Woo Denial

[1eyedtiger]

Here's another story actually. My dog suffered from hot spots and early stage arthritis. Having done a bit of looking into it I found a company that addressed these exact problems through supplements because commercial dog food doesn't give dogs the enzymes they need to properly breakdown their food and regulate other bodily functions. They're used to getting these enzymes in the food their prey eats, like grasses and weeds. The simple solution to this problem is to feed your dog alfalfa minced up. We've been doing this for 5 years (the dog is 9) and he's been basically free of these symptoms since. This natural treatment, if given to all dogs routinely would clear up any number of complaints. How likely do you think it is that the animal food and medicine industries will start researching this, and then if it's found to be beneficial start telling people not to feed their pets commercial food, including the 'science approved' types?

Off topic, but it's good that you mentioned your dog's problems as my Jack Russell has recently started having problems walking on one of her legs. A couple of weeks ago, the vet said it might be arthritis and gave her some anti-inflammatories which she responded to but has since finished and returned to her previous condition. She's going back to the vets today. I'm going to see if x-rays will show anything up. Expensive from what I hear, but worth it for peace at mind and might find something that can be treated. Anyhow, if it's arthritis, I was worried that I'll be forking out for expensive medicine for the rest of my dogs life but I'm going to try your suggestion first. Not that money is an issue.

ps. don't tell the do-gooders that I'm spending money on my dog. I don't want to be harrassed by people telling me that my money can go towards more worthwhile causes.

Thanks.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

What is more worthwhile than your dog's health?

 

[Disco08]

Cool. Here's where I got the info from to start with 1eyed. I imported a few bottles of them to start with until quarantine decided on about the 5th go that they were dangerous. Anyway, I spoke to them and they said the active ingredient was alfalfa. We just put it in the food processor with other vegies and the dog eats it no worries. He is a lab though so he pretty much eats anything.

Good luck.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

That website is woo-laden Disco. I am glad that whatever you are doing is helping your dog, but check out this load of drek:

Enzymes are the foundation of energy and the life force in all living things. They are responsible for building, detoxifying, and healing the body. They are also the force that allows your body to digest and absorb food.

Enzymes also regulate tens of thousands of other biochemical functions that take place in the body every day. Even thinking involves "enzymes". Without enzymes, seeds would not sprout, fruit would not ripen, leaves would not change color, and life would not exist.

Science has now confirmed (LEL) Low Enzyme Levels as the world's #1 killer, based on the late Dr. Edward Howell's 40-year research covering more than 700 worldwide studies. Low Enzyme Levels kill more humans than AIDS, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and accidents - combined. The studies conclude that all diseases, from cancer to the minor sniffle, have one root cause "Low Enzymes Levels".

"When the body's enzyme levels are high, disease disappears. When low - disease appears and eventually kills."

Oh dear. Keep in mind that any enzymes in the food will be inactivated and degraded in the digestion process.

 

[Tiger74]

What has that got to do with establishing the efficacy of the orange? I am against someone saying "you don't need your bexadrill pill, just have an orange a day to prevent XXXXX" when the bexadrill has been shown to be effective, while the orange has not been tested, or, worse, has been shown to be ineffective.

Simple, if the orange is equally effective, who will buy bexadrill? You automatically assume the 100% natural delivery vehicle is not efficient. It can be however, but this is not in a pharma company's interest to confirm.

The only exception of course is if you get a GMO strain of a food item, then you can patent it and sell that cure.

Yes, it does take dollars, but natural therapies that don't have the same safety/ethical issues as untested drugs are far easier and cheaper. I would think that someone who was prescribing treatment would want some sort of assurance that they are actually doing something besides doling out placebos.

problem natural remedies have though is natural alternatives. Why pay $40 for your bottle of tested garlic pills when you can by garlic by itself? You do the tests, confirm the claim, and price yourself out of the market as a result. Not ideal, but its the commercial reality of testing.

Odd thing however is the food industry may be the saviour. Foods are developing more and more functional foods, and the minute you make a claim you have to have science to back up the claim. Did some interesting work in this area in my last company

 

[evo]

"Woo-laden"

Hehe. The winner of neologism of the week.

