|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Sequel Thread To Holistic Doctors, and medicine | |||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
So show me a patent on a natural vitamin molecule that is unchanged.
You haven't shown me yet. quote:I think I said that it was a way around the system. Like I also said, not my rules. It is the patent office. You'll have to take it up with them. This reference is fascinating to read.
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 4/Friday, January 5, 2001/NoticesUtility Examination Guidelines It brings up another requirement of receiving a patent.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is publishing a revised version of guidelines to be used by Office personnel in their review of patent applications for compliance with the ``utility'' requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101. Another example is an early patent for adrenaline. In a decision finding the patent valid, the court explained that compounds isolated from nature are patentable: ``even if it were merely an extracted product without change, there is no rule that such products are not patentable. Takamine was the first to make it [adrenaline] available for any use by removing it from the other gland-tissue in which it was found, and, while it is of course possible logically to call this a purification of the principle, it became for every practical purpose a new thing commercially and therapeutically. That was a good ground for a patent.'' Parke-Davis & Co. v. H. K. Mulford Co., 189 F. 95, 103 (S.D.N.Y. 1911) (J. Learned Hand). A patent on a gene covers the isolated and purified gene but does not cover the gene as it occurs in nature. Thus, the concern that a person whose body ``includes'' a patented gene could infringe the patent is misfounded. The body does not contain the patented, isolated and purified gene because genes in the body are not in the patented, isolated and purified form. It also gives us an idea of how the terms isolated and purified are considered different.
An isolated and purified DNA molecule that has the same sequence as a naturally occurring gene is eligible for a patent because (1) an excised gene is eligible for a patent as a composition of matter or as an article of manufacture because that DNA molecule does not occur in that isolated form in nature, or (2) synthetic DNA preparations are eligible for patents because their purified state is different from the naturally occurring compound. Fascinating as it is, this reference doesn't make your case that natural vitamins have been patented or can be patented. You stated in Message 290.
The fact remains, vitamins have been patented. Show me an example of a patented natural vitamin.Show me an example of a patented synthetic vitamin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Which is one of the reasons it is difficult to diagnose in young children. My daughter wasn't diagnosed with clinical depression until she was 15. We spent years and a lot of money trying to find out what her problem was. She was diagnosed through the use of a 400 question test. A low dose of Zoloft helped with her chemical imbalance, but an doctor turnover resulted in a new MD that didn't understand that she didn't have a previous happy feeling to return to so he kept upping the dosage until she started having reactions. He said it wasn't the Zoloft, but my daughter and I felt differently. I lowered the dosage myself, then we changed to a psychiatrist. She did better on the lower dosage. Not one of those things you can take a blood test for unfortunately.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
The original point was that we supposedly can't get patents on that which occurs naturally in nature. We can't patent vitamins.
IOW, the argument is that Big Parma doesn't test natural vitamins extensively because they can't patent the vitamin and get back the cost of the testing. From the supplemental side, they claim they shouldn't have to put millions into testing vitamins because they can't patent them and make back the money they put into testing. (Please don't turn these into my arguments.) You claimed that that which occurs naturally in nature can be patented (Message 230) and that vitamins have been patented. (Message 290) Although it took us quite a while, we can conclude that your above statements were incorrect. You've lost sight of the discussion again. It isn't about natural and unnatural. It is about what can and can't be patented. Like I said in Message 300 of the other thread: From what I've read in the sources you and I have provided, scientists don't want people or companies to be able to patent natural substances.
quote:Again, you're seeing arguments that aren't there. In Message 237 I simply asked that you show me that they are chemically, structurally, and functionally identical to their natural counterparts. I made no claim. Remember, I didn't take chemistry 101. My argument concerning their difference as I explained in the same post deals with getting a patent. In that respect, they are different as per the Patent Office rules. Natural vs synthetic, which remember synthetic does not mean it isn't made from natural compounds. It just means it was created or altered by man. In Message 254 I stated: I've made no such assertion. Actually, I agree. Most of the vitamin C in products (even from health food stores) is synthetic.
quote:We haven't been talking about vitamin pills.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I'm glad you finally understand. quote: In Message 22, I provided links to your statements. The above is not what you stated. In Message 11, I also gave you the option of showing me that a synthetic vitamin can be patented.
