3 ms·

It's funny you mention family planning, it's actually a great example for what I am saying. Pull out might not be the best strategy for avoiding kids, but also

by stiff 14y ago

It's funny you mention family planning, it's actually a great example for what I am saying. Pull out might not be the best strategy for avoiding kids, but also effectively avoiding kids isn't something too heavily promoted by evolution ;) and in a sense you wouldn't do bad to stick to it if survival is the ultimate goal. You mention how modern drugs are rigorously tested, but just recently there was a big affair about Bayers contraceptive pills used by millions of women worldwide causing blood clogs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drospirenone#Adverse_effects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drospirenone#Adverse_effects So, being so incredibly lucky to be part of several thousands of years old lineage of people who managed to survive, it isn't unwise to stick to the traditional ways of living, when the new way wasn't tested for sufficiently long and/or when the old way wasn't proved to be harmful - remember I am talking about using it as a heuristic in situations where we don't have full knowledge. I am not saying that every single aspect of it will be beneficial, just that you will be unlikely to do very badly when following this strategy, simply because it was tested over a very long timespan. Nassim Taleb makes a similar point in his book "Antifragile". To be honest I hated the book and think much of it is crap, but this aspect I agree with.

klodolph 14y ago
Yes, you can name a drug with bad side effects. FDA isn't 100% effective, my point is that the standards for herbal remedies are comparatively worse than those for "modern" drugs. Kava has been linked to liver failure, Comfrey causes liver damage, Chaparral causes liver damage, and Pennyroyal is basically toxic. St John's Wort has so many interactions it's basically unsafe to take in conjunction with anything. On top of this, herbal medicines are often poorly-sourced, and substitutions are made overseas. The regulations just aren't good enough. Then when you talk about the pull-out method of family planning, you say it's a good technique because you'll have kids. That's some impressive double-speak. Next you'll tell me that Caffeine is a good sleep aid because evolution wants you to be more productive. The FDA's regulatory tools simply work better on "modern" drugs. Look at how Thalidomide was never approved for sale in the US, because the FDA said that more studies were needed. By comparison, "dietary supplements" can only be removed from the market if they show "significant or unreasonable risk". If those standards had been applied to Thalidomide, the human cost would have been terrible. (Note: Apologies for the over-use of quote marks. "Modern" isn't quite the right term here, some of these drugs are quite old, but I'm not sure what is the right term.)
- stiff 14y ago
  Then when you talk about the pull-out method of family planning, you say it's a good technique because you'll have kids. That's some impressive double-speak. Next you'll tell me that Caffeine is a good sleep aid because evolution wants you to be more productive. I didn't phrase it clear enough, I admit, but what I meant is only that avoiding contraceptive pills would free you from the exposure to the pretty bad side effect they turned out to have even though they were supposedly well tested. I just used it as an illustration of my point that being a bit sceptical towards the very new lifestyle approaches is not a bad rule of thumb in abscence of other considerations. I also of course agree herbs can have serious side effects. You really seem to want to turn it into an X vs Y thing where there has to be one winner. I just want to say that despite all the bad press science seems to indicate using herbs in some particular situations in particular ways might be very beneficial.
  - klodolph 14y ago
    > You really seem to want to turn it into an X vs Y thing where there has to be one winner. The only X versus Y here is scrutiny. Read my posts a little more carefully: my criticism of herbal remedies is not about the fact that they are herbal, but the fact that they are understood little and regulated poorly. That's not a problem with the remedies themselves, but with the laws and systems of incentives driving scientific research.

by stiff 14y ago

klodolph 14y ago

Yes, you can name a drug with bad side effects. FDA isn't 100% effective, my point is that the standards for herbal remedies are comparatively worse than those for "modern" drugs. Kava has been linked to liver failure, Comfrey causes liver damage, Chaparral causes liver damage, and Pennyroyal is basically toxic. St John's Wort has so many interactions it's basically unsafe to take in conjunction with anything. On top of this, herbal medicines are often poorly-sourced, and substitutions are made overseas. The regulations just aren't good enough. Then when you talk about the pull-out method of family planning, you say it's a good technique because you'll have kids. That's some impressive double-speak. Next you'll tell me that Caffeine is a good sleep aid because evolution wants you to be more productive. The FDA's regulatory tools simply work better on "modern" drugs. Look at how Thalidomide was never approved for sale in the US, because the FDA said that more studies were needed. By comparison, "dietary supplements" can only be removed from the market if they show "significant or unreasonable risk". If those standards had been applied to Thalidomide, the human cost would have been terrible. (Note: Apologies for the over-use of quote marks. "Modern" isn't quite the right term here, some of these drugs are quite old, but I'm not sure what is the right term.)

stiff 14y ago
Then when you talk about the pull-out method of family planning, you say it's a good technique because you'll have kids. That's some impressive double-speak. Next you'll tell me that Caffeine is a good sleep aid because evolution wants you to be more productive. I didn't phrase it clear enough, I admit, but what I meant is only that avoiding contraceptive pills would free you from the exposure to the pretty bad side effect they turned out to have even though they were supposedly well tested. I just used it as an illustration of my point that being a bit sceptical towards the very new lifestyle approaches is not a bad rule of thumb in abscence of other considerations. I also of course agree herbs can have serious side effects. You really seem to want to turn it into an X vs Y thing where there has to be one winner. I just want to say that despite all the bad press science seems to indicate using herbs in some particular situations in particular ways might be very beneficial.
- klodolph 14y ago
  > You really seem to want to turn it into an X vs Y thing where there has to be one winner. The only X versus Y here is scrutiny. Read my posts a little more carefully: my criticism of herbal remedies is not about the fact that they are herbal, but the fact that they are understood little and regulated poorly. That's not a problem with the remedies themselves, but with the laws and systems of incentives driving scientific research.