I may be going crazy here, but I remember reading somewhere - maybe here - that the FDA doesn't actually review or examine nutritional supplements that are labelled 'natural'.
The result was that one particular supplement that had made its way onto the shelves was causing cancer to appear in those taking it every day with in 6 months or so of use.
But now that I go to look for the articles I read about it I can't find anything. Does anyone else remember seeing this story? Was it here?
Or am I just going crazy?
Is it still true that nutritional supplements labelled 'natural' undergo no screening by the FDA?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
They don't review supplements or homeopathic remedies, but I haven't heard of anything that would give people cancer as a matter of course.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The FDA doesn't screen homeopathic stuff, but the quantities of 'active ingredients' in them are essentially nonexistent anyway. Homeopathy is pure placebo.
As for supplements, not sure. But you can get away with a lot by labeling your remedy 'natural.'
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The enforcement for dietary supplements is a joke. The FDA lets them make any claim they want as long as they put a small disclaimer on there that says "we're not making those claims we made on the other side of the bottle." Guess which side has larger print?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
The closest one I can see on this list seems to be comfrey, which is toxic to the liver and might be carcinogenic. Nowhere near as extreme as causing cancer within six months, but not exactly something you want to eat.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The FDA doesn't screen homeopathic stuff, but the quantities of 'active ingredients' in them are essentially nonexistent anyway. Homeopathy is pure placebo.
True. However, dietary supplements include lots of things that are indeed active and unregulated.
Which infuriates me, and has since before the blasted law was passed 15 years ago.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
According to the newest legislation that I remember, there are three levels of government requirements.
For DRUGS you must meet specific requirements for the purity and amounts of all active ingredients, and prove that the drug is not harmful if taken as directed, and that it has the curative powers that the manufacturer claims.
For Foods you must list your ingredients in order of their abundance in the food, and prove that the food is not harmful if taken in moderation.
For Dietary Supplements you have to do nothing. If it kills someone, they have to prove that it was your supplement that killed them (which is hard to do if your dead). They have plausible deniability.
There was a case a few years ago with Fen-Fen. It didn't cause cancer, but did result in heart attacks.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Plenty of drugs are being marketed as supplements. The good thing is that drugs no drug company could make money on, like Pregnenalone, are made available. The bad thing is that it's packaged at 5 times the recommended beginning dose, etc. People assume it's food and just take as many as they want. It has side effects like all medicines and can induce angry episodes or road rage. It also helps you grow facial hair, which is fine for guys I guess but most women I know like to downplay their beards and mustaches. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I know there was Phen-Fen (or was it Fen-Phen) that was a weight loss "natural" product that caused a lot of trouble and some deaths, but I don't think it was from cancer.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: The bad thing is that it's packaged at 5 times the recommended beginning dose, etc.
Even more likely, two packages have different active dosages (regardless of the packaging claiming the same). Plus no one is checking for the contraindications for taking some of these -- potentially quite harmful -- drugs. So you have people who would be warned not to take statins taking "natural statins" and dying of liver damage, or guys who would never be prescribed little blue pills taking the "natural version" (see last week's FDA warnings for examples) dropping dead of heart attacks.
And the original fen-phen was a combination of two prescription drugs (fenfluramine and phentermine). Many "natural" products claim to be just as good as the (now no longer available) prescription. Unfortunately, that mostly seems to mean just as dangerous as . . .
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
There was a big kerfuffle a while back when in the Canadian equivalent of the FDA was going to put the same restrictions on "natural" supplements (e.g. they have to not only be safe but also effective, ho ho ho).
For some reason, natural supplement sellers were up in arms about this. I think it's funny-horrible that the rigorous standards and fears we have about things like vaccines that are very or quite well tested are not applied to things that are claimed to have magical properties.
Essentially, we're saying, "well, as long as its claiming not to be based on science, we won't hold it to any of our normal requirements, such as actually working."
Humans are crazy.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I think it's funny-horrible that the rigorous standards and fears we have about things like vaccines that are very or quite well tested are not applied to things that are claimed to have magical properties.
Essentially, we're saying, "well, as long as its claiming not to be based on science, we won't hold it to any of our normal requirements, such as actually working."
Humans are crazy.
Exactly who will fund the studies on natural supplements? Not drug companies. In fact, they have vested interests in stopping such studies from occurring. I'm not saying I believe in the usefulness/safety of all supplements. If anything, I'm anti-supplement, although I do take vitamin D-3, and bone meal.
The point being, some supplements are very mild, have long track records, and are very safe. Some, not so much, at all. It's a bit foolish to paint Ma Huang and dandelion root with the same broad brush.
I ask you again, who will fund such scientific studies? I'd love to see them done, but...rich asshats are preventing that, using the fear and ignorance of the masses. Not that the masses give a rip.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Actually, the asshats in this particular regard are the organizations and companies that market and sell the supplements; they have a vested interest to keep themselves outside of the review of the FDA, since that helps them market their useless product.
