In book shops & health stores I think it needs mention that alternative health needs stating such... - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

In book shops & health stores I think it needs mention that alternative health needs stating such...
in Global

In book shops and health stores I think it needs mentioning that alternative health needs to be stated as such. The other day I was looking in a book shop at the health section where there were all sorts of information where either no or very little scientific evidence existed to support the information.

In addition to this I also once remember having a discussion with a sales assistant in a health food store that tried telling me things about nutrition which she claimed were wrong. But what she was claiming was wrong was clinically accepted, tried and tested data that had been tested for decades! This kind of stuff was also approved and/or documented by official medical boards. Some stuff she was saying was actually in contrast to multiple medical professionals  She also said that she knew this stuff because of doing some online nutrition course.

Another thing is that I have also witnessed in some self-help books how some authors are quite crafty. What they do is point out some stuff which actually is backed up by at least a certain amount of science research but, the catch is that what they're promoting isn't.

The bottom line is that when it comes to health the public need to be made clear as to what actually has a strong scientific medical consensus, and what doesn't. Alternative health material should not be on the same par as strongly accepted scientifically based health material that came about via decades upon decades of research and practical application. Furthermore, People who are not medically qualified should be giving advice to people, especially sales assistants in health food stores.

The following consists of some great reference material, some free, some premium:


Plaffelvohfenpiloteer











Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Listen to everything critically and make your own mind up. The science of nutrition is poorly understood and in my experience there are lots of claims the mainstream make that are patently false.

    Perhaps the best example is the idea that we should mostly eat carbohydrates. This is flat out wrong and is simultaneously causing obesity and malnutrition. The reason for this is that carbohydrates are very high in calories relative to their vitamin and mineral content. Of course we should eat some carbohydrates, but recommending them as the dominant macro-nutrient is profoundly ignorant and downright harmful. This is even worse when we go into the effects of such a diet on the balance of gut flora.

    As a result, there must be space for alternative health claims to be freely distributed and discussed. The mainstream perspective is very often not just wrong, but as in the case above, precisely the opposite of what is right. To needlessly stifle such innovation would be counterproductive.
  • Health is based on one thing, following what nature has outlined for us.

  • A multicoloured and varied eating plan should be enough to suffice for most people.

    As for carbohydrates a lot of people tend to confuse them as being bad for us which is not actually the case. Consequently, this has also lead to a market of high protein fad diets being sold to gullible public, which is basically nothing short of BS to be blunt. There are two different types of carbs; refined, and whole carbs. It's too much of the refined carbs that can be bad for health; not all carbs in general. Here are a couple of eat well guide references medically backed up: https://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Documents/The-Eatwell-Guide-2016.pdf, https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/basics/healthy-diets/hlv-20049477

    As for alternative health claims I am not arguing that there should be no space for them, but they need to be made clear that there precisely that; alternative health claims with very little or no evidence to support them. They should also not be being sold in placed next to stuff that is medically accepted that is based on substantial evidence. People should also be warned to speak to their Doctor before embarking on any alternative health regime, as for some people with certain conditions this could prove potentially fatal!








  • I do not think consensus is important. There have been countless instances of medical scientific consensus turning out to be wrong in light of the new data, or reconsideration of old data.

    Personally, when choosing medicine, I base my judgment more on the real life data, than on what scientists claim in their labs to be true. As a scientist myself, I understand well how careful we must be when translating our theories into real world applications.

    In my opinion, you should not listen to salesmen when it comes to anything, and whenever you see a claim in a book that seems, at the very least, a bit unfounded - be very skeptical of it and look for the data for yourself. I have read a lot of, for example, self-help books in my life, and a lot of the authors used very dubious evidence to support their ideas. Skeptic by nature, I always looked for further proof, and many times was left disappointed.

    My point is that, in my opinion, you should not rely on book and drug stores to do this work for you. Research the matter yourself, find out what books and medicine is likely to give you the result you desire, purchase them and be very attentive to how you use them. I would even go further and suggest that you do not blindly follow the "recommended use" guidelines on the medicine you purchase (a lot of it is written in a way to minimize the chance of potential lawsuits, while undermining the potential of the medicine), but rather do some research to understand how different components affect your health, and to make a qualified decision on whether to follow the guidelines, or alter them some.

