3 ms·

You are very aggressive while you clearly do not know what I am talking about and doing a complete straw men. In fact the very same page referenced in this post

by stiff 14y ago

You are very aggressive while you clearly do not know what I am talking about and doing a complete straw men. In fact the very same page referenced in this post confirms what I said: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/scientific-evidence-for-synergy-in-a-botanical-product/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/scientific-evi...

Nursie 14y ago
Cool, you found one example where the compounds in plant potentiate each other in a useful way. I gave you an example of where this is absolutely not true, and there are likely many more on both sides. This absolutely does not support the statement "the main advantage of plants over modern medicine in its typical form is that they contain complex compounds of chemical substances which show a synergy in a certain direction ". In fact it doesn't support that there is an advantage at all, and it shows that by scientifically studying the plant we can figure out the substances responsible for the effect (if it's reproducible), purify them and make use of them in preparations that can be applied more effectively than a poultice. I'm not sure how you think this is a straw man either.
- stiff 14y ago
  The "spirit of the plant" wasn't a straw man? What I mean is that _in cases where plants could have advantage over modern medicine_, they often do so because of their complex chemical constitution that can produce those kinds of synergies, where modern medicines are most often based on at most 2-3 active substances because we have trouble analyzing more complex interactions.
  - Nursie 14y ago
    No, it was a poke at magical thinking. It may also have been unwarranted snark... I'll agree that where it can be shown that a plant has an effect that modern medicine can't explain, complex interactions may well be at work. You gave me the impression that you think this is a general rule, where really it seems to be an exception.

by stiff 14y ago

Nursie 14y ago

Cool, you found one example where the compounds in plant potentiate each other in a useful way. I gave you an example of where this is absolutely not true, and there are likely many more on both sides. This absolutely does not support the statement "the main advantage of plants over modern medicine in its typical form is that they contain complex compounds of chemical substances which show a synergy in a certain direction ". In fact it doesn't support that there is an advantage at all, and it shows that by scientifically studying the plant we can figure out the substances responsible for the effect (if it's reproducible), purify them and make use of them in preparations that can be applied more effectively than a poultice. I'm not sure how you think this is a straw man either.

stiff 14y ago
The "spirit of the plant" wasn't a straw man? What I mean is that _in cases where plants could have advantage over modern medicine_, they often do so because of their complex chemical constitution that can produce those kinds of synergies, where modern medicines are most often based on at most 2-3 active substances because we have trouble analyzing more complex interactions.
- Nursie 14y ago
  No, it was a poke at magical thinking. It may also have been unwarranted snark... I'll agree that where it can be shown that a plant has an effect that modern medicine can't explain, complex interactions may well be at work. You gave me the impression that you think this is a general rule, where really it seems to be an exception.