Homeopathy is the best example, since it's the biggest scam you can find in our medical products aisle. They make effort to prevent medical studies of any sort from taking place, because it shows the complete uselessness of anything homeopathic.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
There are studies regarding natural supplements. The NIH funds a huge branch of their research in Complementary Medicine just to determine what's helpful and what's harmful. Just last week a patient brought in their supplement. I looked it up in MicroMedex (subscription only). There were a couple studies with topical use, and ~80 people studied with oral use. Not large studies I know. No major adverse reactions found, only the usual insomnia/hypersomnia/headache/GI upset stuff. I gave him the okay for its use but gave him the speech described in earlier posts (unregulated, can't know the dosage from package to package, unknown interactions, possible adverse reactions) to warn him. He has a history of using like... 10 different supplements at once. O.o
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
OK, smart folks, what's the total ratio of money spent on studies on patentable drugs versus studies on natural supplements, including funding from all sources?
Exactly.
And what, in terms of common sense as far as health goes, SHOULD be the ratio?
Exactly.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm not necessarily only worried about danger, I'm also worried about efficacy and ripping people off.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Steven, the people who should pay for the studies of the effectiveness, not to mention the safety, of "natural" supplements are--the people making billions (with a B) dollars annually selling those supplements.
Will it cause the cost of producing that caffeine pill Joe takes to stay up all night and cram for his midterms? Yes.
Could it save Joe's life? Yes.
Will it cause Joe to save money in the long run, when he finds out that the Placebo_Ginkel on sale next to the caffeine pill, that says "May increase memory" turns out not to increase memory at all. It will if it stops him from wasting money on it.
Will it put some companies out of business, because they can't afford to pay for those trials. Yes.
Will it put more companies out of business that package sugar and lead and other unknowns into a mix and call it Herbal Medicine. I hope so.
Will it stop the next wonder herb from reaching the market in a speedy fashion? Maybe.
Will it stop that next wonder herb from being lost in the tide of 10,000 new self-proclaimed but unproductive wonder herbs? Yes.
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
Efficacy of natural products is not regulated by the FDA. Technically, safety is, though as someone pointed out, there are so many out there, it's nearly impossible to catch them all.
The major problem is that it's so very expensive to get a drug to market that no natural supplement would be funded, since natural products can't be patented. There are often studies of safety and efficacy, but are rarely to the same standards that a new drug is held.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Steven, the people who should pay for the studies of the effectiveness, not to mention the safety, of "natural" supplements are--the people making billions (with a B) dollars annually selling those supplements.
No, the government should. If the government is going to create/allow a temporary monopoly by allowing temporary patents on drugs, then they should give similar protections/help to natural supplement producers.
I'm not saying it's 100% black and white, just that I don't think you've considered the fact that a patent is a government-approved monopoly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: OK, smart folks, what's the total ratio of money spent on studies on patentable drugs versus studies on natural supplements, including funding from all sources?
Exactly.
And what, in terms of common sense as far as health goes, SHOULD be the ratio?
Exactly.
Natural supplements aren't nearly as effective as many would have you believe.
They can't do very much compared to pharmacological alternatives, and most of the time they don't do anything at all (hey, for instance, everybody who still takes echinacea — guess what! you're dopes).
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Steven lets see if I understand your argument.
Joe believes that Green Tea will make you healthy. He can grow the tea and sell it as a food, or he can grow the tea and sell it saying that "It will make you healthier."
Jane is not feeling that great, so she sees Joe's tea. "Have you tested it to prove that it makes you healthier?"
Joe, being honest, says, "No, but its been used in India for centuries. They swear it makes you more healthy."
Jane says, "I want proof. Lab test it to make sure."
Joe says, "that will cost $250,000. I don't have that much money. If I test it and it does prove true then Jack, my tea competitor, will use my research to grow his own, without having to spend that $250,000. That's unfair."
That is a good argument.
Jack doesn't give a carp about the ancient Hindu priests who believed that Green Tea was a secret to long life. He only cares about making a profit. He claims that Green Tea, in his special blend, will be a miracle cure. He has testimonials created just last Tuesday from 25 of his employees. No where in the advertising does he say that they are his employees, but then again, no where does it say they are not.
When asked if he tested his product to see if it would work, he uses the same argument as Joe.
Now, who is Jane or I supposed to believe? Since the only true difference between Jack and Joe's tea is that Jack puts 95% of his budget into advertising and Joe puts 95% of his budget into making a quality product, if there are any benefits to Green Tea, we'll never know--because all we see or hear about is Jack's brand.
And that's not fair.
You suggest that the Government spend millions of dollars to figure out what natural wonders actually work?
That will be a tough sale since Jack and his cronies of flim-flam artists will try to block such a law. They don't want the truth to be discovered. Pharma will fight it too. Why should the government help discover what will do them out of sales? But they won't fight near as hard as the Jacks out there, and the Jacks will blame the fight on Pharma.
There have been plenty of Consumer type Naturally Healthy magazines and groups that have tried to do efficacy studies, but the fads of the natural products, and the different doses and potencies available make such studies slow in their answers, inaccurate as well. Not to mention that some are bought off by those they would condone, and other realize that nobody is going to buy a magazine telling them they are dupes.
Pharmaceuticals are one of the MOST tested, regulated, and controlled segments of our society. They are also one of the biggest, because with that regulation and control and tests comes consumer confidence.
Food production is another. Gardens are for hobbyists, not for survival, because we (wrongly or rightly) trust our source of food.
