Naturopathy (was: Craddock replies to Harris)
Question:
It would seem this newsgroup has missed my rational and civil presence for the past few months. I have only caught a few of the most recent posts regarding naturopathy, and they seem pretty ugly from both sides of the fence. I am curious what the instigating issue was for such an obnoxious fury of mudslinging. Anyone care to fill me in? I would like participate, but I don’t know where to begin in the midst of this confusion. Could we get back to the original issue? Or start a new discussion in regards to naturopathy? When we take the oath of Hippocrates, it is for the benefit of our patients and not the benefit of our egos. breath easy papa t, on my way to be an N.D.
Response:
1. What "levels"? Plants do not offer a known content, a very basic fact that is often ignored by the "Unicorn and Rainbow" crowd. 2. If herbs are available over the counter, people tend to believe they must be safe because they are from "nature" (the point is lost in such thinking that hemlock is also from nature).
People also think ibuprofren is safe because it is OTC… and aspirin… and saccharine… and yet, they are NOT safe and DO cause health problems. People are also taking products with ephedrine in them that are available OTC for cold remedies with 20-30 times the amounts found in some herbal products… A fact that is completely ignored by the "big brother is responsible for your well being" crowd.
Response:
No — there is no substance toxic enough to be restricted for Carter and the ACT UP drug activist mentality.
Darling, everything is potentially toxic. Have you taken your bath in an 80% solution of DNCB yet? The rest of what you wrote is just a bunch of lies. Comfrey indeed may have toxicities. So what? It should be banned from the market? George M. Carter 1. What "levels"? Plants do not offer a known content, a very basic fact that is often ignored by the "Unicorn and Rainbow" crowd.
Bullshit. Your stupid on top of it all. Ever heard of HPLC? If we know what chemical(s) induce the allergic or reactive response, they can be tested. If we know the symptoms, we can place that on a label. 2. If herbs are available over the counter, people tend to believe they must be safe because they are from "nature" (the point is lost in such thinking that hemlock is also from nature).
So what? People drop dead from allergies to shrimp. What does that mean? People die from OD’ing (over years) on bad diets. Go have a nice rhubarb leaf salad, Fred. George M. Carter
Response:
It can come to your mind all you like, but that only means you’re still mighty confused. Prednisone is not made from cortisol. Prednisone is an artificial steroid. It is not only made synthetically, but is also a compound that isn’t found in nature. Prednisone mimics the actions of cortisol, though it is 4 or 5 times as potent, weight for weight.
Prednisone is a synthetic compound that is a variation on the compound produced by the adrenal gland, cortisol. Prednisone is not made by starting with cortisol, no, but it is a compound that owes its existence to the synthetic variations on the theme of a naturally occuring molecule. Early on cortisone was the first mass produced steroid. It was made using the adrenal glands of cows (20000 heads of cows to give 200mg cortisone). Later it was found that some plants (which grow in Mexico) could be successfully used to synthesize steroids (the plants contained diosgenin; since the early 70s other sources of diosgenin have been found and the plants are no longer used as much). Dioscorea tubers from India were a popular source as well. The list of steroids derived from plants goes on and on. They include solasodine, stigmasterol, and sitosterol. Prednisone and cortisone are extremely similar to aldosterone and cortisol, and their synthesis was in fact an outgrowth of the existence of the steroids produced biologically. Yes, prednisone is synthetic, but it a synthetic drug that is *based upon* a substance occuring in the body. *That* is what makes it a drug that naturopaths can prescribe. The definition of a "natural" chemical as being one found "native" in nature… …for I assure you, I’m not the only one who is puzzled by what you might mean.
But you are the only one who asks? I asked you what "natural" meant, and you haven’t answered yet.
