Page 2 of 3
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:34 am
Clio wrote:I guess you've not been in a lot of other pharmacies, Warwick, because they all stock Vicks!...
I mostly use the one pharmacy, Clio. Once a month I go in, get my prescription and leave. I don't browse the shelves in any shop and certainly not in pharmacies so I have no idea what else they sell. If I need anything outside my prescription I simply ask for it. I figure they know where it is without me wandering round looking. If it isn't something I have asked for I have no idea if they sell it and I have certainly never asked for Vicks. I only ever use medication for the purpose for which it was designed and as far as I am aware Vicks VaporRub was designed to ease cold symptoms. I have had a fungal nail infection and, surprisingly enough, it was cured with medication designed to kill fungal nail infections. I use Deet based lotions to repel mosquitoes. Possibly the only useful product to come out of the billions spent on research by the US military.
In my opinion the only "reliable" cure for a cold is two paracetamol every 4 to 6 hours, half a bottle of dark rum, preferably Woods, consumed in hot drinks over a couple of days and lots of blankets. Like every other remedy it has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the cold but I am certain that my remedy makes me feel a lot better than would smearing smelly gunk round my nose and top lip. As a doctor friend once told me, if you do nothing a cold will last two weeks but if you treat it it will be gone in a fortnight. Those who rush for antibiotics every time they sneeze could learn a lot from that philosophy.
PS I agree about the DM.
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 3:16 pm
Kilkis wrote: I have had a fungal nail infection and, surprisingly enough, it was cured with medication designed to kill fungal nail infections.
Try soaking them in cider vinegar.
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:50 pm
The Antibiotics part of your post Warwick is sound clinically, but you give the impression that you are very closed mind on other remedies, I personally think that you have a very closed mind about the effects of remedies on all types of differing personal reactions to various remedies all be it that you state they work for you, there is no one brand remedy that works for all, my son is a medically qualified O.T. and has personal experience of this in most cases he has treated, try it and see seems to be the maxim...
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:48 am
You're right, Dave, I am quite sceptical about many alternative treatments. I am a scientist so I tend to apply scientific thinking. Some examples:
I don't believe at all in homoeopathy. I think it is a total sham. If you take the dilution ratios and the number of molecules in the original mixture it is highly improbable that there is a single molecule of the active ingredient in the final dose. And, no, I don't believe water molecules exhibit memory and can remember being next to a molecule of the active ingredient. It has all the characteristics of a snake oil sales pitch.
I am also highly sceptical about the efficacy of remedies where the only validation of those remedies is from other fora. I am a great believer in scientific trials, preferably double blind . As an example it is perfectly simple to grow the various species of Candida in a petri dish. It would then be quite easy to treat such a controlled growth with various substances, such as cider vinegar, and report how well it did or didn't destroy the fungus. Can you provide any references for such studies? Also why "cider vinegar"? Boric acid, for example, is a well established treatment for Candida infections so I can believe that acetic acid might also be a valuable treatment. As far as I know there is no difference between the acetic acid in cider vinegar and that in other forms of vinegar so why does it specifically have to be cider vinegar?
I also have some reservations about herbal remedies. I completely accept that many remedies sold as medicines today are derived from, or were originally derived from, plants so clearly using the plant directly should have a similar effect. As a scientist however I can see distinct benefits in extracting the active ingredient, or producing it by a chemical process, and then giving it in a carefully controlled dose based on trials to determine at what level it is most beneficial and least harmful. To me using the plant directly in some formulation where the dose is not accurately known doesn't offer any benefit. Classifying it as "natural" has no meaning for me. A chemical reaction is "natural" i.e. part of nature. There are now moves to use 3D printing technology to allow hospitals and possibly pharmacies to create tablets with highly specific doses of drugs depending on the characteristics of the patient. To me that would be more important than preparing the drug from plants brewed up in a cauldron over a wood fire at midnight on a moonless night, possibly with the help of a dozen naked colleagues.
I don't believe in astrology, tarot, auras, crystal healing, reiki or any other system that is based on some mysterious energy field that flows through and around us but for which there is no real evidence.
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:46 pm
Very pragmatic Warwick, I only wish such thought had been in the process before Thalidomide was used on unsuspecting patients, having taught the limbless victims in my business as a driving instructor specialising in disabled persons driving instruction and using my engineering background to invent and make practical aids to help overcome the problems that their differing handicaps brought to the driving task...
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:02 pm
I am certainly not claiming that the pharmaceutical industry never gets it wrong, sometimes with disastrous consequences. They also often try to cover up their mistakes making the outcome even worse. When they do get it wrong I think they should suffer much bigger penalties than they do. The bad decisions are often driven by the bottom line so hitting the bottom line hard might encourage them to think and act differently. Despite that I would still rather take an Aspirin than chew some Willow bark.