Banks, Insurance, every major segment of the market seems to get an increase in power and prestige once they are regulated and the consumers believe they can trust them.
Airlines lost a lot of their power and market once they lost a lot of their regulation.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I'm not necessarily only worried about danger, I'm also worried about efficacy and ripping people off.
Why would that be the government's job?
The government tries to keep a handle on the safety. If the companies make false claims, they can be sued for fraud. Other than that, why should the government be involved?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
My point is that natural remedies should be tried and studied first. Is that not obvious, in a common sense sort of way?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:You know what they call alternative medicine that's been shown to work?
(Beat)
Medicine.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
The obviously effective "natural" remedies have already been integrated into mainstream medicine.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Since it seems that steven believes that pharmaceutical companies IGNORE natural products, I'll point out a handful of the derivative medicines:
Atropine (belladonna), Barbaloin (aloe), Codeine (poppy), Colchicine (autumn crocus), Digitoxin (foxglove), Ephedrine (joint fir), L-dopa (velvet bean), Menthol (mint), Morphine (poppy), Quinine (yellow cinchona), Reserpine (indian snakeroot), Scopolamine (thorn apple), Taxol (pacific yew), Vinblastine (rosy periwinkle). Life on Earth by Niles Eldredge
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You forgot aspirin! (Or are we not counting derivatives that aren't recent?)
Not to mention maggots! Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
"Natural" is so 80's...consumers figured out that BS in 1990. Marketers moved from "natural" to "organic" in 1990. Unfortunately, "organic" is also passe...now we are "green". Buy "green" products if you really care about your health and the environment. Unless it's labeled "green", you can't trust it and it's a gimmick, at least until they come out with a new marketing word. A word that makes people feel good about paying more for the same product.
[ November 17, 2009, 02:31 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
dabbler, thanks for bringing in the link. I'm still always surprised that NCCAM is not more of a known quantity in these discussions.
Regarding the original question, the NYT has a recent article, Medicines to Deter Some Cancers Are Not Taken(about how the interventions with less supportive or even contradicting evidence are still preferred for some reason), that may touch on the topic:
quote:Great Hopes Dashed
Dr. Peter Greenwald knows the dashed hopes of cancer prevention research firsthand. As far back as 1981, when he arrived at the National Cancer Institute to direct “cancer prevention and control,” Dr. Greenwald began thinking about testing whether simple measures, like vitamin supplements, could prevent common cancers.
He focused on what looked like it could be a sure thing — beta carotene, found in orange fruits and vegetables as well as in green leafy vegetables. ... But not only did the supplements not work, but there was evidence that beta carotene might actually increase cancer risk in smokers.
Dr. Greenwald and his colleagues still held out hope for vitamins and minerals as cancer preventatives. So his group proposed the largest cancer prevention clinical trial ever tried, involving 35,000 men 50 and older. This time, the idea was that vitamin E and selenium might prevent prostate cancer. ... The selenium and vitamin E study ended early. Once again, there was no protection from cancer, and there were hints the supplements might be causing cancer. Once again, the great hope turned into a stunning disappointment.
Prevention researchers say they are left sadder but wiser.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
As a follow-up, this is why merely observing that some intervention or lifestyle appears to work, or -- God knows -- should work, just isn't enough. We are master pattern-makers and narrative generators; this is how our brains are set up to work, and it's a major strength for making sense of the world. It's also a major weakness. We want stories that make sense. We need stories that make sense. And in making sense of the world, we write internal narratives about it that make sense to us.
You'd think that early detection of disorders like breast cancer, prostate cancer and cystic fibrosis would be a good thing. Pick it up early, intervene early, fix it -- right? Not necessarily, at least not when studied rigorously. And rigorously means setting up good studies to focus on specific variables, designed in such a way as to let reality resist our preconceptions about it: essentially asking, "how can I design this study so that I have a good chance of being proved wrong if I am indeed wrong?"
In the case of breast cancer, there were enough false positives leading to overtreatment that the mortality rate over time was higher in the group which received screening than the group which didn't. Screening didn't pick up enough real cases to offset the unnecessary and unwarranted collateral damage which came with it. And those women we just as dead as the women who die from breast cancer itself.
quote:The furor over mammography—triggered in part by a meta-analysis published in the Lancet in 2000—focused on the contention that screening did not reduce women's overall mortality; worse still, in one study, mortality for the screened women was actually slightly higher than for the control group, a finding attributed to overtreatment—in this case, increased heart attacks caused by radiation therapy. Radiation protocols have now been changed to minimize the heart region's exposure. But a fundamental question remains: Are there cases in which the cure is worse that the disease? ... --from Slate's Screen Saver? When it comes to cancer screening, more isn't always better
In the case of prostate cancer screening, detecting it earlier often doesn't mean you live longer, even if it is treated. It is a cancer that tends to limp along asymptomatically for a very long time, and men usually die of other things first. So the treatment (which isn't benign) often causes more problems than it corrects.
quote: The answer is clearly yes—at least some of the time. In prostate cancer, abnormal cells are often slow-growing, and treatment can cause impotence and incontinence. Dr. Stephen Taplin, a senior scientist at the National Cancer Institute, helpfully compares some prostate cancers to gray hair, more a byproduct of aging than a life-threatening issue. "If I made men impotent and incontinent because they had gray hair, there wouldn't be any question I'd be hurting them," he said in a phone interview. But if these problems occurred as a result of aggressive cancer treatment, "most men would say, 'Doctor, you've saved me!'" ... --also from the Slate article
And in the case of cystic fibrosis, most in the field were sure that picking it up sooner would improve the lives and lifespan of those affected. A major problem is poor growth and development from pancreatic involvement leading to digestive impairment, not to mention recurrent lung infections. However, the single strongest predictor of lifespan is the age of colonization with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a bacteria that lives in the lungs of (eventually) all people with cystic fibrosis. And earlier diagnosis meant earlier trips to special CF centers where -- unfortunately -- kids became colonized with PA sooner than they would have otherwise, and so died sooner.