    This sounds like a lot of work, but this is how life is: you have to put in a lot of effort to really get the best out of this world. If you always rely on secondary sources to tell you what you should do to be more healthy, then chances are you will be played, at least, a few times. You do not have to be a qualified doctor to be able to analyse some data superficially and find out if certain claims are plausible or not. Of course, nothing compares to the judgment of an expert, but bear in mind that different experts have different goals and will not always make accurate statements, especially when it comes to the financial side of the issue.
  • MayCaesar said:
    I do not think consensus is important. There have been countless instances of medical scientific consensus turning out to be wrong in light of the new data, or reconsideration of old data.
    Are you sure you know what a medical scientific consensus is? Let's give you an example: A patient goes into hospital to have treatment for a suspected brain tumour. Several consultants discuss among themselves the best course of action while also evaluating scans, and then finally they are in agreement that brain surgery is the best option; this is a medical scientific consensus and it's highly unlikely to be wrong. This medical consensus isn't about some scientists doing a bit of research here and there, and then putting and sticking a label on something; this consensus came about via decades of strict research and real world practical application.

    Furthermore, while things do at times go wrong in the medical world, this is actually very rare, and is nothing to do with a whole medical consensus being wrong. There may however be lots of media coverage on specific rare incidences which might make it feel as there are countless incidence where medical physicians turned out to be wrong; but this is in actuality very rare.

    Also, medical consensus is important, rightly so. Hence, why we also have medical boards such as the UK NICE and the US FDA.

    In fact, the quote of yours above is something I would expect to see in an alternative medical book lacking in any degree of evidential support. I would urge the public to take these kinds of quotes with a huge pinch of salt, and advise consulting with your physician, as some alternative medical things could prove to be potentially fatal for some people. 

    Personally, when choosing medicine, I base my judgment more on the real life data, than on what scientists claim in their labs to be true. As a scientist myself, I understand well how careful we must be when translating our theories into real world applications.
    I am not sure what you mean by this, because a huge part of medical science research is based on real life data. Secondly, you seem to be using epistemically loaded language by first downplaying science's role in medicine, and at the same time up-playing yourself by claiming to be a scientist; this doesn't make much sense. Thirdly, medical science is not about just doing a few surveys on something here and there, and then labelling something as true or false; that's not how real medical science works. Furthermore, I am also familiar with other scientists that are also in agreement that consensus is important, they also realize that while they may be literate in their own branch of science that doesn't make them a scientist in all branches of science, and they also concede that when it comes to other fields they are not familiar with they at times they do have to defer a certain degree to that scientific authority.

    One has to ask themselves the following question: If a brain surgeon told you that you need surgery to save your life who would you be more likely to rely on, the 20+ year experienced Brain Surgeon that has spent decades of research and real world practical application performing thousands of surgery, or the alternative health article that you read in a random online article that claimed all brain surgery was a government conspiracy. I know what I would choose.





    Plaffelvohfen








  • maxx said:
    Health is based on one thing, following what nature has outlined for us.
    Care to elaborate?








  • @ZeusAres42 "As for carbohydrates a lot of people tend to confuse them as being bad for us which is not actually the case."

    I never said they were, I said that we shouldn't eat mostly carbohydrates, as is recommended (RDA/DRI macros are 66% carbohydrates).

    "Consequently, this has also lead to a market of high protein fad diets being sold to gullible public, which is basically nothing short of BS to be blunt."

    Any male who is physically active should have higher protein intakes than 65g/day, for they have a greater need to repair and build muscle (mainstream knowledge). Eating a high protein diet without such a need is indeed unnecessary, though.

    "There are two different types of carbs; refined, and whole carbs. It's too much of the refined carbs that can be bad for health; not all carbs in general."

    Refined carbs are certainly worse, once again though I'm not saying that carbs are bad, I'm saying that it shouldn't be the overwhelming majority of one's diet.

    "Here are a couple of eat well guide references medically backed up..."

    Neither source gives DRIs/RDAs, rather they essentially just tell us to eat a variety of foods. I completely agree with this statement. What I don't agree with is that the recommended 270g carbohydrates (90g of which sugars), 70g fats, 65g protein is a balanced diet, but neither source actually made such a claim.

    Evolutionarily speaking, it is only very recently that we have been able to grind down whole-grains to make wholegrain bread, for example (white bread would be the refined version). As such, it does not make sense that we would have evolved to eat a diet that is high in grains (not even whole-grains). Rather, we would have eaten mostly vegetables, fruits, nuts and meat. Of course, this observation is entirely secondary to my initial claim that high carbohydrate foods are lower in micronutrients per calorie than other foods.
    ZeusAres42

  • Fair enough. And yes, eat a variety of foods is the best advice that anyone can give to at least most average people I would say. I mean if you have no allergies, no other medical conditions than eating a balanced diet should suffice.








  • piloteerpiloteer 523 Pts
    edited September 2019
    WinstonC said:
    Listen to everything critically and make your own mind up. The science of nutrition is poorly understood and in my experience there are lots of claims the mainstream make that are patently false.

