"Natural" (plant-based) Health Solutions

So how would one go about assessing this example. I know this guy and can verify that what he describes below is essentially true. He is a bit of a character and you can read more about him here but the key summary is this,

quote:

---

I was on the following medication since 1991 when i got injured at work.

​

120mg oxcycontin
30mg morphine
30mg toradol
4 tylenol #4
150 mg amitriptaline
200 mg celebrex
2000 mg metphormin
15 mg lipator
15 mg clonazapane
15 avianda
4mg coversyl
8 mg coversyl
20 mg Zantac was for acid reflux from the medication.

​

Since i began ingesting this plant 5 years ago just for pain , these were the side effect of cannabis

​

1/ My pain went from a 9.5 every day to a 3

​

2/ I stopped throwing up after 20 years in the same day! I have not gotten sick since

​

3/ I could sleep for the first time in 20 years the feeling that my arms have been ripped off relieved (MY GOD THIS WAS UNBELIEVABLE)

​

4/ I couldn,t lift my arms over my head .It is ununcomfortable but i can do it

​

5/ I had a gradual weight loss in 3 years of 46 lbs

​

6/ It lowered my blood sugar to normal range

​

7/ I have not had a cold or flu in 3years ( no flu shot)

​

8/ The fisher cracks in my feet that would bleed and need medical attention went away they are soft !

​

9/ The moles and warts and skin tags are falling off my skin

​

10/ The diabetic nerve pain gone

---

So for me and you this is an anecdote but it isn't for him. Now jar has already dismissed this story as completely useless or even worse and most of the rest of you readers could easily dismiss it as bogus and fraught with uncertainties.I appreciate that he draws conclusions that he shouldn't but I find it difficult to dismiss the obvious benefits of his getting off the drugs.How should he weigh his personal experience against all of the scientific data that supported his medication schedule? Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.

The ancient Egyptians used to rub moldy bread on open wounds. Sometimes it worked. Had they known how to do a controlled study they might have discovered why it worked. The fact that they didn't do those studies does not change the fact that sometimes it worked.Today there are numerous reports of cannabis oil eliminating epileptic seizures without much controlled study data to support those claims. If you had an epileptic child would you not try that remedy? If you observed it working would that still be an anecdote?If I were diagnosed with cancer today would it be unwise to delay chemotherapy for 2 months while I drank a shitload of carrot juice?

For sure it is but I meant to highlight the value of observation. It is the outright discounting of personal observation that bothers me.I appreciate that our personal assessments are often wrong but the they are also often correct.

Just as a point of comparison this study shows that only 48% of cancer treatment drugs approved for use by the European Medicines Agency from 2009-2013 have any discernible positive affects and yet they continue to be prescribed with certainty and usually with a giant price tag.Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13 | The BMJ

quote:

---

This systematic evaluation of oncology drug approvals by the EMA in 2009-13 shows that most of the drugs (39/68, 57%) entered the market without evidence of improved survival or quality of life. At a minimum 3.3 years after market entry, there was still no conclusive evidence that 33 of these 39 cancer drugs either extended or improved life. Our findings suggest it is extremely rare for new studies or follow-up analyses of pivotal trials in the postmarketing period to report results confirming that new cancer drugs have a positive impact on the two most important outcomes for patientssurvival and quality of life. When survival gains over existing treatment options or placebo were shown, they were often marginal and judged to be clinically meaningful in less than half (11/23, 48%) of all cases.

---

https://health.usnews.com/...ising-costs-of-cancer-treatment

quote:

---

Cancer drug costs fluctuate all the time, increasing and decreasing whenever the manufacturer sees fit to change the price. Take Novartis' leukemia drug Gleevec, which cost $24,000 in 2001 when it was approved as a breakthrough drug; now it costs $90,000, according to Forbes. Unfortunately for patients, the cost has little to do with efficacy of the drug or its safety.

---

So it would seem that conventional medicine has no problem charging people $200k/yr for treatments that work less than half of the time and come with a long list of serious side effects. The pharmaceutical industry is no shining example of how we should provide compassionate effective care.Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.