Now this can be dealt with. UW no longer has grouped clinics for CF patients, and so the risk isn't increased for that reason anymore. However, had some researchers not been willing to take for granted the obvious truths, but instead sought out to be proven wrong, we likely would not have identified this as a source of increased mortality.
quote:The potential psychosocial risks of screening include factors associated with 1) false-positives (e.g., unnecessary testing and possibly unnecessary treatment for the child, undue parental anxiety, and desensitization of providers), 2) false-negatives (e.g., potential delay in diagnosis for child and false reassurance for patients), 3) carrier reporting (e.g., possibly unwanted information and fear of stigmatization or insurance discrimination), and 4) misinformation (e.g., errors in communication or misunderstanding of results). Potential harms to CF patients of early detection and treatment as a result of newborn screening include side effects of therapies (e.g., drug resistance and toxicities) and earlier exposure (through person-to-person transmission from older children with CF) to bacteria associated with chronic airway infection in CF. ... Second, during the first 6 years of the study, premature acquisition of P. aeruginosa occurred among screened children who were followed at one of the two CF care centers participating in the study that had a small, crowded waiting room in which infants and older children with established infections mixed (30). The median pseudomonas-free period was 52 weeks among screened infants seen at the first center and 289 weeks among those followed up at the second center, which segregated children enrolled in the study from other patients (76).
[added: Mind you, there are many things for which screening does improve outcome. It just has to be studied on an individual basis rather than assumed to be so.]
---
Of note, much is misleading about how statistics are presented, even if you know what to look for. Consider the following problem -- also raised in the Slate article -- which still trips up people who should know better:
quote:But one factor that has really muddied the debate deserves special mention: the "five-year survival rate," as it is called, often deployed to support screening. ("Five-year survival" represents the percentage of people diagnosed with a particular kind of cancer at a particular time who are still alive five years later.) As Dr. H. Gilbert Welch points out in his excellent book, Should I Be Tested for Cancer?, this is a highly misleading statistic for the following reason: When cancers are detected early, the five-year survival rate (dated from the time of diagnosis) will necessarily improve—even if patients live no longer than they would have otherwise. Overdiagnosis further inflates the figure since more people are identified with nonprogressive cases who can be expected to live longer.
If the reason why that is a problem isn't clear, it's worth thinking about. You will see it raised as an objection again and again in these discussions, and often people don't ever get why it is misleading.
[ November 17, 2009, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
CT, thanks! That was a very informative post.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Glad you found it useful. Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
Not to mention maggots!
OK, that made me smile a little.
On another note, actually, I am probably every bit as aware of all the drugs that are derived from plants. The supplements that interest me are the ones that cannot be drugified--i.e., vitamin D-3, natural mineral supplements like dolomite and bone meal, maybe fish oils, etc. These have tremendous healing power for some people, and this is coming from someone who used to be adamantly opposed to the very idea of supplements. After 2 days of taking Vitamin D-3 softgels, I stopped grinding my teeth during sleep, slept better than I had in months, grew much more calm, had much less plaque on my teeth, and my teeth sensitivity was greatly reduced. After several months, i also noticed my dandruff was greatly reduced. Bone meal and other mineral supplements like Pascalite and dolomite also have really improved my teeth and my emotional calm. Make of it what you will, not all supplements are for all people, and moderation is important. That's just my experience. Vitamin D is pretty important, we're finding more and more, and millions of Americans are deficient. Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I don't know what angle you're taking. My primary care doctor diagnosed me with Vitamin D deficiency last winter and prescribed vitamin D gel caps.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: I don't know what angle you're taking. My primary care doctor diagnosed me with Vitamin D deficiency last winter and prescribed vitamin D gel caps.
Relatively few doctors even test for Vitamin D deficiency. I certainly have never had a doctor test me for it. I just started taking Vitamin D-3 because I was having to cut back on eating live raw lobster and Dungeness crabs. I figured I might should try some supplements, since I wasn't getting those foods.
I bet not many people on here have even been tested for Vitamin D deficiency, but I bet a whole lot of people here are deficient in Vitamin D, particularly those who are in more northern climates.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Thank you, I was just about to when I saw your post. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: My point is that natural remedies should be tried and studied first. Is that not obvious, in a common sense sort of way?
Why? Plenty of things that are natural AREN'T good for you. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it works, that it is good for you, or that it comes in measurable does in plant form.
A ton of our medicines COME from natural sources. We find out WHY they work, what causes the desired effects, and then find a way to produce that part of it, without the parts that have no effect.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I bet a whole lot of people here are deficient in Vitamin D, particularly those who are in more northern climates.
