"Natural"/"health" foods warning

[beskeptical]

My universitie's student health center atually does hagve some brains in giving out anti-biotics.

I had the flu once (yes i get the flu shot every year, but with dozens of strains, it wont work every time)

Just a teensy nitpick here because you have the correct idea....There are over 200 known organisms that cause upper respiratory infections. The flu vaccine only works against the influenza virus, not the 199 other things. Every year the flu vaccine contains the 3 strains most likely to circulate. That has in the past covered 90% or more of the strains that did circulate so we expect the same to be true each year.

And as long as I am at it I will dispell the other most common myths about the flu.

I already said it is respiratory, it isn't what folks refer to as the 'stomach flu'.

It kills more than 20,000 people in the US alone every year. 90% of those in most years are over 65 years old. But that leaves 2,000 deaths a year in younger persons and some of them every year were healthy prior to getting the flu.

The flu shots don't give you the flu and placebo controlled studies showed the shots almost never make you feel bad. Most of the time people think their flu shot made them ill it is because they caught one of the other 199 things near the time of their shot. Flu shots are given in the peak season for respiratory infections.

So what shoudl we do? Should we pull all hebal remedies off the market and make them go throught testing? OR should we just have them put labels on saying all known sideeffects and drug interactions?

Well, at least we should look for good research backing up the claims rather than supposed 'common knowledge' or 'ancient wisdom'.

[tuffel999]

Tuffel, this is one of thousands of references I can find you supporting my statement that your generalization on antibiotic side effects was not correct.

See here is the problem I had to make a generalization otherwise my post would have dozens of pages long and boring to boot. I would have to go into detailed explanations on how antibiotics work if they are helicase targeting, ribosomal targeting, cell wall synthesis inhibitors, or so on and so forth. Then go into why and how antibiotics can cause a toxic action. Some of the reasons not directly linked to the antibiotic, some due to products of the antibiotic breakdown, some because if you kill certain bacteria their cell lysis is toxic to humans on its own, and still others as direct action against the person taking them. Bottom line is a person suffering from the side effects doesn't give a dead rats you know what why they are having the reaction they just care that they are having these toxic side effects. When you have to make generalizations you almost always group something where it doesn't belong.

As far as your refrence goes it isn't all that clear to me what it is trying to say since it contradicts itself. First it says "most antibiotic side effects are related to individual agents and not class side effects" then it says "among antimicrobials, beta-lactams and sulfonamides are the most common causes of drug-induced fevers" which are classes of antibiotics. So it goes and makes generalizations as well. Now it is true there are good and bad antibiotics in each class but certain classes of antibiotics have general properties that make them less acceptable for common use due to these toxicities. I listed specific antibiotics in my follow up so you would have an idea of the type agents I was talking about that are particularly toxic and are synthetic. Now if you can throw me a listing of synthetic vs. naturally derived antibiotics and their therapeutic index that clearly shows that a higher percentage of natural anibiotics are highly toxic then; I will definately read it and check it out until then I have to go with what was taught to me in school since i haven't seen data contradicting it yet. As I have always heard in lab 'show me the data'. (Actually PM me the data so we don't bore everyone to death.)

[tuffel999]

P.S.- I hope you weren't taking this personally, it isn't meant that way. I just would like to see the data. The data I received was probably could have been less than complete as it was not a in real table form that leant it to easy interpretation so I could be wrong but I haven't seen a definative form of explaniation the other way yet either.

[kucharek]

Some 18-year-old in the east of Germany last week tried to apply for the Darwin award. He brewed some tea from Angel's Trumpet and started to behave strange. He cut himself off his tongue and the part you need to breed. According to the doctor, there was nothing left that could be stiched on again.

Ouch!

[beskeptical]

Tuffel, this is one of thousands of references I can find you supporting my statement that your generalization on antibiotic side effects was not correct.

............As far as your refrence goes it isn't all that clear to me what it is trying to say since it contradicts itself. First it says "most antibiotic side effects are related to individual agents and not class side effects" then it says "among antimicrobials, beta-lactams and sulfonamides are the most common causes of drug-induced fevers" which are classes of antibiotics.

The quote is, "with the exception of drug fevers and drug rashes," so it isn't contradicting itself.

I listed specific antibiotics in my follow up so you would have an idea of the type agents I was talking about that are particularly toxic and are synthetic. Now if you can throw me a listing of synthetic vs. naturally derived antibiotics and their therapeutic index that clearly shows that a higher percentage of natural anibiotics are highly toxic then; I will definately read it and check it out until then I have to go with what was taught to me in school since i haven't seen data contradicting it yet. As I have always heard in lab 'show me the data'. ....

If you can't find a resource supporting your claim, perhaps your claim is wrong. Surely if it is a correct generalization it should be mentioned in some antibiotic reference.

My point is, to claim something is natural vs unnatural and then to claim that affects the human body differently on that basis alone is a false premise.

