Empirical Science

[Rufous McKinney]

If a researcher made a proposal which sought to look for any medicinal values of cannabis, not only would it be highly unlikely to get funded, but it could possibly be the "kiss of death" to their career as well.

One of the most miraculous healing herbs is cannabis and its an excellent example of how its impossible to study due to bogus restrictions and completely UNSCIENTIFIC policies.

 

[Hip]

This type of skewing seems to be especially pervasive when it comes to any kind of natural, safe, effective, inexpensive therapy, such as cannabis, vitamin C, DMSO, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if DMSO could become the best selling and profitable "drug" of all time--if only it could be patented. Since it can't, very few people know much about it.

Political alternative websites use many marketing cliches.

For example, the famous and overused "the treatment they do not want you to know about" cliche, or "the treatment they tried to suppress" or similar phrases containing the proverbial "they".

Well, those of with ME/CFS know that illness can strike even the most healthy-living person. That's an inconvenient fact for those alternative health marketers who are trying to sell you their elixirs of life.



Let's take your claim that 'DMSO could become the best selling and profitable "drug" of all time--if only it could be patented'. You are suggesting that only patentable substances are going to make it in the marketplace.

Well the facts contradict that idea: you only have think about the out-of-patent drugs that are widely available, such as aspirin, to appreciate that if a substance has medical benefit, it will have a large market, irrespective of whether it is patentable or not. DMSO may have useful anti-inflammatory properties, but the fact it often leaves people with a putrid garlic-like breath for days after is definitely not in its favor.

And the fact that the global supplements business brings in around $410 billion of yearly sales shows you don't need a patent to make a lot of money.

 

[Hip]

the glaring weakness I referred to is when the process of assessing a theory using empirical evidence is done at the expense of using good judgment and good critical thinking, and overly influenced by the profit motive, which is all too often the case (almost always these days).

I don't really understand what you are saying in that statement. Perhaps you can explain this scenario you envisage to where assessing a theory using empirical evidence, which is the bedrock of science, occurs at the expense of good judgment and good critical thinking.

 

[percyval577]

I don't really understand what you are saying in that statement. Perhaps you can explain this scenario you envisage to where assessing a theory using empirical evidence, which is the bedrock of science, occurs at the expense of good judgment and good critical thinking.

As a matter of fact, even in physics there are current opinions, things simply only out of fashion, and the run for money is also on.

Facts are not speaking for themselves, but they need to be evaluated, probably in last consequence for deeds (science is of course - rather - without practical purpose). Facts that do speak for themselves may well be immediate failures like a crash with a car.

As can be seen from Popper´s Critical Rationalism (and this is commonly accepted), ever stay critical, everything can turn out to be incomplete and wrong.

 

[percyval577]

With a theory like Popper, the following sequence is incomplete, interestingly:

In this respect, science differs from mathematics, as in the latter, truth is decided by reason alone, completely independently of empirical evidence. That's often why pure mathematicians and logicians love their subjects, because they are the only disciplines in which truth is arrived at completely independently of the physical world. Pure mathematicians really like the fact that their subject is not sullied by the grimy and imperfect physical world.

You might agree:

Empirical science produces sentences with empirical content about empirical things. There is not logic alone.

Non-empirical science produces sentences with non-empirical content about non-empirical things (e.g. about numbers, which are non-empirical). Pure logic is to be applied.

Now, may we say that Popper produced sentences with non-empirical content about empirical things? And being purely logical as well.


Hope its not too off topic, but it may illustrate some inconvenience that real empirical science can show.

 

[percyval577]

A good guess is better than a bad proof.

 

[pamojja]

Take me as an example, my story told here: https://www.longecity.org/forum/stacks/stack/111-pad-and-additional-remissions/

I was about to get into the mill of invasive surgical interventions and polypharmcy till my death-bed. Despite being a complete ignorant, gladly informed myself elsewhere about their risk to benefit ratios. Which even the pushing Cardiologist wouldn't or couldn't.

With virtually nothing to loose, I tried Orthomolecular medicine and herbal extracts instead. And experienced remissions all conventional MDs had told me could never be expected. Only the slowing of the progression of these chronic diseases, which always would cause death, would be possible.