    Perhaps the best example is the idea that we should mostly eat carbohydrates. This is flat out wrong and is simultaneously causing obesity and malnutrition. The reason for this is that carbohydrates are very high in calories relative to their vitamin and mineral content. Of course we should eat some carbohydrates, but recommending them as the dominant macro-nutrient is profoundly ignorant and downright harmful. This is even worse when we go into the effects of such a diet on the balance of gut flora.

    As a result, there must be space for alternative health claims to be freely distributed and discussed. The mainstream perspective is very often not just wrong, but as in the case above, precisely the opposite of what is right. To needlessly stifle such innovation would be counterproductive.
    "@WinstonC

    When people say "alternative" in front of the word health, it's so they don't have to say what it really is. WRONG health!!! It is not innovative in any way, shape, or form. It's disinformation and nothing more. Your assertion that we are somehow genetically similar to our hunter gatherer ancestors is blatantly false. Since the gene that is known to give people blue eyes only appeared within the last 6,000 to 10,000 years, then I'm sure we could have adapted a gene that makes us lactose tolerant, and in fact we did. Within a 7,000 years span, humans have evolved a gene with an encoded enzyme known as lactase. Before that 7,000 year span, infants were the only ones with the enzyme because it would shut down in adulthood. Now we have evolved to be lactose tolerant for the duration of our lives. This all took place since the beginning of Egyptian society, so that puts it way past the realm of stone age humans, and we continue to evolve.

     You seem to think that popular science suggests that we eat capn crunch to make up our daily carb intake, but nobody is suggesting any such thing. You also made the claim that it is carbohydrates that causes obesity and malnutrition, but you provided no evidence to back that claim. It's lack of exercise and overly processed sugary foods that are the main culprits. Unprocessed wheat and grains are rich in fiber. Our bodies do not digest fiber, so any fiber in whole grains or wheat is subtracted from the carbohydrates and essentially dilutes the effects of the carbs on the body. I have to agree with ZeusAres. Paleo propagandists should be singled out as pseudo science and their literature should not be placed amongst informative literature. 


    "@Whiteflame you're needed here!!!!!!!
    ZeusAres42
  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    edited September 2019
    @piloteer

    "Your assertion that we are somehow genetically similar to our hunter gatherer ancestors is blatantly false."

    Of course we are "somehow genetically similar" to them. I think you mean to say that we aren't genetically identical.

    "Within a 7,000 years span, humans have evolved a gene with an encoded enzyme known as lactase."

    Interestingly, many ethnicities (~10%) are still completely lactose intolerant, moreover, roughly a third of people are partially lactose intolerant and experience some negative symptoms from ingesting lactose (1).

    "This all took place since the beginning of Egyptian society, so that puts it way past the realm of stone age humans, and we continue to evolve."

    Here's the problem; evolution takes place over millions of years, not thousands. Of course we have adapted to our more recent environment, and there have been events which greatly shaped human genetics over the last 10,000 years. This does not erase the millions of years of adaptation which preceded it, however.

    "You seem to think that popular science suggests that we eat capn crunch to make up our daily carb intake, but nobody is suggesting any such thing."

    I already discussed the distinction between refined and whole carbs with ZeusAres42, so on this point I refer you to what I said there. Once again, I've never stated that we shouldn't eat whole carbs, simply that we shouldn't eat whole carbs as the overwhelming majority of our diet (66% of DRI/RDA).

    "You also made the claim that it is carbohydrates that causes obesity and malnutrition, but you provided no evidence to back that claim."

    High carbohydrate foods are very high in calories relative to their micronutrient content. Therefore, if one eats primarily carbohydrates (as is recommended) then they are likely to eat too many calories while also being relatively deprived of micronutrients. This means that one will be hungry (because of micronutrient cravings) while having already eaten more calories than they need.

    This is not even to touch on the effects on the composition of one's gut flora and the effect that has on the foods one craves (2). If what you eat is overwhelmingly carbohydrates then you will increase the proportion of bacteria in your gut that like to eat carbohydrates. This is because it is a more favorable environment for them that other bacteria. In turn, this would increase your cravings for high carbohydrate foods while decreasing your cravings for other foods.

    "It's lack of exercise and overly processed sugary foods that are the main culprits."

    I can agree that they are certainly major contributors. Of course, lack of exercise isn't as much of an issue if your caloric intake is lowered.

    "Unprocessed wheat and grains are rich in fiber. Our bodies do not digest fiber, so any fiber in whole grains or wheat is subtracted from the carbohydrates and essentially dilutes the effects of the carbs on the body."

    Precisely where are you sourcing the claim that "any fiber in whole grains or wheat is subtracted from the carbohydrates" from? Of course fibre is good for us and slows down digestion, but it doesn't "subtract from the carbohydrates". Note also that I never said we shouldn't eat carbohydrates, simply that they shouldn't be the overwhelming majority of our diet (as recommended).