Doubtful, considering the number of things that are fortified with it.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by steven: I bet a whole lot of people here are deficient in Vitamin D, particularly those who are in more northern climates.
Doubtful, considering the number of things that are fortified with it.
I don't see anybody else coming forward, saying they've been tested. Some people don't eat much dairy, and that's, AFAIK, the main method of supplementation.
At least, clearly, I was very deficient, because I saw such improvements in my health, so fast. I doubt I'm the only one.
Never mind all that, though. WE know Vitamin D-3 has tremendous usefulness when used correctly. Deficiency is implicated in a number of different cancers, as well as other major diseases. What needs to be done is more research in treating these kinds of diseases nutritionally as well as with other methods, simultaneously. How many cancer patients are tested for Vitamin D-3 deficiency, and told to take a supplement? I haven't heard of it, and I've had several family members with cancer. Besides all that, everybody with a family history of any of the cancers that are associated with Vitamin D-3 deficiency should be getting tested to make sure they don't have a deficiency, and supplementing if they do. How many doctors talk to their patients about this? Yeah, not many. Not only that, having good D-3 levels can (at least for me) improve health and functioning in unexpected ways. Who doesn't like to be able to get a good night's sleep? If I take a 5,000 IU D-3 softgel every other night or so, I am pretty much guaranteed to sleep through the night. That's extremely valuable...and that's without weird side effects like sleepwalking (with Ambien), or extreme grogginess, etc..
I have other stories from friends who've tried various supplements and had similar improvements, from B vitamins to Vitamin A, etc. I think it's a vastly neglected area of medical science, personally. But, you know, whatever.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Vitamin D deficiency is fairly uncommon in otherwise healthy adults living in developed countries. So most doctors would not test for it unless there were symptoms, other signs of malnutrition, etc. (I believe one exception is the elderly, but they more frequently have nutrition issues in general.)
quote:At least, clearly, I was very deficient, because I saw such improvements in my health, so fast.
Repeat after me: correlation is NOT causation. Anecdote is not the same as data.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I bet a whole lot of people here are deficient in Vitamin D, particularly those who are in more northern climates.
According to actual scientific data and not errant alternative-diet-fad postulation: no, not really. If that were true, we'd see a lot of stories about how the hatrack peoples are beset by rickets and osteomalacia.
quote:At least, clearly, I was very deficient, because I saw such improvements in my health, so fast.
post hoc ergo propter hoc, eh?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Vitamin D deficiency is fairly uncommon in otherwise healthy adults living in developed countries. So most doctors would not test for it unless there were symptoms, other signs of malnutrition, etc. (I believe one exception is the elderly, but they more frequently have nutrition issues in general.)
quote:At least, clearly, I was very deficient, because I saw such improvements in my health, so fast.
Repeat after me: correlation is NOT causation. Anecdote is not the same as data.
Yes, rivka, I KNOW that correlation does not always equal causation. You say it a lot, like you think your brain somehow works better than everyone else's here, but I definitely get the idea. The reasons I know that it's the D-3 that's doing the job is because
1. I tried another brand, and it failed utterly. Plaque on my teeth, disturbed sleep, etc. In this case, it was the Carlson's D drops that failed. I've only tried two types, the Now brand softgels, and the Carlson's, so I can't say one way or the other about other brands.
2. Every time I slack off on the Vitamin D, I start noticing sleep disturbances and extra tooth plaque. Every time. I've been on the D-3 for over a year now, and I have slacked off at least 10 times or more, enough to notice plaque and sleep problems. Every single time I take some more D-3, it corrects both those issues immediately, within 24 hours or less.
3. I have noticed that if I get a LOT of sun, I also tend to sleep better. A LOT. A ridiculous amount for someone of my skin tone. This fact makes me think either I don't process Vit. D very well, or don't store it well.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: According to actual scientific data and not errant alternative-diet-fad postulation: no, not really. If that were true, we'd see a lot of stories about how the hatrack peoples are beset by rickets and osteomalacia.
I've got two thoughts on that.
1. I think I actually had rickets as a child. My lower leg bones are noticeably curved. I think it's because I either have trouble making, using, or storing Vit. D.
2. Vitamin D deficiency can still cause health problems even if it's not severe enough to cause rickets, etc. Just because a certain blood level of Vit. D is enough to prevent rickets doesn't mean that a higher blood level wouldn't be ideal, in terms of cancer prevention and preventing other diseases. The Vitamin D council has some good articles about this sort of thing. The Vitamin D council Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: You say it a lot
It seems to be necessary.
quote:Originally posted by steven: but I definitely get the idea.
Your response proves you do not.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by steven: You say it a lot
It seems to be necessary.
quote:Originally posted by steven: but I definitely get the idea.
Your response proves you do not.
Oh dear, what would we ever do without you, your oft-repeated statements, and your eyeroll smilies?
OK, you DO realize that common sense says, based on what I have experienced, that the supplement I'm taking is probably causing the effects I'm noticing, right? It might not be 100% proof, but that's not what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that it's the most likely explanation, based on what has happened so far. That's all I ever claimed. Was that not clear?