Show me an example of a patented natural vitamin. Show me an example of a patented synthetic vitamin. You chose not to do that either. You have not shown your statements to be correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Yes, it is patently obvious that you still don't understand the difference between patenting the process or method of creating a synthetic vitamin or extracting a natural vitamin and patenting the natural or synthetic vitamin. Of the examples you provided, the Polyethoxylated vitamin E and the Vitamin B.sub.6-phosphate phosphatase seem to be patents on the vitamins and the process. I'm not sure what you're crowing about. The Polyethoxylated Vitamin E would be considered synthetic and the VB6PP has been isolated and purified. The naturally occurring vitamins have not been patented. Polyethoxylated vitamin E
The polyethoxylated vitamin E according to claim 1, which is prepared by a process comprising the step of reacting a vitamin E having by the formula (II): ##STR8## wherein, A, B and m are as defined for formula I, or an ester thereof, with ethylene oxide, in the presence of a catalyst. Vitamin B.sub.6-phosphate phosphatase
A purified vitamin B.sub.6-phosphate phosphatase (VB6PP), ... in an aqueous nutrient medium under aerobic conditions, disrupting the cells of the microorganism and isolating and purifying the vitamin B.sub.6-phosphate phosphatase from the cell-free extract of the disrupted cells of the microorganism. Notice they are also patenting the process for producing these vitamins. You have not shown me that we can patent natural vitamins, but it appears we can patent synthetic vitamins as I said very early in this discussion and you so kindly quoted. Extraction changes the location of the vitamin. So per the patent office we can patent what is isolated and purified. So when those you deem "quacks" say they can't patent a natural vitamin, they are speaking the truth. Bellowing vague absolutes like vitamins can be patented does nothing to help your case. The statement isn't totally true. In our discussion we have discovered that we cannot patent a natural vitamin, but we can patent a synthetic vitamin. This isn't about whether we like the politics of the process or not. It is about what we are allowed to do at this time. What hoops do we have to jump through to get a patent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Please fix the links to my quotes, so that they are actually to the posts that hold the quotes.
I'm not going to rehash these with you, but readers need to be able to get to the correct posts so they can read the quotes in context. Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Hey Mod,
I have a question and I'm asking you because I feel you will give a kind and informative answer for a layman. I've had no chemistry classes. The chemical name for vitamin C is L-Ascorbic acid plus a few others. Is this the chemical name of the synthetic vitamin? I've seen the argument that a difference in natural and synthetic vitamins is in how they deal with plane-polarized light.Their chemical and physical properties may be identical, but their ability to rotate plane-polarized light isn't. Is this true?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Thank you, thank you, thank you. It is interesting that we don't get links to these wonderful studies. mbg writes: 1. Beta-carotene facilitates carcinogenesis. The carcinogenic response in lung tissue to high-dose beta-carotene supplementation reported in the human intervention trials is caused by the instability of beta-carotene in the free radical-rich environment in the lungs, particularly in cigarette smokers. Procarcinogenic and anticarcinogenic effects of beta-carotene. Nutr Rev. 1999:57:263-72. I found this article dealing with synergy which references the first study on her list in Message 70.(1) The Synergistic Approach: The Future of Nutrition Therapy And this abstract concerning the study.(2) Procarcinogenic and anticarcinogenic effects of beta-carotene. The study deals more with synergy not just megadosing.
Beta-carotene in its unoxidized form appears to be an anticarcinogen, but its oxidized products appear to facilitate carcinogenesis. (1) According to the first article, beta carotene needs Vitamins E & C to keep it from oxidizing. Supposedly smoking decreases the levels of Vitmains E & C in the tissue.
A large body of observational epidemiologic studies has consistently demonstrated that individuals who eat more fruits and vegetables, which are rich in carotenoids, and people who have higher serum beta-carotene levels have a lower risk of cancer, particularly lung cancer. In contrast to these observations, two human intervention studies that used high-dose beta-carotene supplements reported an increased risk for lung cancer among smokers. (2) The study doesn't seem to address nonsmokers. Both articles favor a synergistic approach to using nutrients.