Incidently the term "life force" is invariably followed by some sort of woo-laden claim,in my experience.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Simple, if the orange is equally effective, who will buy bexadrill? You automatically assume the 100% natural delivery vehicle is not efficient. It can be however, but this is not in a pharma company's interest to confirm.

I made no such claim in my post. I said in many cases that is the reality...not all. Of course pharmaceutical companies wouldn't be publicising such research findings, but it can still be done and in the absence of the research, any claims of efficacy are meaningless.

The only exception of course is if you get a GMO strain of a food item, then you can patent it and sell that cure.

Why would a GMO increase the pharmaceutical benefit, if the natural delivery vehicle is already 100% efficient?

problem natural remedies have though is natural alternatives. Why pay $40 for your bottle of tested garlic pills when you can by garlic by itself? You do the tests, confirm the claim, and price yourself out of the market as a result. Not ideal, but its the commercial reality of testing.

Yes and rather cynical, putting them on level pegging with the so-called big pharmaceutical companies pushing their unnecessary drugs. The difference is that the pharma companies test their drugs to establish safety and efficacy whereas what you are saying is that natural remedies aren't tested due to commercial interests - I know which one I think sounds worse.

Odd thing however is the food industry may be the saviour. Foods are developing more and more functional foods, and the minute you make a claim you have to have science to back up the claim. Did some interesting work in this area in my last company

Yep, a small section of my own research is in this area. Establishing clinically significant effects from food. A value-add for the food producers supported by scientific research.

 

[evo]

The difference is that the pharma companies test their drugs to establish safety and efficacy whereas what you are saying is that natural remedies aren't tested due to commercial interests - I know which one I think sounds worse.

Woo-advocates ( ;D ) are ussually skilled in using the 'poisining the well' logical fallacy.It's their stock in trade.

They think if they can demonstrate that widely accepted drugs are produced by big buisness(and we all know how evil and selfish they are) that is enough to demonstrate that a 'natural' alternative,any alternative,is better by default.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Woo-advocates ( ;D ) are ussually skilled in using the 'poisining the well' logical fallacy.It's their stock in trade.

They think if they can demonstrate that widely accepted drugs are produced by big buisness(and we all know how evil and selfish they are) that is enough to demonstrate that a 'natural' alternative,any alternative,is better by default.

Whether they work or not.

 

[Disco08]

That website is woo-laden Disco. I am glad that whatever you are doing is helping your dog, but check out this load of drek:

Enzymes are the foundation of energy and the life force in all living things. They are responsible for building, detoxifying, and healing the body. They are also the force that allows your body to digest and absorb food.

Enzymes also regulate tens of thousands of other biochemical functions that take place in the body every day. Even thinking involves "enzymes". Without enzymes, seeds would not sprout, fruit would not ripen, leaves would not change color, and life would not exist.

Science has now confirmed (LEL) Low Enzyme Levels as the world's #1 killer, based on the late Dr. Edward Howell's 40-year research covering more than 700 worldwide studies. Low Enzyme Levels kill more humans than AIDS, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and accidents - combined. The studies conclude that all diseases, from cancer to the minor sniffle, have one root cause "Low Enzymes Levels".

"When the body's enzyme levels are high, disease disappears. When low - disease appears and eventually kills."

Oh dear. Keep in mind that any enzymes in the food will be inactivated and degraded in the digestion process.

Yeah, it sounds a bit over the top but I think the basic premise is sound. If a dogs natural diet deprives them of something try and put it back.

Edward Howell 's 40 years of research is a sham? Has he submitted his work for peer review?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Yeah, it sounds a bit over the top but I think the basic premise is sound. If a dogs natural diet deprives them of something try and put it back.

Edward Howell 's 40 years of research is a sham? Has he submitted his work for peer review?

As a lecturer in biochemistry, take it from me (or better yet check out an entry level biochem text), that paragraph is the biggest load of woo horseshit you will ever come across. To use terms like "life force" and refer to enzymes as a "force" should set alarm bells ringing. As for this so-called LEL, last time I checked heart disease was the #1 killer in the western world.

If the diet is lacking, it certainly wouldn't be in enzymes. Most enzymes are proteins which are broken down in the stomach and small intestine. Our enzyme levels are genetically regulated and aren't supplemented by diet.