Also, in other news, I know quite a bit more about the subject. Feel free to pick nits, but recognize that I've got studies and data that I'm happy to link to. I'm only using myself as an example, not proof of widespread Vitamin D deficiency. Again, I thought that was obvious, but maybe not.
Recently the recommended blood levels for Vitamin D were raised. It's becoming more and more recognized that it's a crucial nutrient, and that the blood levels that prevent rickets are not necessarily high enough to be ideal.
I say anybody is safe to try a couple of 1,000 IU softgels daily for 3-4 days. I know the Now brand works. If you don't notice immediate effects, you may not be deficient.
What-the-heck-ever. Do what you want, but don't torture me just because I take Vitamin D. I shouldn't even have to make such a request. If it's working for me, then it's working.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: 1. I think I actually had rickets as a child. My lower leg bones are noticeably curved. I think it's because I either have trouble making, using, or storing Vit. D.
I don't think you're qualified for diagnosing yourself. Especially on such tenuous data.
quote:2. Vitamin D deficiency can still cause health problems even if it's not severe enough to cause rickets, etc. Just because a certain blood level of Vit. D is enough to prevent rickets doesn't mean that a higher blood level wouldn't be ideal, in terms of cancer prevention and preventing other diseases.
What I said was that if vitamin D deficiency was at a level as high as you claimed, the overt effects of the higher end of that particular malady would be extremely noticeably present, as opposed to greatly uncommon. The associations you make for vitamin D deficiency in modern nations don't relate to any meaningful data we have on the actual prevalence of its deficiency in western a/o high income country diets.
That's because the deficiency largely isn't there. If it were a notable health concern, it would have outlying effects, like iodine deficiencies in poor countries. The phenomenon of a person having a vitamin D deficiency in the United States is uncommon enough that a diet poor enough to allow you to pull off that stunt would most likely have more noticeable health malady on top of it. There will be occasional people with actual issues with vitamin d, but given the actual prevalence of such a specific disorder, it makes perfect sense to leave such an issue to be a diagnosis of exclusion.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by steven: 1. I think I actually had rickets as a child. My lower leg bones are noticeably curved. I think it's because I either have trouble making, using, or storing Vit. D.
I don't think you're qualified for diagnosing yourself. Especially on such tenuous data.
But, Samp, the blood tests showed-- oh, wait.
Right, no blood tests. No externally-validated measures at all.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by steven: 1. I think I actually had rickets as a child. My lower leg bones are noticeably curved. I think it's because I either have trouble making, using, or storing Vit. D.
I don't think you're qualified for diagnosing yourself. Especially on such tenuous data.
But, Samp, the blood tests showed-- oh, wait.
Right, no blood tests. No externally-validated measures at all.
Actually, I did have a blood test. However, it was 8 months after I started supplementing. It actually showed that my levels were on the high side, so I cut back a little. The truth is, I notice that I have the least plaque on my teeth and the best quality of sleep when I'm not taking too much OR too little. It's just as possible, in my experience, to overdo it. However, Vitamin D-3 needs vary widely, depending on sun exposure, skin color, diet, medications, etc. and there's very little research and attention paid to exactly which drugs and foods interact with vitamin D metabolism. For instance, it appears that Vitamin D and Vitamin A counteract one another, to a certain degree, so that taking more of one balances out an excess of the other. However, there are probably dozens of other interactions, etc. between genetics, drugs, and Vitamin D that could use some research.
Samp--there is a long list of cancers that are associated with Vitamin D-3 deficiency. Would you like a list?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The truth is, I notice that I have the least plaque on my teeth and the best quality of sleep when I'm not taking too much OR too little.
So in fact you have plaque and sleep badly in random episodes. You then either cut back on your supplement, or take some more. After a while your episode will end, and you will say "Ah-hah, supplement adjustment to the rescue again!" Until, of course, the next time.
Your methodology would do any theist proud.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
So I don't know how routine this is, but I went in for a physical, and I didn't mention anything that ought to have prompted an unusual vitamin D test, AFAIK, and the doctor called me back a week later with my blood work results and said I was vitamin D deficient.
I kind of thought they were checking levels for this anytime they did a blood workup.
I bet CT knows.
I have wondered if some people have been listening too much to the skin care advocates who say don't go out in the sun and forgetting that sun has beneficial effects too. But I don't know - I usually see people outside.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I kind of thought they were checking levels for this anytime they did a blood workup.
It doesn't seem to be part of any standard panels that I could find lists of tests for. But it may be something that some physicians check routinely, or in patients over a certain age, or with certain other criteria.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I did tell him I was sleeping poorly. Maybe he knows steven.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I also had routine blood work that the D was part of. I wasn't quite severly deficient, but I was about .4 points away.
I started making fruit smoothies for breakfast and dessert. Now I just have them with breakfast. I'm not sure if it's that or the corn syrup allergy, but between the two I feel amazingly better.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
My doctor seemed to think it was highly unusual to test my Vitamin D levels.
