4 ms·

The "natural medicines" subtitle should have given it up. The definition of "natural" is as diffuse as it gets; everything is technically natural, so obviously

The "natural medicines" subtitle should have given it up. The definition of "natural" is as diffuse as it gets; everything is technically natural, so obviously "natural" becomes a proxy for "whatever the author likes today". In fact, watch he apply the "natural" adjective to DMSO: > DMSO was a naturally occurring supplement Mentions of "natural" like this usually mean objectivity is not in the room. I also find it funny that he perfectly exemplifies why the need for blind studies: > It had a worse effect in the food when they knew it was in the food, because it became repugnant to them. Then proceeds to bash against "RCT fundamentalists". Obviously, we should decide on natural medicines by their taste.

roenxi 2y ago
> Mentions of "natural" like this usually mean objectivity is not in the room. That is a heuristic I like to use, but in this case the author appears to be using it in the sense of "shareholders aren't getting a cut" so in this particular article it isn't a problem. The benefit that the article is alluding to isn't that the substance is natural in the abstract but that it is easily available because it is naturally occurring and thus partially bypasses the US system of siphoning cash towards healthcare companies. In context being natural is a specific and fairly plausible benefit.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  Yet “natural” is used to ambiguously promote many kinds of things in health and medicine. If you ask “how natural” a particular treatment is, you’ll quickly get outside the scope of the FDA and into corporate politics. If you ask “how effective”, the natural salesmen move onto someone else.
- AshamedCaptain 2y ago
  > but in this case the author appears to be using it in the sense of "shareholders aren't getting a cut" so in this particular article it isn't a problem That would be exactly the same. "Healthcare companies" always get a cut, no matter how "natural" the substance is, for all definitions of natural that you can think of, because healthcare companies get a cut of everything that is even minimally active, FDA or not. In fact, there are big pharma companies that literally profit from selling water (Boiron, but plenty of others). Even if you define "natural" exactly as "something pharma companies don't currently profit from" (a very misleading definition), that definition is going to be uselessly ephemeral as pharma is sure to profit from it as soon as it becomes minimally popular. Therefore, it is again a useless, diffuse definition that is often used simply to indicate whatever the author fancies today.
FollowingTheDao 2y ago
DMSO produces dimethyl sulfide in the body when it is metabolized. To say there is no effect of dimethyl sulfide is to not know human biology or health. Therefore DMSO could play a role as a medicine and it is currently still an area of research for cancer. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9801450/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9801450/ http://bmrat.com/index.php/BMRAT/article/view/614 http://bmrat.com/index.php/BMRAT/article/view/614 As well as an overall immunomodulary agent: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0171298519303729 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S017129851... I am not, of course, suggesting that everyone take DMSO, but the fact is that this very cheap molecule is not studied for one reason; it cannot be patented. And since it is possible that the pharmaceutical companies might know this, banning it would give them time for drug discovery and a patent on a molecule that acts similarly to DMSO. It is a fact that the FDA gets nearly half of its funding from corporations it regulates. https://today.uconn.edu/2021/05/why-is-the-fda-funded-in-part-by-the-companies-it-regulates-2/ https://today.uconn.edu/2021/05/why-is-the-fda-funded-in-par... You at least should have a skeptical eye when it come to the FDA banning a molecule like DMSO. I can understand regulating it, but banning it was an over reaction by the FDA. https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/medical-critical-thinking-history/dmso-not-cure-all-fdas-panic-over-it-birthed-myth https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/medical-critical-thinking-... "These companies wanted to put DMSO through its paces and eventually market it as a drug."
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  Nitpick on the funding: the departments testing human drugs and biologics are 66 and 40% funded by fees, as opposed to taxpayers. They or Congress could decide to drop the fees for a high-priority submission.

roenxi 2y ago

> Mentions of "natural" like this usually mean objectivity is not in the room. That is a heuristic I like to use, but in this case the author appears to be using it in the sense of "shareholders aren't getting a cut" so in this particular article it isn't a problem. The benefit that the article is alluding to isn't that the substance is natural in the abstract but that it is easily available because it is naturally occurring and thus partially bypasses the US system of siphoning cash towards healthcare companies. In context being natural is a specific and fairly plausible benefit.

ttyprintk 2y ago
Yet “natural” is used to ambiguously promote many kinds of things in health and medicine. If you ask “how natural” a particular treatment is, you’ll quickly get outside the scope of the FDA and into corporate politics. If you ask “how effective”, the natural salesmen move onto someone else.
AshamedCaptain 2y ago
> but in this case the author appears to be using it in the sense of "shareholders aren't getting a cut" so in this particular article it isn't a problem That would be exactly the same. "Healthcare companies" always get a cut, no matter how "natural" the substance is, for all definitions of natural that you can think of, because healthcare companies get a cut of everything that is even minimally active, FDA or not. In fact, there are big pharma companies that literally profit from selling water (Boiron, but plenty of others). Even if you define "natural" exactly as "something pharma companies don't currently profit from" (a very misleading definition), that definition is going to be uselessly ephemeral as pharma is sure to profit from it as soon as it becomes minimally popular. Therefore, it is again a useless, diffuse definition that is often used simply to indicate whatever the author fancies today.

FollowingTheDao 2y ago

DMSO produces dimethyl sulfide in the body when it is metabolized. To say there is no effect of dimethyl sulfide is to not know human biology or health. Therefore DMSO could play a role as a medicine and it is currently still an area of research for cancer. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9801450/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9801450/ http://bmrat.com/index.php/BMRAT/article/view/614 http://bmrat.com/index.php/BMRAT/article/view/614 As well as an overall immunomodulary agent: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0171298519303729 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S017129851... I am not, of course, suggesting that everyone take DMSO, but the fact is that this very cheap molecule is not studied for one reason; it cannot be patented. And since it is possible that the pharmaceutical companies might know this, banning it would give them time for drug discovery and a patent on a molecule that acts similarly to DMSO. It is a fact that the FDA gets nearly half of its funding from corporations it regulates. https://today.uconn.edu/2021/05/why-is-the-fda-funded-in-part-by-the-companies-it-regulates-2/ https://today.uconn.edu/2021/05/why-is-the-fda-funded-in-par... You at least should have a skeptical eye when it come to the FDA banning a molecule like DMSO. I can understand regulating it, but banning it was an over reaction by the FDA. https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/medical-critical-thinking-history/dmso-not-cure-all-fdas-panic-over-it-birthed-myth https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/medical-critical-thinking-... "These companies wanted to put DMSO through its paces and eventually market it as a drug."

ttyprintk 2y ago
Nitpick on the funding: the departments testing human drugs and biologics are 66 and 40% funded by fees, as opposed to taxpayers. They or Congress could decide to drop the fees for a high-priority submission.