When did you ask? Point it out, Dr. Harris, because I have looked and I can’t find it. You didn’t ask. Shame on you: accuse me of evading something that was never presented to me in the first place. Maybe it doesn’t qualify as a straw man, but it is at least a straw boy. Here is what the Oregon statute governing naturopathic prescription says: (begin) Authority to Prescribe, Dispense and Order 850-10-220 Naturopathic physicians shall be allowed to prescribe, dispense, and order the following: 1) All non-poisonous plant substances including extracts and/or their products and residues. 2) All topical ointments, creams, and lotions containing anesthetics, antiseptics, scabicides, antifungals, and antibacterials. 3) All vitamins, minerals, trace minerals, enzymes, and food. 4) All mechanical devices, except those that require surgical intervention. 5) All homeopathic preparations. (end) The 65th Oregon Legislature wrote a list of drugs that naturopaths can prescribe. It s a long list, and it includes: Amoxicillin, Ampicillin, *Codeine*, Doxycycline, Erythromycin, *Lithium*, Opium, Prednisone, Quinidine, Quinine, Tetracycline, and dozens and dozens of others. Again, the *reason* these are allowed is that they are "plant substances including extracts and/or their products and residues." I don’t care how Valium is produced now; the chemical was *derived from* the sedative chemical found in Valerian root.<< No, it wasn’t.
Here I owe my apologies to Dr. Harris and others. I was incorrect regarding Valium. It is not, in fact, a Varlerian root derivative. Like Valium, it is not known exactly which compounds in Valerian root produce the sedative effects. Naturopaths cannot prescribe Valium in Oregon. In fact, Valium is a good example of the kind of drug that *can’t* be prescribed by naturopaths: it is a purely synthetic compound, not in any way related to a biologically occurring compound. I spoke from memory, and made a mistake. My apologies. I should have listed any one of hundreds of other drugs that *are* related to natural compounds ie. they were synthesized in attempts to reproduce and/or modify naturally occuring compounds. The book "Drugs of Natural Origin" by Gunnar Samuelsson (Swedish Pharmaceutical Press, 1992) is a good reference, or just look up the list I referenced above. And speaking of references, Dr. Harris, it would be a bit more honest if you would post the references in which you get your information. Not just in this debate, but in posting in general. Obviously all of this is not off of the top of your head, though you present it as such. Comfrey is dangerous? Used improperly, yes. Is the same not true of essentially *everything* you prescribe?<< It’s true of most drugs, yes. If all pharmaceuticals were instead diluted (say) 10,000 to 1 in soybean flour or something, they’d all be a lot safer, and fairly difficult (though not impossible) to hurt anyone with. But this has nothing to do with what is "natural"– it has only to do with dilution.
Your MD colors are showing through again. You missed the original point I made about comfrey (whch was that the carcinogenic components are balanced by the non-carcinogenic ones) and went into a triad about its potential to cause hepatic veno-occlusive disease. You then used *that* point to base essentially the rest of your entire argument on. *You* (not me) equated toxicity and danger with some sort of natural vs. unnatural dichotomy, as though you are the first to point out to the world that natural substances can be toxic. You also went from that point to some strange conclusion that any use of a potentially toxic substance by a naturopath is "unnatural" and/or unnaturopathic. But of course you are making things up as you go, so I suppose you can say such things with conviction. Yes, comfrey, if used for a long time (1/2 – 1 1/2 years) can lead to a build up of the alkaloids, leading to liver toxicity. It is laughable that Dr. Harris would try to hype the danger of an herb that has a liver toxicity, given the fact that the number of pharmaceuticals that do the same is enormous. In fact, the one death from comfrey that you mentioned is hardly a good case for the dangers of comfrey, especially given the *enormous* number of deaths from synthetic drugs, and *also* given that comfrey is freely available in this country. You think if only the MDs are allowed to hand comfrey out, that one death could have been avoided? It is as though herb toxicity makes them less useful in some way, a way that only Dr. Harris understands for sure. Let’s look at some interesting relevant data. A friend of mine recently sent me the following stats, taken from a JAMA article. It is certainly not new information, but it is useful to put the "danger" of herbs into perspective. Fatality rates- Bypass 1-20 Iatrogenic hospital infection (Dr. causes) 1-80 Medical Mishaps 1-250 (AARP) Cigarettes 1-500 Alcohol 1-500 Medicine – drugs in hospital 1-1000 JAMA Angiograms 1-1000 Improper taking of medicine 1-2000 Surgery in Hospital 1-10000 NSAIDS 1-10000 Mushroom poisoning 1-100,000 Supplements 1-1,000,000 – Herbs 1-1,000,000 So drugs given out in hospitals (by MDs) cause 1000 *times* more deaths than either supplements or herbs. Hardly a good record to base MD oversight on (no, you didn’t say it, only implied it). I’ll have the full reference on Monday. Wave your arms all you want about comfrey toxicity; the data hardly shows it to be a widespread danger. Comfrey is used almost exclusively (by those who are trained in its use) as a topical agent. Books on herbs (yes, Dr. Harris, scientific books) state that comfrey stimulates the propagation of cells, and so is very good for abrasions and cuts (*not* deep cuts). It has other uses, but I won’t go into them. It is *not* used internally, except in rare occasions (short term while broken bones heal, for example). I have *never* made the claim that herbs cannot be toxic, or are not toxic even in small doses for some kinds. Dr. Harris has tried to imply so (for reasons that I can’t imagine) in order to prove me wrong. Straw man. A great many herbs owe their relative lack of toxicity only to dilution of the active components. Big deal. If herbs are merely pharmaceuticals with training wheels, what does that say about the people who think they are the be-all and end-all?