    "I have to agree with ZeusAres. Paleo propagandists should be singled out as pseudo science and their literature should not be placed amongst informative literature. "

    He never said that and it seems to me that we ended our discussion amicably.

    Sources:
    (1) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/lactose-tolerance-and-human-evolution-56187902/
    (2) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-gut-bacteria-tell-their-hosts-what-to-eat/
    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 523 Pts
    edited September 2019
    WinstonC said:
    @piloteer

    "Your assertion that we are somehow genetically similar to our hunter gatherer ancestors is blatantly false."

    Of course we are "somehow genetically similar" to them. I think you mean to say that we aren't genetically identical.

    "Within a 7,000 years span, humans have evolved a gene with an encoded enzyme known as lactase."

    Interestingly, many ethnicities (~10%) are still completely lactose intolerant, moreover, roughly a third of people are partially lactose intolerant and experience some negative symptoms from ingesting lactose (1).

    "This all took place since the beginning of Egyptian society, so that puts it way past the realm of stone age humans, and we continue to evolve."

    Here's the problem; evolution takes place over millions of years, not thousands. Of course we have adapted to our more recent environment, and there have been events which greatly shaped human genetics over the last 10,000 years. This does not erase the millions of years of adaptation which preceded it, however.

    "You seem to think that popular science suggests that we eat capn crunch to make up our daily carb intake, but nobody is suggesting any such thing."

    I already discussed the distinction between refined and whole carbs with ZeusAres42, so on this point I refer you to what I said there. Once again, I've never stated that we shouldn't eat whole carbs, simply that we shouldn't eat whole carbs as the overwhelming majority of our diet (66% of DRI/RDA).

    "You also made the claim that it is carbohydrates that causes obesity and malnutrition, but you provided no evidence to back that claim."

    High carbohydrate foods are very high in calories relative to their micronutrient content. Therefore, if one eats primarily carbohydrates (as is recommended) then they are likely to eat too many calories while also being relatively deprived of micronutrients. This means that one will be hungry (because of micronutrient cravings) while having already eaten more calories than they need.

    This is not even to touch on the effects on the composition of one's gut flora and the effect that has on the foods one craves (2). If what you eat is overwhelmingly carbohydrates then you will increase the proportion of bacteria in your gut that like to eat carbohydrates. This is because it is a more favorable environment for them that other bacteria. In turn, this would increase your cravings for high carbohydrate foods while decreasing your cravings for other foods.

    "It's lack of exercise and overly processed sugary foods that are the main culprits."

    I can agree that they are certainly major contributors. Of course, lack of exercise isn't as much of an issue if your caloric intake is lowered.

    "Unprocessed wheat and grains are rich in fiber. Our bodies do not digest fiber, so any fiber in whole grains or wheat is subtracted from the carbohydrates and essentially dilutes the effects of the carbs on the body."

    Precisely where are you sourcing the claim that "any fiber in whole grains or wheat is subtracted from the carbohydrates" from? Of course fibre is good for us and slows down digestion, but it doesn't "subtract from the carbohydrates". Note also that I never said we shouldn't eat carbohydrates, simply that they shouldn't be the overwhelming majority of our diet (as recommended).

    "I have to agree with ZeusAres. Paleo propagandists should be singled out as pseudo science and their literature should not be placed amongst informative literature. "

    He never said that and it seems to me that we ended our discussion amicably.

    Sources:
    (1) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/lactose-tolerance-and-human-evolution-56187902/
    (2) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-gut-bacteria-tell-their-hosts-what-to-eat/
    "@WinstonC

    It's rather peculiar how you argued that "evolution takes place over millions of years, not thousands", but in the very next sentence you demonstrate exactly why that's incorrect. Adapting to our "more recent environment" is exactly how evolution happens, and "events which greatly shaped human genetics over the last 10,000 years", is evidence of evolutions process, because evolution happens whenever a baby is born. Evolution is not something that can only be observed over a million year span, it can happen in far less than a million years, and the articles you provided both demonstrate that.

