Sequel Thread To Holistic Doctors, and medicine

Out of curiosity how does one determine if something is FDA approved?We assume MDs can't prescribe what isn't approved, but what about OTC or other products that may claim FDA approval?Here is one program out of the UK that the sales people claim the program is FDA approved. Internal Detox ProgramThe company is Elemis (Elemis.com)What would be a good SOP for the layperson to use?

I have a question. Purely objective and not to support either side of this issue.I may not phrase this correctly, so please excuse my clumsiness.Wouldn't vaccines prevent the species from developing an immunity or means of surviving the virus?If parents received childhood vaccinations, would or could their offspring have immunity? Has this even been checked?

quote:

---

I don't wish to start a whole new debate on vaccination.

---

No need. There's already one out there. Childhood Vaccinations - Necessary or Overkill?

The OTC drugs do, but there isn't anything on the container to show that they are.Those things that aren't supported by FDA are supposed to carry the Non-FDA blurb.So if I research that product and there are no ding letters on the FDA site or the FTC site, is it safe to assume they are approved?Algae is a GRAS item.

quote:

---

I do wish I had help with an ND I could personally go to see, but there aren't any around here. I'd truly be in trouble if it weren't for my internet-ND. And she's free, LOL.

---

It is difficult to find an ND in this area also. But I do have one locally. I'm also fortunate to have found an MD who understands about NDs and knows the work of my ND, so that is a plus.This cancer site is a good example of what I hope the future of medicine will become in other areas of treatment.Cancer Treatment Centers of America Complementary Therapies

Unfortunately for us (laypeople) testing for safety and effectiveness of medicines, food additives, supplements, etc. are done by people we don't know. We also don't have behind the scenes access.A statistician in Lilly's research department used his own company as an example of statistical bias while teaching a class. This doesn't mean that those touting the natural don't do the same thing.IMO, that's why laypeople turn to the experiences of others for additional input. Some women swear by Midol. I tried it and it didn't work for me. That's pretty much how we function.Someone has a good experience similar to our need. We look into and possibly try it. If it doesn't work, we keep looking.Even health practitioners vary due to experience. They can miss something or catch something based on their experience.So while anecdotes are soft evidence and not viable for declaring worldwide edicts, they do give us (laypeople) insight closer to home.An anecdote in Reader's Digest can help a stumped doctor help his patient.An anecdote of a friend's cough can help another doctor find cancer in his patient.Anecdotes are not useless. As I've said before, in the trenches we don't have time to wait for scientific tests to verify our need and determine an action.The FDA has lists of those items determined to be GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe). There is also a list of requests to rate items as GRAS and what has been accepted.We can choose to use traditional cancer treatments and still die.
We can choose alternative avenues and still die.
We can choose a combination and still die.
We can also make a wrong decision and die from something simple.There are no guarantees.Traditional cancer treatments aren't guaranteed to cure, they only claim to extend.Yes, we have to beware of quacks; but that doesn't negate the concept of using natural means to enable our bodies to heal themselves. In complement with more traumatic issues it should give our bodies a greater chance of recovery.I still feel that those methods that work for the layperson will find their place in healthcare.

quote:

---

But even with scientific information there's a problem. Both you and LindaLou have been very successful at finding scientific views contrary to the mainstream, both in technical papers and, in LindaLou's case, also much older work, such as Breggin et. el., a book from 1912, testimony before Congress in 1962, etc. Those who want to believe something generally have no problem finding support for it, and experience tells us that talking someone out of a false belief is usually just not possible.

---

That's why at some point we have to get down to something more specific than general classification of either side.Given that I personally don't have an all or nothing approach to my healthcare, what is wrong with approaching my health as naturally as possible?Nutrition is important per traditional medicine.
So why is it wrong to give my body food with as little chemicals as possible?
Why is it wrong to give my body the vitamins it does need, when my food isn't providing enough?Menopause and perimenopause are natural occurences.
So why is it wrong to prepare for the change naturally?If a gallbladder is infected, it needs to be removed.
If it isn't infected, why is it wrong to maintain the health of the gallbladder as naturally as possible? (3yrs no problems)Surgeons tell us that there is always a risk when one goes under anestheisia.
So why is it wrong to opt out if the situation is not life threatening and opt to try a more natural approach?High cholesterol is bad and according to traditional medicine high cholesterol may be from food or genetics (maybe both).
If it's not sky high, why is it wrong to find out what makes my body produce more cholesterol and deal accordingly?I don't see that the concept of giving your body a chance to heal itself naturally goes against mainstream science.Now if you want to show me that giving my body what it needs to maintain and heal itself is wrong, then show me.

quote:

---

Basically, if you're not seeking the most recent and highest quality data based upon how well established scientific protocols have been followed, then you're not really exercising good scientific judgement.

---

The average person doesn't usually have access or doesn't know where to go. We can only interpret what we have access to.Where specifically would you have us go. (Be nice. )What is the highest quality data available to the average joe and his wife?

quote:

---

As the presentation on longevity I attended yesterday indicates, there are legitimate medical doctors out there who integrate naturalistic approaches into their practice while not going overboard to the point of rejecting the findings of traditional medicine or advocating quackery.

---

Thank you.There are also naturopathic doctors who don't reject the findings of traditional medicine or advocate quackery.She advised against the gallbladder flush that is advocated on the web.
She also doesn't advocate megadoses of Vitamin C or anything else.
My MD has checked out her credentials and talked with her and trusts her judgment within the scope of naturopathy.As I keep saying. Yes, there are quacks, but they aren't all automatically quacks. There are uses for naturalistic approaches that work. Hopefully guidelines will be put in place to make it difficult for the quacks and easier for us laypeople to know who to trust in the absence of first hand evidence.My issue was with the all or nothing statements from either side.

AdminBuz,I request that this thread be closed after summation without creating a continuation thread.If an individual has something they truly wish to continue discussing, the individual can start a new topic.Thanks
PD