Clinically, however, single nutrient therapy is not as effective as multiple nutrient intervention. Single nutrient deprivation and intervention studies are useful for research purposes, but as the research cited below will show, whenever synergistic nutrient combinations are compared to single nutrient interventions, the combined nutrient approach is both more effective and safer. Perhaps this is because multiple nutrient intervention better approximates the nutrient distribution found in food. (1) Nutritional intervention using a combination of antioxidants (beta-carotene, alpha-tocopherol, and vitamin C) as anticarcinogenic agents could be an appropriate way to rationally and realistically reduce cancer risk.(2) That's one of the things we have to watch when trying to maintain health as naturally as possible. We don't want to fall into the trap of using isolated vitamins as cures. We don't eat isolated vitamins. We eat foods containing many vitamins. Synergy is the key. Much as we would like to believe that all health fields are only concerned about our wellbeing, we have to accept that marketing strategies aren't really looking out for our wellbeing. They're concerned about lining their pockets. Even those selliing vitamins tend to take advantage of our allopathic paradigm. All we can do is try to learn as much as we can and find an individual or individuals within our own areas who can cover our individual needs for healthcare. Unfortunately in a debate setting, opposing sides are more concerned with presenting the information that supports their position and not necessarily to give their opposition the whole picture. So a learning experience is not always possible, sad to say. Sometimes it is possible to glean some new insight even if it isn't what the opposition intended us to see. Hint: Don't take their monkey's on your back.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:That's one of the difficulties in this debate. My own position is that it isn't an all or nothing situation. There are situations that only allopathic medicine can deal with and there are things that the natural approach does better. There are also situations, where the two can complement each other in restoring us to health. Double blind studies are nice, but sometimes we are in a situation where the allopathic isn't working. In desperation to feel better we search elsewhere. People have found relief from complementary or alternative medicine (CAM). While anecdotal results do not have the double blind stamp of approval, when we are in a position of need, we don't have time to wait for scientists to take interest, find the money and run the tests that might meet our needs. Anecdotes give us something to research or spark questions to ask, even when it is something that another allopath did differently. IMO, anecdotes also spark scientists to do the testing. Tribal anecdotes are what sparked scientists to test natural elements in search of cures. People take risks with their lives; whether smoking, alcohol, driving, sports, etc. Unless we are unconscious adults supposedly have an option of what risk they will take, even when it comes to medical procedures. Fortunately, I have not been in a life threatening situation where more than one option with varying risk factors were involved. I have agreed many times since the beginning of this discussion that laws, procedures, etc. need to be put in place to protect the average person from quacks. But I don't agree that the natural approach should be abandoned or made inaccessible. The problem for the average person right now, as we have seen in this debate, are dueling scientists or medical doctors. It leaves the average person in a quandary, because those are the people who are supposed to have the knowledge. The average person also knows from history that ideas deemed "crazy" sometimes prove to be viable. So the argument that mainstream doesn't accept the practice is no longer a strong selling point. Ridiculed Discoverers, Vindicated Mavericks The bottom line is we aren't carbon copies. What works well for one person doesn't always work well for another. References from others are what we use to discern whose services to try, whether mechanics, hair dressers, doctors, dentists, etc. Even in something as benign as a plumber, we don't all have the same good/bad experience. The same goes for allopathic or CAM. Anecdotes of problems experienced serve to help someone in a similar situation to ask better questions, but I don't feel we should tell others to abstain. They have to weigh the choices and the risks themselves. They may know someone with a good experience in the same situation. As I said, we aren't carbon copies. What works for one, may or may not work for another and vice versa.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Some do and some don't generate fabulous profits. It's common practice, in the US anyway, for people to take advantage of loopholes to make money before the holes are closed. quote:In a perfect world, yes; but politics and money prevail. Politically it is dangerous to deem something as absolutely worthless and of use to absolutely no one considering there are billions of individuals in the US and we aren't carbon copies. Remember the FDA's use of safe doesn't mean harmless. It means the benefits outweigh the risks.
An FDA Guide to Dietary Supplements In contrast, dietary supplement manufacturers that wish to market a new ingredient (that is, an ingredient not marketed in the United States before 1994) have two options. The first involves submitting to FDA, at least 75 days before the product is expected to go on the market, information that supports their conclusion that a new ingredient can reasonably be expected to be safe. Safe means that the new ingredient does not present a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury under conditions of use recommended in the product's labeling. Acupuncture is one CAM treatment that seems to be moving into the mainstream.
Acupuncture Entering the Mainstream In 1997 a 12-member panel in various mainstream medical disciplines examined the art of acupuncture and found the following.
* Acupuncture is already widely practiced in the United States. * Though there have been many studies, these provide equivocal results. * Promising results have emerged for adults with postoperative and chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting and in postoperative dental pain. * For addiction, stroke, headache, menstrual cramps, tennis elbow, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain, osteoarthritis, low back pain, carpal tunnel, and asthma, acupuncture may be useful as an additional therapy in a comprehensive management program. * There are "plausible" ways acupuncture might work -- such as the release of opioids and other substances in the brain that help alleviate the sense of pain when the needles are inserted. I had also showed earlier that Johns Hopkins found acupuncture useful. Politics and money. It takes time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Aside from the last quote, none of your quotes come from the link I provided.
I was addressing a CAM approach that seems to be moving into the mainstream. I wasn't addressing the effectiveness of acupuncture.
quote:Again you're assuming a position I haven't claimed. Since acupuncture is not something that I have had the need to research; I have no response to the studies you provided with no links.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
From what I read of the article "Acupuncture: Theory, Efficacy, and Practice", I don't see that it gives the idea that acupuncture isn't moving into the mainstream. Quite the contrary.