And you, sir, don’t know what you are talking about. Which herbs is it (don’t name one or two, but name a "great many") that are only not toxic because they are diluted? Herbs are *not* simply pharmaceuticals with training wheels, and the fact that you don’t understand that means nothing other than that you don’t understand it. Herbs are diluted? What on earth are you talking about? Are you thinking of teas, and calling that a diluted herb? If so, that is just silly. The only point that I can imagine that you are trying to make is that herbs can be toxic, and ingesting herbs in any way other than eating the plant straight (and in large quantities) is simply diluting the plant. If that is, in fact, the argument you are making, then I have to wonder if I am the only one laughing at you. And you could not possibly be referring to *me* as someone "who think[s herbs] are the be-all and end-all". In fact, who *are* you referring to? Since I have in no way implied that I think they are the "be-all and end-all," then you must have been referring to *someone*. Of course there are herbs that should be taken in small doses, and only with a physician’s supervision (hopefully a physician who is trained in its administration). Digitalis is a good example. I do not think that herbs are even necessarily a good (primary) treatment, at least not as a first line of therapy (so much for your be-all end-all theory). But that is another issue which I’m sure you wouldn’t understand either. If you … read more »
Response:
Comfrey is dangerous? Used improperly, yes. Is the same not true of essentially *everything* you prescribe? Are you suggesting that only MDs are capable of mitigating danger in treatment? Hot water is dangerous too, but that doesn’t present as a problem in naturopathic hydrotherapy. This is one part of Harris’s post I also found disturbing. The glib acceptance of BANNING comfrey because of some potential toxicity is unacceptable. Denying people access to products is too big brother for me.
No — there is no substance toxic enough to be restricted for Carter and the ACT UP drug activist mentality. What these folks forget is that their advocacy comes with a moral responsibility for full and complete information — a goal they have NOT yet met in ANY of the "treatments" they have been instrumental in their endless quest for "drugs into bodies" of PWHIVs. Unfortunately, Carter needs to open his mind instead of his mouth before publicly displaying his ignorance on such topics. If Carter had bothered to look, he would find numerous examples of Comfrey poisoning in the biomedical literature. It isn’t a pretty picture, and neither are the results of the drug "activism" for HIV disease. However, much could be done to a) place labels on boxes warning of the possible presence of these compounds and what symptoms might result; b) periodic analysis to assure the levels do not exceed a certain threshhold.
1. What "levels"? Plants do not offer a known content, a very basic fact that is often ignored by the "Unicorn and Rainbow" crowd. 2. If herbs are available over the counter, people tend to believe they must be safe because they are from "nature" (the point is lost in such thinking that hemlock is also from nature). <snipped more Carter "schmexpertise"
Response:
Comfrey is dangerous? Used improperly, yes. Is the same not true of essentially *everything* you prescribe? Are you suggesting that only MDs are capable of mitigating danger in treatment? Hot water is dangerous too, but that doesn’t present as a problem in naturopathic hydrotherapy.