    Your argument about the chemical makeup of our stomachs isn't beneficial to you at all, and really just kinda gross. It hasn't demonstrated that dietary recommendations about carbohydrates is inaccurate. It just shows how our guts work, and I really didn't need to read about our stomach acids because now I won't be able to eat anything at all for the rest of the day. Thanx for that.  


    https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/can-fiber-digested-body-4829.html
    ^^^^ This article explains that our bodies do not digest fiber, but it also shows us why fiber is an important part of our diet. It also explains how fibers not only keep down our carbohydrate intake, but our calorie intake, and they keep us feeling full for longer times than the sugars in carbohydrates do. Fibers are found in plant based foods like vegetables, fruit, and cereal crops (whole wheat/whole grains).  

          https://dtc.ucsf.edu/living-with-diabetes/diet-and-nutrition/understanding-carbohydrates/counting-carbohydrates/learning-to-read-labels/understanding-fiber/#targetText=On Nutrition Facts food labels,fiber from the total carbohydrate. 

    https://www.fiberfacts.org/fibers-count-calories-carbohydrates/
    ^^^^These articles explain that fibers are subtracted from the carbohydrates that we eat. If you have any information about how 45% to 65% of our diet shouldn't consist of carbohydrates and why we should be deprived of our daily fiber intake, please, lets have a look. Until you can provide us with convincing evidence that dietary recommendations about carbohydrates are inaccurate, there's no need to go back to the stomach flora stuff and ruin tomorrows meals for me, right? Your assertions haven't convinced me that the Paleo diet is innovative in any way, or that dietary recommendations based on medical research stifles innovation. Wherever you are getting your information from, it shouldn't be found with the actual dietary information, it would probably be better in tarot shops. 
  • @ZeusAres42

    The ladies who smoke marijuana while pregnant, that's not healthy for an unborn child. 

    I've yet to see any Medical information, that states, that smoking marijuana while pregnant, is a positive practice for an unborn baby to have to live through?

    https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/expert-answers/marijuana-during-pregnancy/faq-20436868

    "What are the effects of use of marijuana during pregnancy?

    Answer From Julie A. Lamppa, C.N.M., R.N.

    Use of marijuana during pregnancy might increase the risk of having a baby that is smaller at birth. It might also slightly increase the risk of stillbirth. Using marijuana during pregnancy can also harm your health. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends against using marijuana during pregnancy."

    "Marijuana is a plant that contains delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and other chemicals that affect the body. When marijuana is smoked or eaten, these chemicals cross the placenta. Research suggests that using marijuana at least weekly during pregnancy increases the risk of giving birth to a baby with a low birth weight — less than 5 1/2 pounds (2,500 grams). While research suggests a small increase in the risk of stillbirth as well, the results couldn't be adjusted to exclude the effects of tobacco use. Further research is needed.

    Use of marijuana during pregnancy can also make you dizzy and alter your judgment, putting you at risk of falls or other injury. Smoking marijuana can damage your lungs and cause breathing problems too.

    If you're considering pregnancy, stop using marijuana before you become pregnant. If you're having trouble with substance use, ask your health care provider for advice or resources to help."

    The above is in regards to your statements.

    "Another thing is that I have also witnessed in some self-help books how some authors are quite crafty. What they do is point out some stuff which actually is backed up by at least a certain amount of science research but, the catch is that what they're promoting isn't.


    The bottom line is that when it comes to health the public need to be made clear as to what actually has a strong scientific medical consensus, and what doesn't. Alternative health material should not be on the same par as strongly accepted scientifically based health material that came about via decades upon decades of research and practical application. Furthermore, People who are not medically qualified should be giving advice to people, especially sales assistants in health food stores."



  • Well, dare I do this. Anyway, yes, TKDB  Mayo clinic is right that is in unhealthy to smoke Marijuana during pregnancy much like with many other things while pregnant. However, I don't really see how that correlates to the theme of this topic. Unless perhaps you once saw an alternative health article online that said smoking Marijuana while pregnant is good for you and your baby?








  • TKDBTKDB 397 Pts
    edited September 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    "In book shops and health stores I think it needs mentioning that alternative health needs to be stated as such. The other day I was looking in a book shop at the health section where there were all sorts of information where either no or very little scientific evidence existed to support the information."

    "However, I don't really see how that correlates to the theme of this topic. Unless perhaps you once saw an alternative health article online that said smoking Marijuana while pregnant is good for you and your baby?"

    I've read plenty of the Pro Marijuana supporters rhetoric online, who claimed to be smoking weed, while debating? 

    I'm guessing, that some have smoked plenty of medical marijuana, while pregnant, because they believe, what the other Marijuana addicts, and illegal marijuana drug dealers, that tell them that because marijuana is natural, and its meant to be smoked, whether you're a pregnant lady, or while being a nurse at work, or a doctor performing surgery with THC, coursing their very veins? 

    I have seen plenty of Magazine Covers, kissing up to some of the Female population in the United States, in regards to Recreational Marijuana, and (Medical Marijuana, being that the Medical Marijuana legalization talk, is a backdoor Con Job, to help get the Recreational Marijuana addicts, their preferred street drug of choice, legalized for some of their homeless living selves.)