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:33 pm
Have to agree with most of what you say Kilkis but I'd be lost without Greenlip Mussel tablets. They also work brilliantly on animals with arthritis, so no placebo effect as they haven't a clue they are taking it! I guess the companies who make the usual painkillers for arthritis really wouldn't want to find an alternative especially if it's cheaper and someone else got there first.
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:16 pm
I suspect, by and large, that Big Pharma doesn't really want to find cures for anything. They make far more money with pills and potions that alleviate symptoms and hold out the possibility of prolonging life. Actually cure things and they're reducing their future markets.
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:47 pm
Exactly my point filippos!
Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:31 am
Yep, medical research, most of it carried out by the pharmaceutical companies, really has completely failed
hasn't it? We'd have been a lot better off without them?
Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:24 am
Of course Big Pharma hasn't completely failed; what a stupid assumption to read into a post but it has done a few dodgy things over the years as well as many good ones.
".... pills and potions that alleviate symptoms and hold out the possibility of prolonging life." The chart seems to demonstrate that quite well.
Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:54 am
It's the use of the word "possibility" I am objecting to. The chart seems to demonstrate quite conclusively that they have prolonged life. I would also comment that the last time I saw somebody claiming:
filippos wrote:I suspect, by and large, that Big Pharma doesn't really want to find cures for anything. They make far more money with pills and potions that alleviate symptoms and hold out the possibility of prolonging life. Actually cure things and they're reducing their future markets.
they lived in a caravan in the woods lined with aluminium foil and wore a metal colander on their head. Through the development of vaccines they have prevented the spread of many diseases and virtually eradicated some. Obviously totally against their business interest. Many drugs actually cure illnesses completely. Again totally against their business interests. There are many medical problems that fit more into the category of a "condition" rather than a disease and cannot be cured. Surely drugs that ameliorate that condition are a boon and certainly don't deserve criticism.
Pharmaceutical companies certainly make mistakes as do the designers of bridges, aircraft and smart phones. In some cases the mistakes pharmaceutical companies make cause more suffering to more people than those that engineers make but that is more to do with their field of business than any greater incompetence. They also engage in some extremely dodgy business practices when it comes to pricing drugs. By all means criticise them for their failings but surely not for their huge successes? I am sure most of us on this forum have benefited from their work in some form or other. Personally I am very grateful for that.
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:09 pm
Patronising ................ (enter epithet of choice).
Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:29 am
You think so? I would suggest everybody who is interested in the topic should read this
from Cancer Research. Yes, the article specifically deals with cancer but you could replace the word "cancer" with your illness of choice and the arguments would still apply. Oh, sorry, I forgot, they are also part of the conspiracy. Clearly, since I don't wear a metal colander on my head, the secret government rays have modified my mind so I don't really see the truth. I would draw attention to one particular paragraph, my emphasis in red:
Here at Cancer Research UK we have seen loved ones and colleagues go through cancer. Many of them have survived. Many have not. To suggest that we are – collectively and individually – hiding ‘the cure’ is not only absurd, it’s offensive to the global community of dedicated scientists, to the staff and supporters of cancer research organisations such as Cancer Research UK and, most importantly, to cancer patients and their families.
It's tempting to post "Offensive................ (enter epithet of choice)" but I will refrain from doing so.
Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:51 am
Many drugs actually cure illnesses completely.
There are many medical problems that fit more into the category of a "condition" rather than a disease and cannot be cured.
Can you explain what you mean please
This is from the link you posted:
But all this doesn’t mean that sugar from cakes, sweets and other sugary foods specifically feeds cancer cells, as opposed to any other type of carbohydrate. Our body doesn’t pick and choose which cells get what fuel. It converts pretty much all the carbs we eat to glucose, fructose and other simple sugars, and they get taken up by tissues when they need energy.
Well they would say that, wouldn’t they – currently MacMillan Nurses are promoting a sugar laden cake coffee morning event to raise money – I just don’t get that at all!
A high carb, high protein, low fat diet will promote the environment for cancer to manifest. Apart from the brain, our body’s preferred fuel source is fat – it is very healthy to periodically get into the state of nutritional ketosis (not to be confused with diabetic ketosis). Low carb does not = low calorie. By the process of gluco-genesis the body can make it's own carb anyway.
The *myth* that Cancer Research UK are *busting* about *Sharks don’t get cancer* is nonsense – of course all poor marine life are suffering from humanity’s insufferable pollution of everything it gets near.
Through the development of vaccines they have prevented the spread of many diseases and virtually eradicated some.
I seem to recall the mass immunisation of Indian children against polio resulted in an EXPLOSION ofpolio. What about the (disatrous) current HPV vax for young girls? What about the cancer causing agents inserted into vaccines between 1954 ad around 1970?
I know Bill Gates is on a mission to vacccinate the world and reduce the popultion.