Numerous surveys show that, of all the complementary medical systems, acupuncture enjoys the most credibility in the medical community (77). The training and provision of acupuncture care in the United States are rapidly expanding. The number of acupuncturists is rapidly growing and is projected to double by 2005 and quadruple by 2015 (107). There are approximately 3000 acupuncturists with medical degrees practicing in the United States. Conclusion
In a short time, acupuncture has been transported to the West and become a visible component of the health delivery system. Its traditional conceptual framework is radically distinct from biomedicine. Research on acupuncture has allowed a consensus to emerge that this therapy may have efficacy, regardless of the “prescientific” perspective of its underlying conceptual framework. As an independent profession, acupuncture and East Asian medicine are growing exponentially. The fact that hospitals are offering acupuncture and insurance will cover it in some states shows that it indeed seems to be creeping into the mainstream. Whether it merges completely, only time will tell.
Massachusetts General Hospital Pain CenterJohns Hopkins Medicine Wisconsin, Massachusetts Hospitals Offer Acupuncture California Adds Acupuncture to Workers' Comp Treatment Guidelines As of June 15, 2007, workers injured on the job can receive acupuncture treatment as part of their compensation. This means claims for acupuncture treatment for such patients can no longer be denied by insurance companies based solely on efficacy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
What we have so far.
We are not to put any stock in the testimonies of others. Those aren't proof and they can cover both sides of the issue. We are to stick with medical doctors who have gone through rigorous training in all the science based medicine backed by double-blind studies and the FDA stamp of approval. We are not to turn to CAM practitioners because they have not had the above mentioned training. We also are not to listen to MD's who have gone through the above training, but chose to prescribe or are trained in CAM treatments because by doing so they apparently have had a brain fart and forgotten all that wonderful training. We are to look at studies, but studies also cover both sides of the issue. We are to check our MD's credentials, but again even a Harvard graduate who leans towards the natural loses credibility. Even the use of CAM in a premier medical institution such as Johns Hopkins adds no credibility. If what our mainstream MD prescribes doesn't work we should look for another mainstream MD, If our ND prescribes a natural solution and it works, it was probably just our imagination and we wasted our money. Even though we would have also wasted money on the mainstream treatments that didn't work. So in the trenches we are left with going with where our comfort lies and what works for us individually.We weigh the risks based on our knowledge, experience, and sometimes gut feelings. It may not be scientific, but we don't always have that luxury and from what we have viewed in these two threads; the science doesn't always give a concrete answer. In reality, it comes down to feeling better; not winning a point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
As you said in Message 103:
For every study that shows "something", there is another study that shows "nothing". And vice versa. Dueling studies don't give us a concrete answer. The average person can only take the information, good and bad, gleaned from studies that seem to fit their need to make their decision.
quote:And yet the link I provided in Message 110 would lead the average person to see otherwise. It is an option available to their patients. Referral for Acupuncture Treatment Currently, only Johns Hopkins cancer patients are eligible in acupuncture program at Johns Hopkins Hospital (unless you are in a research study). A written referral from your physician is required. Yes, they are researching CAM, but it also seems to be available to cancer patients who aren't part of a study.
Acupuncture, Actually As it turns out, Johns Hopkins is coming late to the party. Acupuncture is already a fait accompli at many peer institutions”Mayo Clinic, Duke, Stanford, UCLA and at least a dozen others included. Can we trust the results of the studies done by these premier hospitals? The average person is lead to believe they can.
Mayo Clinic Acupuncture could fill a gap in available therapies for the disease as something additive to what medications already can provide, says Dr. Martin. "There's not a cure available, so patients are often left somewhat frustrated by continuing pain and fatigue," he says. "Acupuncture is one of the few things shown to be effective for these symptoms. It may be particularly attractive to patients who are unable to take medications because of intolerable side effects." The dilemma for the average person in this debate is that people who are supposed to have the knowledge don't always agree. History has shown us that this is not unusual. So when we are told or it is implied that medical doctors or scientists who go against the mainstream have just gone stupid (or something to that effect), our trust in those who are supposed to have the knowledge becomes shaky. Then we are left to our own devices. That's why we turn to personal testimony. We do realize that what works for one person doesn't necessarily work or work the same for another. Personal testimony, especially from someone we trust, is closer to home. So while it isn't a perfect method, we take what we glean from dueling studies, "experts", and personal testimony tempered with our own individual knowledge and experiences. Unfortunately, this debate hasn't shown me a better method for the average person. Studies can help to see through selling techniques, but studies don't always address the naturopathic ideas, which deal with giving the body what it needs to heal itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
As I said before I'm not arguing the effectiveness of acupuncture. Message 100
quote:You've missed that point also. It isn't the studies we dislike, it is the lack of links to the studies and lack of explanation as to how the study supports your position. quote:As I said: Studies can help to see through selling techniques... quote:Yea, that helps. I'm not sure why you are adverse to the idea of giving the body what it needs to heal itself. I'm talking about the concept not the quacks or advertising. No one has really showed that the concept is bad. Again, not talking about those trying to sell.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024