    I was in Denver recently, and some of the homeless, near, and along the 16th Mall Road, in Denver, panhandling, and smoking their weed, as the rest of the prosperous Colorado citizens, went to work?

    https://www-inquirer-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.inquirer.com/health/weed-pregnancy-moms-marijuana-pot-cannabis-child-development-20190213.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=#aoh=15698076226855&amp_ct=1569807864414&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.inquirer.com/health/weed-pregnancy-moms-marijuana-pot-cannabis-child-development-20190213.html

    More women using marijuana during pregnancy and breastfeeding, despite warnings and unknowns

  • A great deal of the information regarding health that's available to the public is, unfortunately, wrong.  The reason the misinformation is spread so widely is because of controlling agencies like the FDA who for decades have held legal control over a great deal of what is legally considered "Treatment".  According to the FDA, the only thing that can cure or treat a disease is a "Drug", any natural remedy used to alleviate, treat, help, or cure a disease cannot legally be advertised or described as a treatment or cure.  

    Anyone with a little common sense can understand that things like "Acid reflux disease" can be effectively controlled, treated and in some cases "Cured" with natural remedies like baking soda and water, apple cider vinegar, and ginger.  But if you or I were to begin producing apple cider vinegar tablets and then tell people that the tablets can be used to treat acid reflux disease...you and I could go to jail because of the legal repercussions established by the FDA.  This is why there is very little research published regarding natural remedies, because the research is worthless when the FDA comes along and tells you that it's illegal to publish the research or otherwise suggest that a natural remedy can cure or treat something. 

    A great deal of the reason why has to do with big pharma who have had a strangle-hold on the FDA for decades.  Every year pharmaceutical companies pay the FDA to frontload their new drugs into the approval system to get them onto the shelves faster and every year new drugs kill about 128,000 people as a result of improper testing and unexpected side effects.  The problem here is that by the time the pharmaceutical company gets any serious backlash from the effects of their new drugs, they've already made enough money to pay off any settlements and still have made an obscene amount of profit from the new drug, they rinse and repeat each year.

    Meanwhile natural remedies have a longer-standing history of effectiveness and while they'll never hold a candle to antibiotics, they still have their very real and substantial benefits and uses.  
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @Vaulk

    Every Drug from any Pharmaceutical company, is 1000% Voluntary to take.

    There isn't a patient in the United States, who has to take, what ANY doctor recommends after a visit with ANY doctor, or, from any drug dealer, selling illegal drugs, to their drug addict customers on the streets.

    Opioids are 1000% Voluntary to take, and apparently some chose to become addicted to Opioids, because they failed to not allow themselves to become addicted to Opioids.

    Just as they allowed themselves to become addicted to LSD, Herion, Marijuana, Speed, K2, Crack, and Meth. 

    I heard a patient after surgery, ask for Tylenol, after the nurse asked the patient, if they wanted Oxycodone?


  • TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    The ladies who smoke marijuana while pregnant, that's not healthy for an unborn child. 

    I've yet to see any Medical information, that states, that smoking marijuana while pregnant, is a positive practice for an unborn baby to have to live through?

    https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/expert-answers/marijuana-during-pregnancy/faq-20436868

    "What are the effects of use of marijuana during pregnancy?

    Answer From Julie A. Lamppa, C.N.M., R.N.

    Use of marijuana during pregnancy might increase the risk of having a baby that is smaller at birth. It might also slightly increase the risk of stillbirth. Using marijuana during pregnancy can also harm your health. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends against using marijuana during pregnancy."

    "Marijuana is a plant that contains delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and other chemicals that affect the body. When marijuana is smoked or eaten, these chemicals cross the placenta. Research suggests that using marijuana at least weekly during pregnancy increases the risk of giving birth to a baby with a low birth weight — less than 5 1/2 pounds (2,500 grams). While research suggests a small increase in the risk of stillbirth as well, the results couldn't be adjusted to exclude the effects of tobacco use. Further research is needed.

    Use of marijuana during pregnancy can also make you dizzy and alter your judgment, putting you at risk of falls or other injury. Smoking marijuana can damage your lungs and cause breathing problems too.

    If you're considering pregnancy, stop using marijuana before you become pregnant. If you're having trouble with substance use, ask your health care provider for advice or resources to help."

    The above is in regards to your statements.

    "Another thing is that I have also witnessed in some self-help books how some authors are quite crafty. What they do is point out some stuff which actually is backed up by at least a certain amount of science research but, the catch is that what they're promoting isn't.


    The bottom line is that when it comes to health the public need to be made clear as to what actually has a strong scientific medical consensus, and what doesn't. Alternative health material should not be on the same par as strongly accepted scientifically based health material that came about via decades upon decades of research and practical application. Furthermore, People who are not medically qualified should be giving advice to people, especially sales assistants in health food stores."