King of Men, dude, I don't know what to tell you. It is pretty much as predictable as the sunrise that, if I've been sleeping poorly and my teeth are all plaque-y, and I haven't been taking any D-3 for 3-4 days, I can take 5 or 10K IU and sleep like a baby that night, and also be more calm the next day, as well as having less plaque. I know when a supplement is working. I've tried a number of different ones, and they effects vary widely, and I do mean widely, even just between brands. This is most definitely NOT the reasoning of a theist. I went on a supplement-testing craze last year, and bone meal (any brand) and the Now brand Vit. D-3 both had excellent effects. Nobody TOLD me that they were better. I just basically went down the row in the health food store, trying one by one. I did vitamin C (noticed nothing), Vitamin A (already getting enough, I realized, and noticed nothing), magnesium (calming, but makes the stools loose, and tastes awful), and several others. I tried different brands, etc., etc., ad nauseam. It just happened to be those two supplements, D-3 and bone meal, that produced the effects I am happy with. My method was nothing but trial and error. I didn't even have a hypothesis, other than "let's see what THIS does *gulp*".
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Of course you had a hypothesis, to wit, "I'm deficient in something". Not having an explicit hypothesis is not a selling point for the rationality of your strategy. Tell me, how do you distinguish between the explanations "Waiting a bit works", "Vitamin D works", and "The placebo effect works"? You don't, any more than the theist "testing" his prayers does.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Wired's Placebo Article appears to accurately describe the issues with all medications/placebos and their effects.
I'm going to ascribe your wonderful transformations to placebo effect, steven.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Of course you had a hypothesis, to wit, "I'm deficient in something". Not having an explicit hypothesis is not a selling point for the rationality of your strategy. Tell me, how do you distinguish between the explanations "Waiting a bit works", "Vitamin D works", and "The placebo effect works"? You don't, any more than the theist "testing" his prayers does.
Plaque on my teeth is quite measurable, I assure you. I mean, that's one heck of a placebo effect, if it actually changes how much plaque deposits on my teeth.
Seriously, that placebo effect is quite a bad Mamma-jamma. Wooo! He da bidness.
Seriously, I had really annoying plaque for at least a year or more, before I started using the D-3. I'd be scraping and scraping with my fingernail after eating. Now, as long as I take the D-3, it's not really very much of a problem. What do you want me to do, take pictures? Maybe use some calipers on the plaque? Dude, I KNOW when there's more or less plaque on my teeth, just like I know everything else going on in my mouth. I can feel it with my tongue. The tongue's always in there. It's not in your mouth, for pete's sake. It's in mine. Or would you like to test that too? Is that the belief of a theist?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So I see you've never heard of confirmation bias, either. So, to be blunt, yes, you should indeed take pictures. And get them evaluated by someone else. Self-reporting is a notoriously bad way to measure the efficiency of medicines.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Pictures? No, because plaque is white, and so are my teeth. I can see maybe scraping the plaque off my teeth, and measuring how much.
They used to make some little red chewable tablets that would show you how much plaque you had on your teeth. You would chew up the tablets, and the red dye would stick to the plaque. I don't know if they still make them. IIRC, they stopped, but don't quote me on that. Does anybody know? Those might be useful.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I wasn't the one to suggest pictures, you were. The point is that you are not a reliable observer, no, not even of the amount of plaque on your teeth.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I wasn't the one to suggest pictures, you were. The point is that you are not a reliable observer, no, not even of the amount of plaque on your teeth.
Wonderful. You're starting to sound like Tresopax.
And yes I am a reliable observer of plaque on my teeth. I have no bias here. I didn't even know that Vitamin D-3 could reduce plaque, and I'm still suspicious that it would work on other people. I might have a fairly unique body chemistry as far as Vitamin D-3 goes. I don't know. I know it works for me. You are certainly more than free to test it. I'm saying all this out of the general goodness of my heart. I don't sell any supplements.
The whole process was that, several months after starting the D-3 supplement, I happened to notice that I didn't need to scrape my teeth off all the time. Then, I started noticing that every time I slacked off on the D-3, the plaque increased, and there I was, scrapey-scrapey.
Seriously, if you can actually find a REASON for my non-existent bias, I'll listen. I'll be more than happy to. Seriously, even a far-out one might do. Or it might just entertain me.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Thank you, Dobbie. I read it's also possible to get them at the local drugstore. Those might be just the ticket, although I'm not sure they would show the depth of the plaque. However, I do notice that the plaque is not just deeper, but covers more of the tooth, when I'm not eating the D-3. I think, anyway.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I did tell him I was sleeping poorly.
And he presumably did a physical exam, which may have indicated some other things that concerned him enough to do a vitamin/mineral workup. I doubt he was testing just for vitamin D, although it's certainly possible.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I didn't think my scurvy was quite that advanced yet.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that certain vitamin deficiencies (which you may not be aware that you have) have an adverse affect to your health, which then vanishes following consumption of that vitamin.
After all, I suspect we all "self-medicate" to a certain extent-- that is to say, we, like all animals are somewhat aware of what kind of food we need. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this-- I believe it was tried with rats or mice or something).
It's also possible that steven does have a problem with a certain vitamin. After all, some people are more prone to anaemia than others. Some people need to eat more than others etc. These are pretty well documented facts.
I don't think vitamins really fall into the kind of natural supplements that should be re-examined. We know that vitamins are necessary to our health and so, yes, although they do occur naturally in our foodstuffs, they have a recognized health benefit.
I don't particularly recommend steven's method, though. Randomly consuming off-the-shelf vitamins and supplements to see what works seems like it could be unhealthy.