Meanwhile I experienced remission in respect to all my diagnoses (PAD, COPD, T2D, ME/CFS). Though I don't see that as 'cures', it certainly goes a far way beyond MDs, all informed by science, ever thought possible.

Nevertheless, I used MDs to get regular testing and monitoring my progress, or for being prepared of worsenings. Just one simple example how utterly stupified the medical establishment has become: Having paid myself for accurate Mg-level testing, I was repeatedly told by MDs or hospitals: Mg-deficiency is not something they would treat.

It took years to find a GP willing to give Mg-IVs to me, charging the insurance company some other anti-spasmotic IVs (which it actually also was..).

The medical curicullum seems to me centered only around pharmaceutical compounds, and something like vitamins, minerals and natural occuring herbal compound completely neglected. In my experience now for 11 years and regular interactions with a variety of MDs. Their strict following of their standard of care is in most cases a complete violation of "first do no harm". What agenda does that speak of?

That on the other hand some do make a living out from selling supplements, or that one would get disillusioned about the integrity of conventional medicine's MDs is only too understandable. And certainly not a reason for me that everything those MD's wont touch couldn't work.

Conventional medicine, which has all the trials and NNTs or NNHs, most likely wouldn't have worked in my case according to science. Natural medicine, of which for example ascorbic acid is one of the most studied molecules (usually in not effective doses), doesn't have RCTs, NNTs or NNHs. But worked for me, which is also my agenda.

A good guess is better than a bad proof.

 

[Hip]

You might agree:

Empirical science produces sentences with empirical content about empirical things. There is not logic alone.

Non-empirical science produces sentences with non-empirical content about non-empirical things (e.g. about numbers, which are non-empirical). Pure logic is to be applied.

Now, may we say that Popper produced sentences with non-empirical content about empirical things? And being purely logical as well.


Hope its not too off topic, but it may illustrate some inconvenience that real empirical science can show.

Unfortunately I have not actually read Popper, and have not read a single new book since I developed ME/CFS. I used to avidly read across a wide range of fields: philosophy, psychology, physics, mathematics, spiritual subjects, but I find these books exhausting for the mind now, much as I used to love them.

 

[Hip]

The medical curicullum seems to me centered only around pharmaceutical compounds, and something like vitamins, minerals and natural occuring herbal compound completely neglected.

I think that's in part because there is not sufficient evidence base for many supplements, and doctors want to prescribe things they know will work.

With the huge amount of money the supplements industry brings in, $140 billion a year in the US and $410 billions globally, I wish this industry was more ethically inclined, and spent some of that money funding clinical trials for their products.

Once they have empirical evidence of clinical benefit for their supplements, they could approach medical authorities, such as the NHS in the UK, showing evidence of efficacy. That would then benefit the supplements industry with increased sales. All the major supplement manufacturers could club together to fund such trials.



My mother had a mild heart attack a year ago, and the cardiologist prescribed statins, low-dose aspirin plus proton pump inhibitors (to protect the stomach from the aspirin), and finally beta blockers. He said that statistically 99% of those who take these meds will not have another heart attack in the following year.

Now my mother did not get on with the statins, and really did not like the idea of taking aspirin + proton pump inhibitors, so she only took the beta blocker.

This concerned me, but I did not want to coerce her to take her meds. So instead I investigated a number of supplements which theoretically might reduce the risk of heart attack and the blood clots which cause heart attack. So after a lot of research, I settled on three daily supplements: grape seed extract (works similarly to aspirin to thin the blood), rutin (helps prevent blood clots forming), bromelain (helps break down blood clots).

I suspect my supplement cocktail might well reduce the risk of further heart attacks, but here's the rub: I have no empirical evidence for it. So I can only hope it helps, but I do not know for sure.

So why doesn't the supplement industry spend money on a clinical trial of supplements like these, to see whether they can reduce heart attacks. If they could, they'd probably be safer and better tolerated than the pharma drugs.


It's common for people to blame Big Pharma for everything, but I am blaming Big Vitamin for their negligence of not running clinical trials.

 

[pamojja]

And when the alternative health sellers describe their commercial product as "the treatment they do not want you to know about", it's just mind-manipulating advertising pure and simple, alluding to notions of suppressed or secret knowledge, which piques people's interest.

