Cheers

PS My real name is in here and ive nowt i can be sued for apart from me pedal bike…lol

read about the claim on a Natural Product and responses as well…. I understand very well the effects of alternative medicines, especially the plant products… Most of the medicines have been extracted from various plants so why to deny or rather debate whether it works or not… In Asian countries; plants, herbs and spices are still being used to treat various ailments with success.. Many Alopathic medical practioners have decided to integrate alternative healing e.g. Reiki, pranic healing and Ayurvedic medicines in their practices… So let me summarize by saying that Alternative healing approach is not at all dangerous but no one should use it to exploit or manipulate ailing/desperate people..I along with my family use natural products regularly and I do not pay exorbitant amount to get them…Use your intellect and discretion to make a choice and Yes! do your own research on the product… There is plenty of info out there on the net..

Most modern drugs originate from this line of research… and they have all been successfully patented.

Anticancer examples include vincristine, an alkaloid obtained from the Madagascar periwinkle.
An everyday example might be digoxin, a glycoside from the foxglove.

Once identified, these chemicals can easily be patented or modified and patented.
That’s been the basis of 99% of pharmaceutical discovery.

Almost all of these chemicals derived from plants are secondary metabolites that have proven to be of survival value to the plant; that means that they are not part of the main metabolic activity of the plant, which can live without them, but they have some other benefit.

The main function they serve is as pesticides; they kill or deter other organisms that might feed off the plant. This function has often evolved to be selective, so that it only affects organisms that do not participate in the life cycle of the plant.

These chemicals are not produced for the benefit of human beings, they are produced to protect the plant. This is why so many plants are inedible.

Digitalis (digoxin) is toxic to most mammals at the level it would commonly be ingested at if the plant was consumed. It can only be used safely by purification and testing. It also has a very narrow therapeutic index; the window between a safe and effective dose and one that could kill is small.

This issue also applies to a lot of anticancer drugs which work by killing cells, and it is important to use a dose and treatment regime that preferentially kills cancer cells and not the cells of the patient.
They are therefore risky drugs to use.

The primary reason why most anticancer drugs fail to get to market is toxicity; they kill patients even more effectively than the cancer they are being used to treat.

So, cytotoxic herbal extracts, like those from Graviola, can be very dangerous. If they do have anticancer effects I can guarantee that numerous pharma companies will be vying to get to market with a product.

Now the money issue. In the UK, the annual CAM market is more than 500 million pounds.
One of the UK based homeopathy companies has an annual turnover of about 30 million pounds, and a profit of about 5 million.

This is not a non-profit industry, it makes plenty of money. Certainly enough money to fund trials and prove that products work.

So why don’t CAM companies spend the money or at least encourage and support the research?
Surely, proof that a single homeopathic nosode or other CAM had really good efficacy would mean huge profits and success?
Perhaps they know that their claims are hyped?

Right now, sales are based on belief. The CAM companies foster this belief, and they generate enough business that it is quite profitable.

Doing trials risks several things.
Firstly, it takes away the “alternative” nature of the therapies, damages their mystique and puts them on a par with all other therapies. Belief no longer required, competition introduced and people might start looking harder at the evidence for other similar products.
Secondly, trials usually don’t turn out the way you would like. Either the treatment is less successful than you hoped, or it produces adverse effects.
Thirdly, once CAM treatments start to get rigorously tested, people then start to want regulation; what if the treatment only works if the active ingredient is above a certain level, or the nosode is prepared under aseptic conditions? Oh shit, now we have to meet standards!

None of this is good, so why would a CAM company spend money on testing, when the only certain guarantee of profit is to rely on belief.

The anticancer drug scam, and the Cancer Act that regulates therapeutic claims, both exist for the same reason; hope, belief and desperation are intensified by the prospect of death.

“If you look on the front page of my web site, you will find my name. You appear to be quite ignorant and proud of it.” — some kinda canard

I’ve looked at your HOME page. If that’s different from your ‘front’ page, maybe you should provide a URL.

However, allow me to comment that it would be much simpler if you used your REAL name in your posts instead of this childishness.

Don’t you think?

As for being ‘ignorant’. Yeah. I’m ‘ignorant’. Of your name. And you’re not being particularly forthcoming.

In the military we recognize that sort of obfuscation as an indication of something that is rather ‘unsavory’.

Hope that puts thinks into their proper perspective. After all. I’m here hanging my name out for all to see with every comment. On the other hand, we have you….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Hatred is the cowards revenge for being intimidated.]