This is one part of Harris’s post I also found disturbing. The glib acceptance of BANNING comfrey because of some potential toxicity is unacceptable. Denying people access to products is too big brother for me. However, much could be done to a) place labels on boxes warning of the possible presence of these compounds and what symptoms might result; b) periodic analysis to assure the levels do not exceed a certain threshhold. I find Steve’s comments on homeopathy also the typical NCAHF line, a group for whom I have little respect. Granted, there is not a lot of reason to believe that the underlying theory could be valid. But the system is around and is testable. Some studies, arrogant dismissals notwithstanding, suggest clinical benefit. I don’t personally have a belief one way or the other, but I find some of the skepticism to be more cynical than useful. (I’ve been on the NCAHF list and find some of the folks there to be downright bigoted.) The point here is that sometimes things work without us (yet) understanding the mechanism of action. MAYBE there is some aspect of physics we do not yet understand that will clarify homeopathy’s efficacy, if indeed there is any. Or perhaps the study of homeopathy will provide us with a deeper insight into the placebo effect, delineating its characteristics better and perhaps even harnessing its power to aid in the healing process. Somewhere there must be a balance between the arrogance of established medicine, the burgeoning business of alternative and complementary therapies and the development of methodologies to assure that quackery or fraud is not occurring on either side of the aisle. A third component to this political debate has emerged. The Real Treatments for Real People campaign of ACT UP is representative of that third group: people who use these modalities and want more useful information as to whether and, if so, to what degree, such modalities are of benefit. What are the limitations and toxicities. One target of our efforts has been the National Institutes of Health in the U.S., to endeavor to get them to study what people are actually doing rather than pretend that that doesn’t count. Needless to say, they have not evinced much interest and that, to me, is a criminal neglect of public health. Instead, they continue to play the role of pimp for the pharmaceutical industry. France, meanwhile, has made strides toward evaluating some alternatives, such as SPV-30 and antioxidant regimens. The SPV-30 study put the lie to the notion that herbs cannot be meaningfully studied. It was and now we know that the herb has a moderate benefit for some people at the moderate dose (the higher dose was no different than placebo) and it does not appear to be toxic. As a monotherapy, in other words, it’s no great shakes…and unfortunately it is not worth the cost. Would there be synergy with other antivirals? There are many, many questions that need to be raised, prioritized and clinically evaluated. George M.Carter
Response:
I have no intention whatsoever in replying to all the silly points brought up by Dr. Harris. Lots of handwaving and complete incomprehension of the principles, practice and philosophies of naturopathic medicine. If that is because I have not represented them well, then I’ll take the blame. Prednisone not from a natural source? Cortisol comes to mind. Natural means from the bark of a tree or from under a damp rock only to the "alternatively challenged." I don’t care how Valium is produced now; the chemical was *derived from* the sedative chemical found in Valerian root. Have you ever drank a few cupfuls of such tea, Dr. Harris? You would sleep better, and might be a bit less cranky in your posts. Comfrey is dangerous? Used improperly, yes. Is the same not true of essentially *everything* you prescribe? Are you suggesting that only MDs are capable of mitigating danger in treatment? Hot water is dangerous too, but that doesn’t present as a problem in naturopathic hydrotherapy. There is less hope for you than I thought. The diseases you listed are very treatable with naturopathy. The fact that you don’t know that, don’t believe that, or are *only* going to believe it when you have read it in Science means nothing meaningful about the therapies. You were wrong about Lithium, and wouldn’t even admit it. You said they would prescribe it if they could. The can, and they don’t. You were wrong. If you think potassium and magnesium are the same as lithium, so prescribing one is the same as prescribing the other, that is just absurdity on your part. You have handfuls of criticisms from afar, while you obviously have no experience in working with a naturopath or using naturopathic therapies. You have endlessly criticised many HIV dissidents for the analogous crime vis-a-vis AIDS patients. Maybe you should take your own medicine, Dr. Harris. But then, I’m sure if you worked at it you could find a bad naturopath, which can safely confirm your preconceptions and not force you into that ugly situation of having to change any of your opinions. I meant not to respond to Harris’s silly points, but his heavily MD-ized trashing of naturopathic medicine needed something of a rebuttal. His command of naturopathic therapies is as impressive as his command of mathematics; his ignorance of the successes of treating a range of diseases is painfully obvious. I hope I can resist replying to Harris in the future; much more productive discussions are going elsewhere, and Harris is only puffing the Old Guard. Also, I see that you have cross-posted your reply to me to misc.health.alternative, though my original didn’t go there. You are no doubt so sure about the value of your insights that you want everyone to see them. I encourage readers of misc.health.alternative to look for the original post (and a few others I have posted along these lines) on misc.health.aids. I suspect there are posters to misc.health.alternative who have been subject to Harris’s distortions as well who will understand the exchange better upon reading some of the history. Greg