DSMO comes to mind. When I finally got my only root-canal treated tooth extracted - done against my explicit disconsent 2 years before the outbreak of my multiple chronic disease - I was prescribed a precautionary antibiotic. To not disturb my beautiful gut-flora I used DSMO mouthwash instead, and already the next day I would go with my toungh on a search for the gap, because I couln't feel where, nor any pain from then on.

There simply isn't that much need for science to prove natural things work (not everything for everyone, but that's to be expected), due to the effects for which one is taking them. They are ether there or not, and one always knows that way. And come on, a bottle of DSMO costs nothing.

supplements industry brings in, $140 billion a year

Now you exaggerate badly.

Industry

In 2015, the American market for dietary supplements was valued at $37 billion,[4] with the economic impact in the United States for 2016 estimated at $122 billion, including employment wages and taxes.[70] One 2016 analysis estimated the total market for dietary supplements could reach $278 billion worldwide by 2024.[71]

Clicking on the reference for the estimation of $122 billion, I landed on a website with popups welcoming me to having won a price! How scientific such a websites as reference?

In fact, usually I've seen estimates that the statin industry alone is worth the $37 billion equal to the supplement industry. And wikipedia again:

In 2011, global spending on prescription drugs topped $954 billion, even as growth slowed somewhat in Europe and North America.

Not counting wages, infrastructures, hospitals, the high cost of just one night sleep in a hospital, surgeries... etc.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) reported that U.S. health care costs rose 5.8% to reach $3.2 trillion in 2015, or $9,990 per person.[3]

Trillions my friend. Not the meager $37 billions as with supplements.

So why doesn't the supplement industry spend money on a clinical trial of supplements like these, to see whether they can reduce heart attacks. If they could, they'd probably be safer and better tolerated than the pharma drugs.

Simply. A clinical trial to get any remedy, natural or synthetic approved, costs:

If the cost of these failed drugs is taken into account, the cost of developing a successful new drug (new chemical entity, or NCE), has been estimated at about US$1.3 billion[77]

Therefore from the $40 billion market of supplements divited by many more competitors, which single one could afford? I guess only someone like LifeExtension could, they even do sponsor small trials. But for clinical approval trial costs, even they are too lightweight. And if the did? Everyone of the 100s competitors would produce a product with similiar ingredients, without having to stem the incredible amount needed for approval. LifeExtension would go bankrupt.

But on the other hand we have to be glad about all that. Because once any substance becomes prescription the price rises, and is in fact no more available over the counter without a MDs visit. Like it for example happened to pyridoxamine in the US. The only MDs who in my country would prescribe naturals, costs about €80 per consultation and prescription. For picking up any prescribtion from the pharmacy, in my country I would have to pay an additional €5 'prescription fee'. So instead of now €5 for a bottle of magnesium, €85 instead?

Therefore as long as it is that way, I actually have to be glad that vitamin C, D, K2, magnesium, omega-3 and CoQ10 are scientifically not valitated as effective in synergy for CVD (to mention the most important), and available over the counter. Because in such a case I couldn't have afforted and couldn't report about remissions. The prediction of my MDs probably having come true, and me death already long ago.

 

[Hip]

Now you exaggerate badly.

I can't find the original source I read, but different sources report different figures for the global supplements market:

This analysis says:

the global Dietary Supplements Market was valued at USD 124.8 Billion in 2018 and is expected to reach USD 210.3 Billion by year 2026

This report says:

The dietary supplements market is anticipated to reach USD 349.4 billion by 2026 according to a new study published by Polaris Market Research.

Whereas for the global pharmaceutical drugs market, this report says:

The global market for pharmaceuticals reached $1.2 trillion in 2018

So Big Vitamin annually earns around 10% of the sales that Big Pharma receives. So Big Vitamin incomes are not trivial, and they could well afford to conduct clinical trials.

In fact Big Vitamin should be forced to conduct clinical trials before their products are allowed to be sold. Why is it that Big Pharma has to spend around $500 million on R&D and clinical trials to bring each new drug to market, before they get a licence to sell them, whereas Big Vitamin has no such clinical trial expenses, and can introduce new products with little or no R&D or clinical trials cost?