I don't take this personally at all, except it's my mission to dispell these kind of common myths. :wink:

[mike alexander]

Well, THIS topic isn't very provocative, is it? 8)

There's as much psychology as pharmacology here. Part of it, I am sure, is reaction to the perception that large drug companies make huge profits on the backs of the diseased, and somehow that doesn't seem fair. There must be an 'alternative way' to get the same results without spending the bucks.

First, many drug companies do make huge profits. They also reinvest large amounts in new research and development. But the fact remains: even after the reinvestment many do make huge profits. This bugs a lot of people.

The romantic fallacy. 'Natural' is better. This also seems to tie in with everything from shamanistic practice to the works of Sixpack Chopra and Yogi Weill.

Nobody knows what 'natural' is, but like pornography they recognize it when they see it. My old friend Chuck used to say the label should read "contains no transuranic elements". Chemicals that Nature makes are good, but chemicals humans make are bad; I suspect lingering vestiges of vitalism.

Nobody knows how drugs act, so they can make up anything they want, from balanced humors to flows of chi. Ask most consumers what a receptor is and you'll probably get an answer involving football.

Nobody has any idea of dose, theraputic range, first pass effect, enzyme induction, phenotypes, clearance, or half a hundred other things I could dredge up if I tried. But they know 'good' and 'bad' drugs.

The same people who wouldn't even think of trying to repair their defective TV set have no problem doing the most stupid things with the stuff they toss into their bodies.

Sometimes, sometimes the experts know what they are talking about.

[tuffel999]

Finally I was able to find my lecture notes on this subject. I had to dig through a lot of stuff to find this (found some other stuff I was looking for so that was good). It was during a lecture on SJS. The direct question was asked about SJS and synthetic sulfa based antibiotics. The lecturer said that the synthetic sulfa drugs showed a higher toxicity and a more direct correlation to SJS and they should be avoided unless neccesary since other less toxic options were available. This was actually mentioned in your article. So it was presented in a fashion that included the entire class of sulfa based antibiotics. So my question is is this incorrect? That is all I have. It was from one lecture on sulfa based antibiotics. I also have qunolines with a ? next to it(it is covered in the paper below as well). Anyway here is the paper passed out with the lecture you shouldn't have any problem getting it. If you do let me know and I can get it in a digital form.
Medication Use And The Risk Of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome Or
Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis
N Engl J Med 1996 Apr 4;334(14):922

[tuffel999]

One other thing I am all for using antibiotics and other drugs. This hasn't been some sort of anti medicine rant I just am for responsible use of antibiotics. Mainly because the irresponsible use of anibiotics to date has painted us into a very dangerous corner.

[beskeptical]

One other thing I am all for using antibiotics and other drugs. This hasn't been some sort of anti medicine rant I just am for responsible use of antibiotics. Mainly because the irresponsible use of anibiotics to date has painted us into a very dangerous corner.

Oh no, I didn't take it that way at all.

As to the above, it sounds to me like you may have taken a comment meant only to refer to sulfa based drugs and perhaps attributed the reason to "synthetic" when maybe that was not the key factor.

A quick google for a good description of SJS turned up this from emedicine.com:

SJS is an immune-complex–mediated hypersensitivity disorder that may be caused by many drugs, viral infections, and malignancies. Cocaine recently has been added to the list of drugs capable of producing the syndrome. In up to half of cases, no specific etiology has been identified.

I know of no research that attributes SJS to 'synthetic' products specifically.

[tuffel999]

As to the above, it sounds to me like you may have taken a comment meant only to refer to sulfa based drugs and perhaps attributed the reason to "synthetic" when maybe that was not the key factor.

That certainly maybe the case it was a while ago it is just one of those things that stuck in my mind after hearing it during the lecture, in fact my notes from the lecture are not extremly comprehensive. In light of the fact that I only have that one paper and set of lecture notes I call uncle. ops:

[beskeptical]

As to the above, it sounds to me like you may have taken a comment meant only to refer to sulfa based drugs and perhaps attributed the reason to "synthetic" when maybe that was not the key factor.

That certainly maybe the case it was a while ago it is just one of those things that stuck in my mind after hearing it during the lecture, in fact my notes from the lecture are not extremly comprehensive. In light of the fact that I only have that one paper and set of lecture notes I call uncle. ops:

Hooray!!!

Not about the uncle thing. Sometimes when you discuss stuff with folks they get annoyed rather than trying to learn something new. I am often on the learning end. There is nothing to be embarassed about. I think it is a good thing when I learn something new. And, I often learn it when someone disagrees. I consider it an opportunity to learn or teach.

[alanr1]

Hi everyone,
Looking nice to see the discussion related to the most important topic antibiotic.Lots of antibiotics available now .Which one is best for us the problem for the users .Gentamicin injections are also the good antibiotics.But important thing is the side effects for the medication.We have to take it before taking it.