As for Edward Howell - I don't know. What I do know is that spiel is rubbish.

 

[Tiger74]

Why would a GMO increase the pharmaceutical benefit, if the natural delivery vehicle is already 100% efficient?

Yes and rather cynical, putting them on level pegging with the so-called big pharmaceutical companies pushing their unnecessary drugs. The difference is that the pharma companies test their drugs to establish safety and efficacy whereas what you are saying is that natural remedies aren't tested due to commercial interests - I know which one I think sounds worse.

On the first (and this is where we get messy because it is very general discussion), if you isolate the genes that provide the bulk of the benefit and engineer your strain to optimize this benefit, you get the benefit of the marketing claim. You can argue that non-GMO product is not as efficient as yours, even if the efficiency is one that is not needed. Only close example I can think of this milk, where playing BS games with fat percentages for marketing benefits has been going on for some time. Still amazes me how many people pay a premium for some items where the benefit is barely 1%.

Not saying its right, but that its a way to get your patent for marketing control.

On the second, again not saying its right, just that there are commercial issues which impact upon research.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

On the first (and this is where we get messy because it is very general discussion), if you isolate the genes that provide the bulk of the benefit and engineer your strain to optimize this benefit, you get the benefit of the marketing claim. You can argue that non-GMO product is not as efficient as yours, even if the efficiency is one that is not needed. Only close example I can think of this milk, where playing BS games with fat percentages for marketing benefits has been going on for some time. Still amazes me how many people pay a premium for some items where the benefit is barely 1%.

Not saying its right, but that its a way to get your patent for marketing control.

Yes, but it is a marketing claim, nothing more. I would assume in this case that the GMO and natural product wouldn't show any difference in clinical trials. Just the process of generating the GMO permits patent protection. Thus any claims of greater efficacy would not be scientifically supported.

On the second, again not saying its right, just that there are commercial issues which impact upon research.

Agreed.

 

[Tiger74]

Yes, but it is a marketing claim, nothing more. I would assume in this case that the GMO and natural product wouldn't show any difference in clinical trials. Just the process of generating the GMO permits patent protection. Thus any claims of greater efficacy would not be scientifically supported.

Thats where control of the science comes into play. I remember early on with GMO crops when they were being promoted in Australia, the science to support them (that I saw) was nearly exclusively from the company in question. It was actually quite hard to get objective feedback on things, because the company in question was extremely paranoid about competitors and anti-GMO issues.

 

[AngryAnt]

Well after 8 years, I'm sure they can try again with better technology. Who's stopping them ?

We should take this to 9/11 thread which is running hot right now instead of continuing to highjack this thread. Read my response there.

http://www.puntroadend.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=24000.msg890031#msg890031

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Thats where control of the science comes into play. I remember early on with GMO crops when they were being promoted in Australia, the science to support them (that I saw) was nearly exclusively from the company in question. It was actually quite hard to get objective feedback on things, because the company in question was extremely paranoid about competitors and anti-GMO issues.

That is the beauty of the peer-review system. Although I would be wary of the research, due to the obvious self interest, the published research must describe the reproducible method and show the data. You can accept or dismiss the findings based on your own assessment of the data.

 

[Tiger74]

That is the beauty of the peer-review system. Although I would be wary of the research, due to the obvious self interest, the published research must describe the reproducible method and show the data. You can accept or dismiss the findings based on your own assessment of the data.

This is where I get sceptical though, because there are peers and there are peers. On the GMO side there were research agencies with one agenda (to show GMO is care bear friendly) and others with the exact opposite (GMO's will end civilization). Unfortunately that meant most of what we had access to was done to confirm a preconceived agenda, making it hard to make definitive decisions. Japan for instance went straight to GMO ban just because of doubt.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

This is where you need to look at the research itself and see whether the conclusions are justified by the data.

 

[Tiger74]

This is where you need to look at the research itself and see whether the conclusions are justified by the data.

That was the problem with the GMO debate though. The designers of the GMO strains released marketing fluff for the most part, and those against stuff that even I could drive a truck through.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Marketing fluff ain't science though. Either show the data that establishes the safety, which can be scrutinised, or you can't really expect people to accept your self-serving assertions.