    Well, dare I do this. Anyway, yes, TKDB  Mayo clinic is right that is in unhealthy to smoke Marijuana during pregnancy much like with many other things while pregnant. However, I don't really see how that correlates to the theme of this topic. Unless perhaps you once saw an alternative health article online that said smoking Marijuana while pregnant is good for you and your baby?








  • @ZeusAres42

    It correlates plenty.

    "Well, dare I do this. Anyway, yes, TKDB  Mayo clinic is right that is in unhealthy to smoke Marijuana during pregnancy much like with many other things while pregnant. However, I don't really see how that correlates to the theme of this topic. Unless perhaps you once saw an alternative health article online that said smoking Marijuana while pregnant is good for you and your baby?"


    But from your point of view, how you choose to Educate yourself, is of your own personal choice.

    Because after a baby is born, and the baby has been exposed to THC, since before they were born, I'm guessing, that the Mother, of that baby, is going to have their hands full, in dealing with the post consequences of having a baby, that was exposed to weed, before that baby, had a proper chance, to breathe air, on its own minus, the Mother's THC use, circulating through the unborn babies veins, as well as the Mother's veins, before the baby was born?

    @Vaulk, reiterating my previous points:

    Every Drug from any Pharmaceutical. company, is 1000% Voluntary to take.

    There isn't a patient in the United States, who has to take, what ANY doctor recommends after a visit with ANY doctor, or, from any drug dealer, selling illegal drugs, to their drug addict customers on the streets.

    Opioids are 1000% Voluntary to take, and apparently some chose to become addicted to Opioids, because they failed to not allow themselves to become addicted to Opioids.

    Just as they allowed themselves to become addicted to LSD, Herion, Marijuana, Speed, K2, Crack, and Meth. 

    I heard a patient after surgery, ask for Tylenol, after the nurse asked the patient, if they wanted Oxycodone? 
  • TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    It correlates plenty.

    "Well, dare I do this. Anyway, yes, TKDB  Mayo clinic is right that is in unhealthy to smoke Marijuana during pregnancy much like with many other things while pregnant. However, I don't really see how that correlates to the theme of this topic. Unless perhaps you once saw an alternative health article online that said smoking Marijuana while pregnant is good for you and your baby?"


    But from your point of view, how you choose to Educate yourself, is of your own personal choice.

    Because after a baby is born, and the baby has been exposed to THC, since before they were born, I'm guessing, that the Mother, of that baby, is going to have their hands full, in dealing with the post consequences of having a baby, that was exposed to weed, before that baby, had a proper chance, to breathe air, on its own minus, the Mother's THC use, circulating through the unborn babies veins, as well as the Mother's veins, before the baby was born?
    Unless you have read somewhere or someone has told you that smoking marijuana while pregnant is healthy and good for you your post is of no pertinence to this discussion.

    If I wanted to start a debate about marijuana I would have titled and worded this debate differently, and it would have involved the term marijuana being mentioned a number of times. 

    I really can't make that any more simpler.








  • Vaulk said:
    A great deal of the information regarding health that's available to the public is, unfortunately, wrong.  The reason the misinformation is spread so widely is because of controlling agencies like the FDA who for decades have held legal control over a great deal of what is legally considered "Treatment".  According to the FDA, the only thing that can cure or treat a disease is a "Drug", any natural remedy used to alleviate, treat, help, or cure a disease cannot legally be advertised or described as a treatment or cure. 
    To my Knowledge, the FDA is a medical board agency much like the same with NICE in the UK. I have also never come across any of these boards saying the only thing that can treat a disease is a drug. I don't know as much about the FDA as I do about NICE but what I do know is that these medical boars job is to approve or disapprove certain drugs for different diseases and/or other conditions, as well as give neutral and only informative information on other health related stuff (dealing with what is currently known by them). 

    These decisions also come about via decades of research on drugs for different conditions. The FDA and other medical boards don't just decide what to approve or disapprove just because have a degree of legal control; the process is far deeper and thorough than that.

    Anyone with a little common sense can understand that things like "Acid reflux disease" can be effectively controlled, treated and in some cases "Cured" with natural remedies like baking soda 

    While common sense is a reliable heuristic there are times when common sense alone is unreliable and can even prove potentially detrimental in certain cases. Furthermore, as someone with acid reflux as well as a thirst for knowledge of including lots of medical stuff I know only too well how Sodium Bicarbonate found in baking soda will actually exacerbate the symptoms of acid reflux and GERD/GORD. 

    and water, apple cider vinegar, and ginger. 