[genebujold]

Sadly, I could not answer the poll as I take both.

There's a lot of disinformation about herbal "foods" (the title of this poll), herbal/natural "remedies" (the poll's question), and regular foods, OTC remedies, and prescription medicines.

If anyone believes that OTC and prescription medicines are "safe when used as directed" then you haven't read the long list of warnings and precautions.

About the safest of the bunch are "organic foods," as they're indeed all-natural, non-GM foods free from pesticides and herbicides.

These are already regulated by the organization that owns the "organic" label, and so need no further regulation.

If herbal/natural remedies need further regulation due to known measured and tested side effects exceeding the limits of OTC meds, then they should be regulated.

Much of the fluff, however, is that far less than 1% of anything found in a health food store will cause injury, harm, or death at any rate exceeding OTC meds when, of course, used as directed.

[Kesh]

My favorite was a woman I once worked with who took these Chinese herbal pills that were supposed to "cleanse the bowels" for her health. When I asked how it worked, she mentioned you take one of those pills per day... along with drinking a quart of water.

I was going to point out that the water was more likely to be cleansing her bowels without the pills, but she was so deep into such things it wouldn't have helped. And I still had to work with her.

[Big Brother Dunk]

I don't take herbal remedies except for one, I do take glucosamine for my knees. My doctor suggested I try it and it seemed to work very well for me.

[Gillianren]

That's the one I take, too. However, I'm also currently on Zoloft (hopefully not for much longer; I think it's responsible for my nausea and my nightmares), because herbal remedies, in that particular case, are definitely not as helpful as prescription drugs. (At least, once you figure out which prescription is the one that works for you.)

[jkmccrann]

I think this is a somewhat misleading question to ask. I answered that I would use herbal or natural remedies, but I was thinking along the lines of any remedy with a natural or herbal component, rather than something that is purely natural and hasn't undergone any testing to establish its credentials.

For instance, with the current flap about avian flu, would anyone on here take Tamiflu if there were to be a pandemic? I would, and yet Tamiflu is the result of a 10-step process which begins with the extraction of shikimic acid from a rare spice, 'star anise'. That to me gives something like Tamiflu a recognisable natural component. It is not a wholly synthetic substance created by mixing various chemicals together.

Obviously during the 10 step process in Tamiflu's production there are going to be synthetic substances introduced into the process, but no matter the dilution of the original shikimic acid in Tamiflu's eventual production, for me given its natural base it retains a recognisable natural origin and hence for me qualifies as a `natural' remedy.

I mean, a lot of the herbal remedies that are advertised have also gone through some degree of dilution but they still qualify as herbal remedies, so what's the difference?

As an aside, I had looked at this thread a couple of months ago and contemplated making this point, but given the age of the thread decided to wait until I had a current example to make, so I was pleasantly surprised to see this thread bumped current by alanr1 after a 2 year hiatus.

hehehehe

[farmerjumperdon]

Some 18-year-old in the east of Germany last week tried to apply for the Darwin award. He brewed some tea from Angel's Trumpet and started to behave strange. He cut himself off his tongue and the part you need to breed. According to the doctor, there was nothing left that could be stiched on again.

Ouch!

YYYYYYYYYYYOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!

I'm squirming just reading it.

And wondering if that is a microbial side effect or a an antimicrobial side effect.

[farmerjumperdon]

My favorite was a woman I once worked with who took these Chinese herbal pills that were supposed to "cleanse the bowels" for her health. When I asked how it worked, she mentioned you take one of those pills per day... along with drinking a quart of water.

I was going to point out that the water was more likely to be cleansing her bowels without the pills, but she was so deep into such things it wouldn't have helped. And I still had to work with her.

Kind of like the diet that works only if you stick to some certain exercise regimen. No kidding.

I've got a car that uses almost no fuel. It's been parked for 10 years.

[LurchGS]

Kind of like the diet that works only if you stick to some certain exercise regimen. No kidding.

I've got a car that uses almost no fuel. It's been parked for 10 years.

hot dog! you willing to sell it?

I'll trade you for my grandmother - she doesn't eat anything or say much, either...

To the growing list of prescription meds I take (still far fewer than my wife, who's three years younger), I have been taking glucosamine for the past two years. It (or something, but I don't know what else it might be) has made a significant difference in my ankles and knees - and wrists. (I've broken each ankle 3-5 times, and I type a LOT - post traumatic arthritis in ankles and knees and whatever was causing the pain in my hands/wrists)

does that mean I think all 'herbal remedies' are good, or even effective? Nope. i wouldn't even have tried glucosamine if my mother hadn't suggested it (she takes it for similar reasons and noted apparent improvement)

(I qualify my results because they are subjective - no testing or anything to show that the cartilage pads actually HAVE improved. For all I know, glucosamine is just a really good arthritis-specific pain medication and my feet will fall off next week)