I'm curious as to why only one brand of vitamin D-3 (allegedly) works for steven, though.
As for Bone Meal, I've never heard of it being used as an edible supplement. When I was a kid and we were using it as a fertilizer I was always told not to touch it much and to wash my hands (according to wikipedia because of a lead and other toxic metal scare). Are you eating it for the calcium content, steven?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself; and you are the easiest person to fool." Feynman's dictum holds as much for vitamins as for psychology, space shuttles, and prayer.
Posted by Luna 9 (Member # 11326) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I don't think vitamins really fall into the kind of natural supplements that should be re-examined. We know that vitamins are necessary to our health and so, yes, although they do occur naturally in our foodstuffs, they have a recognized health benefit.
I don't particularly recommend steven's method, though. Randomly consuming off-the-shelf vitamins and supplements to see what works seems like it could be unhealthy.
I'm curious as to why only one brand of vitamin D-3 (allegedly) works for steven, though.
As for Bone Meal, I've never heard of it being used as an edible supplement. When I was a kid and we were using it as a fertilizer I was always told not to touch it much and to wash my hands (according to wikipedia because of a lead and other toxic metal scare). Are you eating it for the calcium content, steven?
First, Teshi, dosage is pretty well-regulated. Consuming the recommended dosages, for normal people, of off-the-shelf vitamin supplements is rarely a real problem. If someone's diet is heavily oversupplied with a particular vitamin, then they would find themselves even more overbalanced in that direction, but that's where paying attention comes in. It's mainly when someone does many times the recommended daily dosages, for months at a time, that can start to cause real imbalances. I do take more than the recommended dosage, but I do get tested, and I also pay attention to what's happening with my health. Most people need to be more attentive to their health than currently.
I don't really know that it's just 1 brand of D-3. I've only carefully tested 2 brands. I've taken several other brands, but I haven't bothered to test any other brands carefully, because I've found one that works well. My guess is that the Carlson's contains very little actual D-3 at all, but I've never bothered to have it tested. Testing is expensive, and I don't feel like spending my funds on something like that. The whole reason I even tried Carlson's is because it's a liquid in a jar, instead of liquid in a softgel. I think Now was the first brand I really tried, and it worked fast.
Bone meal is safe. It did used to have much more lead, back before you were even born, because we still used leaded gasoline, but that was nearly 30 years ago. All the bone meal I buy is tested for lead, and is approved for human consumption. I do eat it for the calcium, and it works way better for controlling my tooth sensitivity than any other calcium supplement I've tried, and I've tried at least 8 or 10 different ones, and tested them carefully. It's also very calming, as is magnesium, and I recommend supplementing both, in moderation and in balance with each other.
Posted by Luna 9 (Member # 11326) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself; and you are the easiest person to fool." Feynman's dictum holds as much for vitamins as for psychology, space shuttles, and prayer.
Yes, and I've been fighting my way through the jungles of terrible nutritional information for about a decade. I've got a few scars from those forays, and I've learned a good deal. Fooling me re: nutrition is a great deal harder than fooling the average person, because I am pretty aware of all the fads out there, and I've actually tried quite a few of them, before settling on the nearly-all-raw, non-vegan diet. My diet still changes, though, and I'm experimenting constantly, and, most importantly, comparing notes constantly with dozens of others who research this stuff. I promise you, the average IQ of the people who eat the way I do is comparable to the average IQ of Hatrack. These people aren't even remotely dummies, and they can back up how they eat, not only with research into the biochemistry, but also into bone analysis of ancient humans (to determine their diet) and scads of personal experience and anecdotal evidence. The way I eat works, and if it doesn't, I change it. Just in the 9 years or so since I first posted here, I've gone from 100% raw pretty vegan, to 100% raw very vegan, to 100% raw fruitarian, to 80% raw with grains non-vegan, to 100% raw very-low-carb/high-fat non-vegan, to where I am now, which is about 98% raw moderately high-fat non-vegan.
I've tested dozens of "superfoods" on myself, and collected anecdotal data on hundreds of others who try experiments with diet, as well as reading the necessary biochemistry and bone analysis research. I've tried Chinese herbs, coconut oil, palm oil, olive oil, flax oil, honeycomb, goji berries, all the vitamins and minerals, kefir, kombucha...you name it, I've either tried it, or know at least 5 people who have,and tested it fairly carefully.
My diet is in pretty much total accord with biochemistry, ancient human bone analysis, anecdotal data from others, and my own personal experience. It works. The only things I might change are eating more or less of specific foods that fit the mostly-raw non-vegan non-processed paradigm. This is where I've settled with it, because it works. Individual foods and supplements are up for argument, both for individuals and everybody, but the mostly-raw non-vegan non-processed way works, I humbly submit. It can actually even taste good, and not be super-expensive, in some cases, depending on what you have access to, and how much legwork and local research you can do.
I certainly encourage people to do their own research. I was hoping that, when I came back to Hatrack about 4 years ago, I might find some folks who had done some serious research into diet, and could trade knowledge/info with me.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
That was me, BTW. Skyler was here yesterday afternoon, and apparently logged in, and forgot to log out, and I missed the fact that I was logged in under her name. LOL
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)