Response:
I have no intention whatsoever in replying to all the silly points brought up by Dr. Harris. Lots of handwaving and complete incomprehension of the principles, practice and philosophies of naturopathic medicine. If that is because I have not represented them well, then I’ll take the blame.<< Most of my problems were with your statements of fact, not your statements of theory. Prednisone not from a natural source? Cortisol comes to mind.<< It can come to your mind all you like, but that only means you’re still mighty confused. Prednisone is not made from cortisol. Prednisone is an artificial steroid. It is not only made synthetically, but is also a compound that isn’t found in nature. Prednisone mimics the actions of cortisol, though it is 4 or 5 times as potent, weight for weight. Natural means from the bark of a tree or from under a damp rock only to the "alternatively challenged."<< The definition of a "natural" chemical as being one found "native" in nature, is the only one that is obvious. If you have another, I suggest you refrain from keeping your light under a bushel, for I assure you, I’m not the only one who is puzzled by what you might mean. I asked you what "natural" meant, and you haven’t answered yet. Much more pussyfooting and I will have to conclude that you have no idea what you mean by the word. Fine naturopath you’ll make. I don’t care how Valium is produced now; the chemical was *derived from* the sedative chemical found in Valerian root.<< No, it wasn’t. There are still arguments about what chemical(s) exactly is/are responsible for the sedative action of Valerian root, but none of the chemicals proposed have anything to do with Valium. Valium and the benzodiazepines have nothing to do with plants of any kind. Nothing. Zero, zip, nada. Am I getting through to you? Listen, and you might actually learn something about the subject you pretend to know something about. The chemical that is Valium (diazepam) was derived from careful and directed search of derivatives of a prototype compound (chlordiazepoxide) which was a free creation in the chem lab, and which almost wasn’t discovered at all. A bunch of chemists at Roche in the late 1950’s made thousands of chemicals looking for muscle relaxant and tranquilizers. Their main bioassay was the cat foot-shock model, which I won’t horrify you with, but suffice to say, the venture was at first a failure, and the lab was eventually shut down. There would have been no benzodiazepines at all, in fact, if it weren’t for an accident: months later, somebody found an old flask in a drawer with pretty crystals in it, labeled with a number which was nothing but a reference to a page in a lab book. Since it was no work, he filtered the crystals off and sent them in to be assayed, and the rest is history. The leader of the group that found the stuff (Sternbach) got rich off bonuses, and God knows how much Roche has made over the years. But none of it has anything to do with plants. Have you ever drank a few cupfuls of such tea, Dr. Harris? You would sleep better, and might be a bit less cranky in your posts. << Tell you what: I’ll drink something to make me sweeter if you’ll promise to drink something to make you smarter. Comfrey is dangerous? Used improperly, yes. Is the same not true of essentially *everything* you prescribe?<< It’s true of most drugs, yes. If all pharmaceuticals were instead diluted (say) 10,000 to 1 in soybean flour or something, they’d all be a lot safer, and fairly difficult (though not impossible) to hurt anyone with. But this has nothing to do with what is "natural"– it has only to do with dilution. A great many herbs owe their relative lack of toxicity only to dilution of the active components. Big deal. If herbs are merely pharmaceuticals with training wheels, what does that say about the people who think they are the be-all and end-all? I only pointed out the problems with Comfrey because you seemed to have some odd idea that the "natural stuff" wasn’t very dangerous. Well, in the case of Comfrey, it is. Some things aren’t safe even for children. Are you suggesting that only MDs are capable of mitigating danger in treatment? Hot water is dangerous too, but that doesn’t present as a problem in naturopathic hydrotherapy.<< I’m not suggesting that only MDs are capable of mitigating danger in treatment. I was simply chucking at your idea that "natural therapies" are inherently less dangerous than medical therapies. Well, that depends, doesn’t it? BTW, is naturopathic hydrotherapy different from medical hydrotherapy? Again we come to the problem of what is natural and what isn’t. Probably you’d tell me that a human dam made for human purposes is less "natural" than a beaver dam made for beaver purposes. Well, why is it? And does naturopathic hydrotherapy ever use electricity or equipment made of plastic? There is less hope for you than I thought. The diseases you listed are very treatable with naturopathy. The fact that you don’t know that, don’t believe that, or are *only* going to believe it when you have read it in Science means nothing meaningful about the therapies. << I’ll believe it when I see it. Please list places where the life-threatening problems I listed are treated by naturopaths with naturopathic means. Can I come to your school and see them treating major trauma and cardiogenic shock with herbs and poultices? You were wrong about Lithium, and wouldn’t even admit it. You said they would prescribe it if they could. The can, and they don’t. You were wrong.<< Sorry, but you haven’t shown this, yet. Can they? I’ve heard that a law such as you describe was proposed in Oregon, but haven’t heard that it has passed. Nor that naturopaths never use lithium. Nor why they shouldn’t. Indeed, Murray and Pizzorno (surely you’ve heard of them) recommend lithium succinate ointments for treatment of herpes. Is there some reason why a naturopath would think that topical lithium is natural, but ingested lithium isn’t? I’m amused, BTW, that Murray and Pizzorno’s references are to a New England Journal of Medicine article about herpes remission during ORAL lithium therapy, plus an article about the in vitro effects of lithium on herpes. In other words, an M.D.’s clinical observations about effects of standard prescription therapy are being pirated, and modified according to inferences from a standard scientific investigation, to be recommended to naturopaths as a (virus- suppressive) naturopathic therapy. How droll. If you think potassium and magnesium are the same as lithium, so prescribing one is the same as prescribing the other, that is just absurdity on your part.<< I don’t think that they are the same. But I fail to see why potassium and magnesium are more natural than lithium. Nor, apparently, do Murray and Pizzorno. You have handfuls of criticisms from afar, while you obviously have no experience in working with a naturopath or using naturopathic therapies. You have endlessly criticized many HIV dissidents for the analogous crime vis-a-vis AIDS patients. Maybe you should take your own medicine, Dr. Harris.<< Although I’ve never worked with a naturopath, I suspect that I use many of what would (if recommended by a naturopath instead of myself) be called "naturopathic" therapies. Indeed, if I am to believe Murray and Pizzorno, I use quite a lot of them. It’s what I do for a living, oh student. Plus a lot more. Steve Harris, M.D.
Response:
The naturopaths (at least the best ones, from the big three 4 year naturopathic schools) are not nuts, like the homeopaths.
Nigh: I know of very few naturopaths who do not use homeopathy as one of their resources. We are taught homeopathy in the classroom, and we get a chance to see it work in the clinic.<< Comment: Perhaps I was wrong the first time, and naturopaths ARE nuts. There is nothing more to homeopathy than there is to prayer and ceremonial magic. If you believe that you can manipulate nature that way, what can I say? Harris: Where the naturopaths and I part ways is in the idea that there is somehow something in non-prescription chemicals that makes them superior to prescription ones. I have no doubt that in many cases this is simple prejudice.< Nigh: A few points: first, natural substances (for instance, "active" pharmaceutical components found in botanicals) are delivered along with *lots* of other substances, many of which balance the active component. For instance, comfrey has carci- nogenic components, but the *total* mixture delivered in comfrey tea is not carcinogenic, and in fact is used in the *treatment* of cancer. This is in part due to the balancing effect. That is only one example from the top of my head.<< Comment: And a bad one it is, too. Though I was not aware that anyone was worried about comfrey being a carcinogen, there is good reason to fear it as a poison, as the pyrolizidine alkaloids in the stuff cause veno-occlusive disease in animals in lab experiments, and there have been at least three reports of this rather rare syndrome in human enthusiasts of comfrey tea (one death). To be sure, comfreys of different varieties differ in their content of this stuff, as roots do from leaves. All the same, the variation is enough that Canada bans comfrey products completely, the US bans comfrey teas or products intended for internal use, and Germany (in many ways the herb science capitol of the world) allows internal use only after carefully standardizing comfrey products to make sure their pyrolizidine content is below certain limits. All this is an example of *science* balancing an herbal product, not Mother Nature. Mother Nature doesn’t give a damn whether you cure or poison yourself. In many cases she’d rather you poison yourself, in fact, as that’s what the poisons are there in the plant to do (i.e., to try to ensure creatures like you don’t eat it). None of which detracts from my original point, which is that there is NOTHING inherently more benign about natural products (products found as is without manufacturing) than products made in the lab or the factory. Nigh Another point is that natural and synthetic compounds *are* different. I’m foggy on my organic chemistry now, but many active natural substances are found as only one isomer (either all D or all L). Often the other isomer is not only biologically inactive, but is toxic to some extent (we learned a few examples in my (non-naturopathic) organic chem, but I forget them now). But when synthesizing a compound, there is no way to prevent either D or L isomers from being formed, and they will both be made 50% of the time.