    Clean fresh water is not harmful for you. In regard to apple cider vinegar I found it very hard to find any reputable data on that for the benefit of acid reflux. What I did find though what is in reference to mainly to weight loss was the following: "In all, the scientific evidence that vinegar consumption (whether of the apple cider variety or not) is a reliable, long-term means of losing excess weight is not compelling. (On the other hand, a number of studies suggest that vinegar might prevent spikes in blood sugar in people with pre diabetes and type 2 diabetes by blocking starch absorption — perhaps that’s a topic for another day.)" - https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/apple-cider-vinegar-diet-does-it-really-work-2018042513703

    As for ginger, while there is no known cases of it being harmful to anyone any evidence in regard to health benefits surrounding it is scarce. Interestingly, ginger was also listed among one of the commonly claimed "super foods" in the media and online media between the year 2007 and 2011. The following was also a rather interesting find to read: "There is no official definition of a superfood and the EU has banned the use of the word on product packaging unless the claim is backed up by convincing research. A number of well-known brands have been forced to drop the description. However, there are still some proponents of the term, in spite of its loose definition." - https://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/02February/Documents/BTH_Miracle_ foods_report.pdf

    But if you or I were to begin producing apple cider vinegar tablets and then tell people that the tablets can be used to treat acid reflux disease...you and I could go to jail because of the legal repercussions established by the FDA.
    This is true, and I am in agreement with this. Anyone that is not medically trained that starts prescribing their own versions of drugs to people should go to Jail. In fact, even those that are medically trained who prescribe their own cocktail of drugs to patients is also a criminal offence, and they rightly should go to Jail.
      This is why there is very little research published regarding natural remedies, because the research is worthless when the FDA comes along and tells you that it's illegal to publish the research or otherwise suggest that a natural remedy can cure or treat something. 
    It is illegal for research to published as confirmed as curable when and where evidence behind that research is scarce. It is also illegal for medical research to be published by people of no medical attire. Furthermore, medical boards do not say alternative health regimes are wrong; they merely state there is no evidence for their effectiveness and/or suggest consulting with your Doctor before taking on any other alternative health regime. Also, within the UK it is a legal requirement that alternative health/therapy books state that customers should consult their doctor before practising any of the things in the book/s.
    A great deal of the reason why has to do with big pharma who have had a strangle-hold on the FDA for decades.  Every year pharmaceutical companies pay the FDA to frontload their new drugs into the approval system to get them onto the shelves faster and every year new drugs kill about 128,000 people as a result of improper testing and unexpected side effects.  The problem here is that by the time the pharmaceutical company gets any serious backlash from the effects of their new drugs, they've already made enough money to pay off any settlements and still have made an obscene amount of profit from the new drug, they rinse and repeat each year.
    I am aware of the controversies behind Big Pharma, and that some other countries such as the US are quicker to approve drugs than what UK is. In fact, there is a chapter in "Bad Science" by Medical Physician and Oxford Professor Ben Goldacre, although I have not read this chapter yet. With that being said however, the controversies that revolve around the Pharmaceutical Industries and the fact they have a lot of influence over Doctors does not equate to Alternative Health regimes being good for you. You'll also not that in Ben Goldacre's book "Bad Science" he is far more blunt that I am and basically calls multiple alternative health regimes as BS.

    Also, in regard to the US being a bit quicker to approve drugs than the UK I am pleased to say the approach the UK has taken ever since one or two tragedies that happened more than a few decades ago. Prior to the either 1990s or 1980s and beyond medicine in the UK was nothing like it is today. During multiple medical enquiries and revisions between the 1980s and 1990s as well as post 1990s drugs now take far longer to be approved than before among many other practices to make sure the public is safe. Today, in the UK when you're prescribed medicine you can rest assured that at least 99.9% of the time you will suffer no serious adverse reaction from it.

    Meanwhile natural remedies have a longer-standing history of effectiveness and while they'll never hold a candle to antibiotics, they still have their very real and substantial benefits and uses.  
    There is actually no recorded history of substantial effective of natural remedies.


    Hereinafter, I would also urge one to be cautious with using the term "natural." Just because something is natural doesn't mean it is good for you. In fact, there are many things natural that are actually fatal to humans such as wild certain wild berries for example. Likewise, just because something is not natural does not mean it shouldn't be used, such as Chemotherapy, Radiotherapy, and other targeted drugs to treat Cancer for instance.

    Lastly, when it comes to health one also needs to take into account food intolerances, allergens, and food allergies. For example, if an alternative health recipe was given to someone that had a nut allergy that would cause them to suffer an anaphylactic shock which could result in death! The other thing that also needs to be taken into account is current medication one is on and certain known interactions. For example, if too much green vegetables containing Vitamin K or Vitamin K supplements are consumed whilst on Warfarin this could interfere with the treatment of blood thinning medication.

    Once again, I urge all people that are considering taking on an alternative health regime, exercise program or new diet to first consult their Doctor, and I am consistent with that advice.

    piloteer








Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch