, and analgesic. In spite of its long history of use, relatively few human and animal studies have been published that confirm anecdotal observations. A small number of clinical studies have been conducted that support the use of willow bark extracts in chronic lower back and joint pain and osteoarthritis. Willow bark extracts also are widely used in sports performance and weight loss products presumably because of anti-inflammatory and analgesic activities, although no human studies have been published that specifically and directly document beneficial effects. In recent years, various in vitro and animal studies have demonstrated that the anti-inflammatory activity of willow bark extract is associated with down regulation of the inflammatory mediators tumor necrosis factor-α and nuclear factor-kappa B. Although willow bark extracts are generally standardized to salicin, other ingredients in the extracts including other salicylates as well as polyphenols, and flavonoids may also play prominent roles in the therapeutic actions. Adverse effects appear to be minimal as compared to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs including aspirin. The primary cause for concern may relate to allergic reactions in salicylate-sensitive individuals.
PMID: 25997859
DOI: 10.1002/ptr.5377


Jackie

Quote
Jackie
Carey - the "notion" isn't a fallacy...there is factual evidence in the literature confirming many drugs have far more safety issues than similar natural compounds.

The fallacy is the sweeping generalizations. If you say drugs are safer than supplements that's a nonsensical statement. If you say supplements are safer than drugs that's also a nonsensical statement. You can't compare thousands of compounds as a group. Name a specific drug and name a specific supplement and then we can compare them rationally, but making sweeping statements about them just makes no sense whatsoever and yields no true statements. Even declaring supplements as "natural" is usually misleading and false. You do realize that a large percentage of drugs are made from natural substances, right? And you also realize that many supposedly natural supplements are concocted in test tubes, right?

And finally, of course some drugs have more safety issues than some supplements. But when we discuss safety we can't discuss it without also discussing efficacy, and that's usually why some drugs have more safety issues. The fact is, there are thousands of drugs, and millions of people who are alive solely because of one or more of them and there are no comparable "natural" supplements that can replace them. This whole mentality of "drugs are bad, supplements are good" is in fact a logical fallacy and it serves no useful purpose in helping people decide what to do.

Carey - I don't refute that drugs can be lifesavers. And certainly, not all drugs are bad. But a good many have side effects that compound the issue and the problem is that many drugs are prescribed without looking for an underlying nutritional deficiency that may be contributing to the symptoms. That's a major problem and a big gap in a thorough diagnostic process that involves metabolic profile testing to rule out nutritional deficiencies.

When that happens, the underlying problem may not be resolved. I have first-hand experience with that on several very significant issues. This is one:

Personal Example #1
Muscle pain and weakness. Rheumatologist assessment and diagnosis of Fibromyalgia.
Prescription for various Rx drugs to mask the pain.
Result: no improvement after several other Rx drug options are also tried.
Seek help from a Functional Medicine MD who orders a Vitamin D test based on symptoms.
Result... level is 18 when optimal should be at least 60-70, if not higher.
Prescribe natural vitamin D supplement... in incremental doses and testing periodically.
Result: Elimination of "fibromyalgia" pain plus other health benefits including superior immune system resistance to colds and flu... only 2 occurrences in over 25 years.
Economical, too, since Rx meds are typically costly versus Vitamin D3.

I have several other experiences with nutrients-versus-meds examples that are more extensive but I'll refrain from elaborating.

Jackie

Quote
Carey

This whole mentality of "drugs are bad, supplements are good" is in fact a logical fallacy and it serves no useful purpose in helping people decide what to do.

True, but nobody said that. Jackie is taking Eliquis.

Hey Jackie have you ever tried d-ribose powder for you Fibro....from what i have read it does wonders for some people with that condition...i know for me with the afib it certainly is making this malady easier to deal with.....not to mention it gives me about i would say a 25% at least boost in energy...amazing stuff.
Around 25-30 grams a day and delicious.

vanlith - Thanks.. but I no longer have FM thanks to normalizing Vitamin D; however, I do use d-ribose as part of The Strategy - nutritional guide for supportive heart health nutrients - targeting those with LAF.
I've used d-ribose for years and like the effects.
The Strategy
[www.afibbers.org]

Jackie

Quote
jpeters
True, but nobody said that. Jackie is taking Eliquis.

I know she is. I wasn't singling her out. It's just an attitude I've seen expressed here many times.

Jackie, I don't dispute that drugs are often prescribed without seeking underlying causes first, and they're often prescribed just plain wrongly. The first problem is a fundamental problem with our health care system where doctors simply can't afford to spend time on diagnosis. To stay in business they have to have patients in and out in 15 minutes, and it's a challenge to do more than write a prescription in that amount of time. The second problem is one of doctors not maintaining their continuing medical education. I wish I had a dollar for every newly diagnosed person I've seen show up on afib forums who's been put on crap like digoxin and aspirin, or worse yet, amiodarone as a first-line treatment.

Another problem is the drugs themselves...frequently very little is known about them, particularly given all the generics that have their own fillers.

Here's the latest, Valsartan:
[www.cnn.com]

"The recall is due to the presence of the impurity, N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), which was found in the recalled products, according to an FDA statement. "

"NDMA is an organic chemical that is in a family of potent carcinogens. It has been used to make liquid rocket fuel, softeners and lubricants, among other products. It can also be unintentionally produced through certain chemical reactions and is a byproduct from some pesticide manufacturing, the making of rubber tires or fish processing."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2018 07:25PM by jpeters.

Quote
jpeters
Another problem is the drugs themselves...frequently very little is known about them, particularly given all the generics that have their own fillers.

Actually, what you just posted is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. Because valsartan is a drug, this contamination was proimptly discovered and a recall was ordered. Had it been an unregulated supplement, that would not have been the case. This is what I posted about this in another forum:

This demonstrates why supplements and "natural" products should be subjected to the same purity standards that drugs are. I work for a company that makes mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography equipment, which are the devices used to determine what's actually in a substance no matter how minute the amount. Every batch of drugs sold in this country has to be subjected to mass spectrometry to find out what's really in it (vs. what's supposed to be in it). This is no doubt how they found the contaminant. But supplements and natural products have no such requirement. They can be loaded with outright toxins and you'd have no way of knowing, and it's not like that hasn't happened before.

Think I'll avoid the whole thing, and stick with food whenever possible

Quote
jpeters
Think I'll avoid the whole thing, and stick with food whenever possible

Hard to go wrong with that.

I totally agree that getting nutrients from food is the way to go - when possible. But, a lot of toxins come from foods too.

Food quality varies and some may not offer optimal nutritional value and also, if not US certified organic, there's the added burden of pesticide residues. Imported foods are automatically sprayed at the border so whether organic or not, those toxins are present. Vegan and vegetarian organic food diets are certainly healthy to an extent, but typically lacks adequate B12 and iron which creates a number of health issues eventually, unless targeted supplements are also taken.
Certainly, growing your own organic veggies works well too, as long as you stick with organic seeds, soil and fertilizers as well.

Packaged and processed foods contain many additives, coloring, and other taste enhancers as do commercially prepared foods.... so nutritional deficiencies are common and yet are not known because typically patients aren't tested for missing nutrients... example, Genova Diagnostics offers the NutraEval test which is comprehensive.

When significant nutritional deficits are found, the most efficient method of repletion is via professional grade supplements. Also, there are targeted nutrients that help prevent progression of certain ailments and the higher concentrations of the supplement offers a chance to stabilize areas that are lacking.

There are definitely large quantities of pure junk supplements out there so those offered by the bottlers who go the extra couple of miles to meet GMP standards and do ingredient quality control assays prior to and after production are the most reliable. Some go so far as to state they are all US raw material sourced. They definitely are more costly, but so is consuming a junk supplement that provides zero nutrient value because its the wrong form.

High quality bottlers do independent quality control testing and label products that pass US Pharmacopeia, and NSF International or UL for independent quality control testing. There's a cluster of reputable producers of nutritional supplements that offer quality assurance.

Jackie

Quote
Jackie
I totally agree that getting nutrients from food is the way to go - when possible. But, a lot of toxins come from foods too.

Food quality varies and some may not offer optimal nutritional value and also, if not US certified organic, there's the added burden of pesticide residues.

Your Organic Food Is Treated With Pesticides, Too

[vitals.lifehacker.com]

"In other words, buying organic strawberries might expose you to more pesticide residues than buying conventional. We recommend ignoring the Dirty Dozen list entirely, and buying whichever fruits and veggies work for your diet and your budget."

Confused yet??

I've seen mass spectrometry results of certified organic and non-organic vegetables side by side. The differences were minimal, to say the least.

I have had a garden, fruit trees and berries for over 40 years, I have always said there is nothing that is truly organic. I weed my plants but in big commercial growers there is no way they can do that, if they did, the prices would be out of sight. The only way you can have food that is truly organic is to grow it yourself. Even so I still have to use spray on my fruit trees, cabbage, Brussel sprouts and broccoli, I just don't use the amounts that commercial growers do. We can't live in a glass bubble.

L

Quote
Carey

Gosh Carey, I dont know, maybe due to the fact that meds are responsible for over 100,000 deaths in hospitals yearly? Dont mean to be contentious here, but I would just be guessing that chewing on willow bark tho not convenient, would be different than chewing on an aspirin.

The only difference between taking an aspirin and chewing willow bark would be predictability of the dosage. I know how to avoid overdosing on aspirin but I don't know how to avoid overdosing on willow bark. I also don't know why you think that chemicals extracted from plants are safer than chemicals extracted from other sources. The plant kingdom produces some impressively toxic chemicals. And above all, since supplements aren't required to meet purity standards, I don't know how to avoid unscrupulous manufacturers who produce supplements tainted with heavy metals and other toxins. It's not like there's a shortage of examples of that.