<< Comment: Time to brush up on your chem, I’ve afraid. Hope they do that in your school, there. First, it is true that many optically active natural products are found only in one isomer. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the other isomer is "often" toxic, however. Occasionally it is, as in D-carnitine. More often it is inactive. A fair amount the time it is mildly active (D-thyroxine), moderately active (D-methionine, L-tocopherol), almost fully active (quinine/quinidine), or active in a different way (dextromethorophan/levodromoran). Second, there are many many ways to prevent D or L from being formed in industrial chemical synthesis. The easiest is to start from a cheap optically active natural starting material. For example, the vitamin C pills in the health food store are 99+ % synthetic (you can’t find a fully natural product– you couldn’t afford it). But they are L-ascorbate with no D-ascorbate, because they are made from D-glucose. Which is, of course, just how mammals make L-ascorbate (those that do). Except mammals do it with a set of enzymes. Does that mean the store-bought product is different? No. Nigh A third difference has to do with energetics, but I won’t even attempt to delve into that one on this list. I believe it is inseparable from the process of healing, but it is maybe too "foo-foo" for this group, and the other reasons stand on their own.<< Comment: Nothing’s too foo-foo for THIS group– you forget where you are, sir! But mysticism might well be too irrational for many of us. Harris: If lithium were not a prescription drug, I’m sure naturopaths would be using it like magnesium and potassium, and laughing at the doctors trying to treat bipolar patients with
Tegritol. Nigh: Again, the facts prove you wrong: naturopaths in Oregon *can* prescribe lithium. In fact, NDs can perscribe any pharmaceutical that is *derived from* a natural source, ie. valium, penicillin, lithium, prednisone, etc. And even though they can, they *don’t* prescribe lithium like magnesium and potassium. Your assumption was wrong. Comment: The fact that there are boobs in Oregon doesn’t mean I was wrong in general. Most places, naturopaths cannot use such drugs (and I’m sure they cannot use fully natural morphine and codeine, even in Oregon). The fact that they pushed through such a law in Oregon, however, might mean that they want to, the hypocrites. And if they CAN do it, in Oregon, I’m sure they DO do it. Did that law REALLY pass?? I’m curious at your list, BTW. Valium?? Valium is as artificial and synthetic a drug as there is– the only relationship it bears to Valerian is a name that sounds sort of the same. Yeah, Valium is derived from a natural source, in a sense, but in that sense, so is everything else– from the vitamin C in the "One A Day" vitamin that is made from glucose, to the niacin in the same pill that is made from coal tar distillate (NATURAL coal tar distillate). Valium’s made from coal tar also. Big deal. Penicillin?? There is no such animal; rather this is a class of chemicals. If you go to a pharmacy and ask for plain penicillin pills, the only kind you’ll find is the potassium salt of a very specific compound called penicillin V, which is (again) not to be found in nature, but is synthesized from coal tar, or perhaps from penicillin G (the kind of penicillin used in IVs, and the only natural penicillin used clinically). So how many steps away from nature can naturopaths go? Can they use Pen G but not Pen V? Pen V but not dicloxicillin? Dicloxicillin but not imipenem? Imipenem but not ciprofloxacin? Inquiring minds want to know. Prednisone? Not to be found in nature, so far as I know. Lithium? Salts are found in nature, but so are salts of potassium and magnesium. Naturopaths can use them all, but prefer to use only the last two? Why? Again, I can think of no reason other than prejudice. The medical doctors discovered the action of lithium first, so therefore it must be bad. Nigh: How do I know they don’t all prescribe lithium now? One of my professors has been a naturopath here for about 20 years. He is very much against the "allopathization" of naturopathic medicine. By this he means not just the use of pharmaceuticals by NDs, but even the increasing tendency for naturopaths to approach treatment based on a specific disease, rather on restoring the conditions that promote health (ie. constitutional approaches). He describes to us over and over the various ways in which he sees it happening in the naturopathic community here. If there were lots of lithium being prescribed by NDs, I’m sure he would have heard about it and brought it up in lecture at some point. Nor is he the only one who talks about common naturopathic treatments, and no one has ever mentioned the use of lithium, though NDs *can* prescribe it.