I would imagine that some Big Vitamin executives and shareholders are probably making a fortune, as they don't have the high expenses of Big Pharma, but still have a massive global income.


So instead of blaming Big Pharma for the fact that very few supplements are prescribed by doctors, let's start blaming Big Vitamin.

I guess only someone like LifeExtension could, they even do sponsor small trials. But for clinical approval trial costs, even they are too lightweight. And if the did? Everyone of the 100s competitors would produce a product with similiar ingredients, without having to stem the incredible amount needed for approval. LifeExtension would go bankrupt.

That's why I suggested that ALL the big supplement manufacturers could contribute to the cost of clinical trials, paying according to their individual market shares. Because if a supplement became approved to treat an illness, all of those manufacturers would benefit by increased sales.

 

[pamojja]

In fact Big Vitamin should be forced to conduct clinical trials before their products are allowed to be sold. Why is it that Big Pharma has to spend around $500 million on R&D and clinical trials to bring each new drug to market, before they get a licence to sell them, whereas Big Vitamin has no such clinical trial expenses, and can introduce new products with little or no R&D or clinical trials cost?

We already know from epidemiolocal data, that there is about 62,000 to 1 risk of adverse pharmaceutical drug reaction, compared to food supplements/vitamins/minerals (individual risk relative to the use of food supplements in UK).

 

[Rufous McKinney]

So why doesn't the supplement industry spend money on a clinical trial of supplements like these, to see whether they can reduce heart attacks. If they could, they'd probably be safer and better tolerated than the pharma drugs.


It's common for people to blame Big Pharma for everything, but I am blaming Big Vitamin for their negligence of not running clinical trials.

I can only assume most people- investigate their sources before launching treatments. I can't speak to: the general masses.

Ever heard of the supplement brand Life Extension? Their magazine includes extensive references that often include standard science studies. There are 55 references here for Arginine and cardiovascular health issues.

I'd start writing some down as examples...but don't need to/ as ya'll can read.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition is looking at arobia berry in a double blind placebo controlled study. YADA YADA. Gee. a lot of science studies on nitric oxide and arobia berries, who knew?

Life Extension also has a Scientific Advisory Board. With impressive credentials and resumes. I don't know that they- do studies themselves...I doubt it.

 

[Hip]

I am saying that we should not allow Big Vitamin executives to get rich as a result of their massive global income. Given the huge amounts of money this industry collects, it's unethical not to run clinical trials. Getting empirical evidence of efficacy would allow supplements to be prescribed by the medical profession, who after all are a science-based operation.

Big Vitamin execs should do something good for humanity, not just sit there becoming fat cats.

My idea of dystopia is people getting rich while offering little in terms of good services to the rest of humanity, which is my accusation against Big Vitamin.

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

@Rufous McKinney , @pamojja
I'm a fan of Life Extension, too, and for exactly the reasons you mention.

And @pamojja 's point about what would happen if Life Extension did the kind of expensive, extensive testing required to reach 'scientifically' acceptable standards in relation to what would ensue, with other companies copying their formulas and then marketing products that were cheaper and minus the financial burden of having done all that research and testing, was right on !!!

 

[Hip]

with other companies copying their formulas

I already address that issue at the bottom of this post.

 

[Hip]

There are many issues with Big Pharma, including being less than honest in terms of publishing the results of ALL clinical trials, including those which show poor efficacy for their drugs.

But vitamins are not going to fix all the dire chronic diseases that humanity faces. Only the advancement of science, and the development of better drugs and treatments will address this.

When one group can control access to any resource, that realm becomes, per force, dystopian and authoritarian

We are not talking about controlling resources, we are talking about getting Big Vitamin to do something good, like spend money on clinical trials.

I am not suggesting that individual supplements necessarily require an licence like drugs do, as supplements are generally safe, and do not require such regulation. But I am saying that Big Vitamin should be more responsible, and if their products can help treat disease, they should spend the money on clinical trials to demonstrate it. There should be legislation which forces them to spend a certain percentage of their profits on clinical trials. They should not be allow to sell supplements unless they spend a certain amount on clinical trials.

Of course, Big Vitamin might be reluctant to do this, because the clinical trials might just show that many of their products do not work.

 

[Rebeccare]

THIS THREAD HAS BEEN CLOSED FOR MODERATION