The whole notion that "natural" supplements are safer than medications in general is a fallacy.

And that is of course a wise and healthy concern, and not only supplements but toxins in some meds and our food. Not that "natural" supplements are safer, but I do find them to be without many of the side effects of meds. The premise is same for same in alternative and opposite healing for meds. Granted I do convert nicely on Flec and Metop within an hour vs several hours on supplements. Meds do work as they were intended with side effects. Treating my whole person takes months to prove.

Thank you for pointing out the “honesty” and reliability discrepancies in labeling regulations for organic produce for food safety control of pesticides and herbicides. Apparently, the truth-in-labeling law is yet another casualty in the dishonest world of marketing and consumer protection. Sobering. So what else is new.

Does this mean that the FDA requirements to obtain labeling with the USDA Organic designation is bogus? Or the Non-GMO Project Verified is bogus?

There are apparently many critics online of EWG’s mission; and these days, it’s difficult to know what’s been planted as fact and what’s actually bona fide truth. However, if there is unreliability in the specifications to obtain organic labeling, then so much more is the tragedy. I’m like Liz. Have always raised my veggies organically in summer but I do buy organic in the off-season but only US grown. However, this is another topic under the heading of “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire” because the chemicals often mentioned for pest and weed control are definitely not health-producing chemicals nor are they a nutritional requirement. Plus pesticide/herbicide residues can be neurotoxic and be an influence for stimulating an AF event should accumulations become significant. Some individuals may respond with AF and others may exhibit other effects of neurotoxicity and also mitochondrial damage. These are toxic residues in food but cheap supplements sourced from unreliable sources and produced by bottlers who don't follow the safety and GMP guidelines also can contain toxic residues including minerals such as arsenic or high natural fluoride content that is toxic, for example. Therefore the reliability of labeling is crucial.

I have a long list of studies (over 290) relating to potential health risks associated with pesticides/herbicides from various exposure sources. Here’s a sample –Perhaps some are related to the increasing incidence of the health issues mentioned. (Food for thought)…

Mangia!

Interaction between prenatal pesticide exposure and a common polymorphism in the PON1 gene on DNA methylation Dec 31, 2016
Chronic exposure to organochlorine compounds may contribute to type 2 diabetes and thyroid diseases. May 01, 2010

Occupational exposure to pesticides appears to increases the risk of Parkinson's disease. Sep 30, 2012

Persistent and non-persistent endocrine-disrupting chemicals may affect the risk of T2D. Jun 28, 2015

Pesticide exposure was associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer. Aug 18, 2016

Agricultural activity and pesticide exposure could increase bladder cancer risks. Nov 03, 2016

Background exposure to some organochlorine pesticides appears to lead to vitamin D deficiency in human.
Jan 01, 2012

Chronic occupational exposure to modern pesticides may affect reproductive outcomes in young men. Dec 31, 2016

DTT exposure is associated with increased breast cancer risk. Jan 01, 2010

Exposure to certain pyrethroids may negatively affect neurobehavioral development by 6 years of age. Feb 28, 2017

Exposure to organochlorine pesticides is an independent risk factor of hepatocellular carcinoma. Sep 14, 2011

Organochlorine pesticides may contribute to the initiation and pathogenesis of prostate cancer. Sep 01, 2010

Organophosphate exposure, at levels common among US children, may contribute to ADHD prevalence. Jun 01, 2010

Organophosphate pesticide exposure may adversely e ffect the thyroid. Aug 05, 2010

Serum concentrations of organochlorine pesticides are associated with prostate cancer incidence. Jan 01, 2010

Pesticide exposure is associated with psychological distress and suicidal ideation. Nov 01, 2010

Chronic exposure to chlorpyrifos in oil can directly alter human microbiota in terms of quantity, diversity and metabolic activity. Nov 03, 2016

Quote
Jackie
Or the Non-GMO Project Verified is bogus?

Non-GMO products often have more pesticides then GMO, and probably a good way to ensure that you get roundup, growth hormones, etc, into your diet. Certainly there's no scientific evidence that indicate that they're healthier.

jpeters... you missed the point... I was asking if the certification process for labeling of Non-GMO food was corrupt and not reliable. There is science behind the 'built in' problems with genetically modified organisms and that's not related to pesticides residues.

Jackie

Quote
Jackie
jpeters... you missed the point... I was asking if the certification process for labeling of Non-GMO food was corrupt and not reliable. There is science behind the 'built in' problems with genetically modified organisms and that's not related to pesticides residues.

Jackie

oh..I don't think the labeling is corrupt. You're getting non-GMO, as advertised. What's corrupt is all the marketing about the benefits.