<< Comment: Down below you talk about why I don’t think naturopathic treatments are fast. I suppose because I don’t think of "restoring conditions that promote health" as doing much good when your patient is (for instance) dying of congestive heart failure, and you have a few hours or even minutes to get all that water out of the lungs. Or bring that blood pressure down or up. And so on. Perhaps if you can tell me how a naturopath would go about treating florid pulmonary edema, I might understand something of the philosophy you’re spreading here. Concrete example, please? Nigh As an aside, several years ago I was in the hospital with what
came to be diagnosed as an autoimmune disease. I was in four different hospitals, including the Mayo clinic, was given numerous drugs, had two related surgeries, etc. In all, the ordeal lasted for about 2 years. Never, in all that time, at any hospital (I had, at one point, 9 different specialists working on the case at one time) did anyone ever ask me what I ate.<< Comment: So? Maybe they were afraid you’d turn out to be one of those nuts who believes that all diseases are sprue in disguise… I think we have one of those on misc.health.alternative…. But anyway, I admitted that medicine has a regrettable focus on patentable treatments. Nigh Thinking of an "ideal paradigm" as the fusion of naturopat- hic and allopathic medicines implies that naturopathic medicines are not adequate in themselves to treat illness. I no longer feel that is true.<< Comment: You can FEEL all you like, but you’ve full of it if you think you can deal with bacterial meningitis, appendicitis, a really bad asthma attack with respiratory arrest, morphine … read more »
Response:
Categories: prednisone treatment for asthma attack | 
No Comments »
Pete. There are two sorts of people in this world, those who do the work, and those who take the credit. Try to be in the first group, there’s less competition. (Indira Gandi) 
) While having been on a pred taper in teh last year or so is something you shoud tell an MD if you need something like surgery or get very ill, etc., it geenrally isn’t cause for special measures if ti was a typical pred taper that was given a while ago. In RARE cases pred tapers will lead to more significant side effects, incluidng supression of the adrenal gland [where the natural steroids are made]. However, this is mMUCH MUCH mroe likely to be the case with long-term high-dose pred usage then with shortterm courses/tapers. In high doses, and especially over the long-term [we're usually tlaking at least one to two months of daily treatment...], prednisone can act as an immunosuppressent [it or one of it's relatives is one of the drugs given in some chemotherapy treatemtns for cancer, and also for transplant recipients], making you more susceptible to infections of various kinds [e.g. chicken pox, colds, the flu, etc...], and less able to fight offf an exisint ginfection. It can also act to supress the body’s nbatural production of corticosteroids, by partially or fully shutting down the glands that make them — that is why slow tapers to come offf of pred after long-term use are SOOOO important; quickly stopping after long-term high dose use CAN be lethal in some cases. Likewise, slow tapers when reducing oral pred to go onto inhaled pred are also necessary after long-term use. Following long-term use [eeven with a taper] in some cases it can take upto 6 months to a year or perphaps even longer for the body to regain it’s normal levels of steroidd production. hence, int he emantinme, if one experiences serious trauma [illness, injury, surgery, etc] it may very well be necessary to go back on a short course of pred in order to suppleement the body’s production siunce the body isn’t producing as much as it needs. That said, most people who have beeen on longterm use of pred are able to come off of it with a slow taper without permanent "harm" having been done in terms of natural steroid prodcution — but it hads to be done very carefully. Other problems with longterm pred use include increased side effets such as increased mood swings, interference with calcium absorption [whcih can lead to bones being more brittle/osteoporosis, etc], joint problems, etc.. Often times if one has had a numebr of shortly-spaced ER visits [or even a severe single ER visit], they will be placed on a short course [often a taper course, such as the Medrol DosePak] of pred or methylpred. This is perfectly normally, generally rather safe, and often exactly what is necessary to knowck the asthma back into check. As otehrs have said, the long-term use of pred is generally as a last resortwhen all else has failed, and there are generally plenty of options that can be tried before long-term pred needs to be seriously considered. DC. I AM NOT A MEDICAL DOCTOR, THE ABOVE IS NOT MEDICAL ADVICE. ALWAYS CHECK WITH YOUR MD! email sent to the above address is unlikely to get to me, so please post replies. 