Give me facts, or nothing at all

How many of the claims in this article have been empirically evaluated?

Please point me to the studies - proper double-blind ones please - which back up these claims. Otherwise keep this New Age tosh out of the magazine.

See www.quackwatch.com

I agree, Dan. This was published
before I started reading RW, but I would be incandescent if I thought my subscription money had been used to fund someone to promote the lunatic fringe of the alternative health industry.

Having said that, I'm not averse to a bit of anecdotal evidence - after all, that's what most advice on training is based on! But "lack of evidence of efficacy" is not the same as "evidence of lack of efficacy" - and echinacea and marshmallow root and suchlike have bucketloads of the latter to their names.

You might both enjoy an article I read in today's Moscow Times:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2002/10/21/008.html

The one that drives me beserk is the column in the weekend Guardian magazine - called "Ask Emma" if I remember right - which seems to involve people writing in to ask what to do about their advanced leprosy and being told to cut out citrus fruit and wheat products. Sadly, I'm exagerating only a little.

Oh dear, essential oils? I agree with you entirely Dan. I live in a former convent which is now home to 27 students and 3 nuns, and I find the only defense against colds that I use (and I'm sure this has been scientifically proven) is to wash my hands in warm water and soap after cooking or going to the loo.

As the ex-spouse of someone who fell in with a weirdo New Age cult and went onto militant veganism and macrobiotics (and beyond) under its influence, I agree absolutely. Many laugh at this stuff, but when someone gets carried away with it, the consequences to the family can be nasty. And please don't let me start on the way the divorce laws screw blokes over a barrel.

That said, Eschinacea (spelling?) is good stuff.

Hey, steady on folks! I missed this thread until this morning but can't let it pass without comment. From my experience on this forum, the above views may be in the minority and therefore publication of the article was valid.

Its invalid to dismiss it as new age rubbish as much of what is suggested comes from a form of medicine older than Western medicine itself.

Show me the empirical evidence that taking these supplements is harmful and I will shut up but as a lot of people here believe they are of use, even if only because of the placebo effect then why be so condemnatory?

It's certainly harmful to the wallet. There's a whole industry peddling this stuff. Some of these ancient remedies are, granted, beneficial, but most of what's being pushed now is to do with commercial enrichment. There was a study recently (I forget the exact reference, V-rap must know it) that showed that vitamin pill etc are just a plain ole waste of money.

The problem is how to suss out the useful stuff (Eschinacea, etc) from the dross.

Oldbones,
I think one of the problems is that there haven't been studies involving the majority of these remedies, so there is no strict evidence, just hearsay. Another thing is that here in the West, people seem to self-medicate quite freely with these remedies which, and I'm guessing here, probably wouldn't be the case where they are indiginous.
Anyway, I think the article could have at least contained some more 'scientific' info, such as getting a flu shot, or hand washing.

Presumably one of the reasons why a runner might want to avoid medicines from the chemist is that you're not sure what might be in it. Athletes have been embarrassed in the past by failing a drugs test because they took a "cold cure".

As a matter of interest, does anyone know if any of these natural "remedies" might cause a similiar embarassment?
(not that I'm in a position to ever be drgus tested...)

I just wanted to point out the difference between the use of supplements such as echinacea and zinc, which in my experience many people on these fora support, and of "wacky new age" stuff, which the article was being condemned for but wasn't actually promoting.

I don't think age is sufficient reason to accord respect to an alleged remedy or theory. If something has been used as a medication for thousands of years and hasn't managed, over that time, to produce a scrap of decent quality evidence that it treats or prevents a real illness, as is the case for virtually all the alternativist theories and products (although many are in fact "New Age" in the sense of having been "invented", along with an impressive-sounding "tradition", by the multinational conglomerates which happen to have a toe in this lucrative market), then it should be allowed to fizzle out with its dignity intact.

Nor do I accept the suggestion that the fact that many people use these things (although in surveys it's not the majority - more like 25%) validates them. Most people without a science GCSE to their name, if asked, instinctively "know" that echinacea and vitamin C will cure a cold - just as they "know" that the MMR will make your child autistic and depleted uranium will give you cancer and sitting on cold doorsteps or warm radiators will give you piles.

Nor do we always know what is in these alternative "remedies". You can probably be confident that what you buy in Boots or Holland and Barrett is what the label says it is - but a recent study in a local hospital showed that over 9 out of 10 "herbal" preparations sold for childhood eczema in the "traditional Chinese medicine" shops that are springing up all over Birmingham contained potent steroids - the very stuff parents thought they were AVOIDING by buying the little unlabelled pots from the TCM "doctor".

Nor is "natural" always safer. Kerala and bush tea will probably reduce your blood sugar if you have diabetes, and lots of my patients use them because the next door neighbour's budgerigar's granny is always a more credible source of medical information than a mere doctor, but they'll destroy your liver very effectively too.

v-rap - its dodgy ground for me to debate science with a scientist and I fully accept your point about the dangers of being uninformed and bandwagon merchants capitalising on this. But when you say that people instinctively "know" that so and so will cure this or cause that, what we don't know of course is that echinacea and zinc won't cure a cold or that MMR doesn't cause autism. There is a lack of empirical evidence both ways.

I should take note of my opening comment and throw the shovel away even before I get to the hole!!

The point that immediately springs to mind is that you can equally argue that (to reverse your statement) there's no evidence that echinacea and zinc don't cause autism, or that MMR doesn't cure a cold...

OK, I'm being slightly facetious, but there's a big difference between proving a positive and proving a negative. But I'm not getting involved in this one any further :-)

Yeah, I'm outta here too. Deeply held beliefs are never altered by randomised controlled trials.

As an ex-immunologist, my belief in these remedies is non-existent until proved otherwise, but I'll still give vitC and echinathingy a go if I'm worried about coming down with a cold before a race I've tried hard for. I like to hedge my bets!

Trouble is, the manufacturers of these supplements can't afford the same scale of trials that a major drug company could. The medical establishment in this country doesn't seem too interested in funding trials either, possible because of close ties to a pharmaceutical industry that is no doubt be horrifed at the prospect of natural remedies denting their profit margins.
And the loser in all of this is, of course, the confused consumer...

I'm all in favour of anecdotal beliefs and "what works for me".

My annoyance with this article is that it is presenting as fact remedies that have not been subjected to any testing worthy of the description. In fact, worse than that, some HAVE been tested and found to have no positive effect.

No drug company would dare market a "cold cure" - for fear of falling foul of the Trades Description Act. Why should we let alternative medicine get away with it?

And mega-doses of Vitamin C? This sucker just won't die! OK, Linus Pauling was an exceptional 20th century human being. OK, it was he who promoted this belief. Unfortunately the scientific evidence does not support his claims. They are tosh. The person who wrote this article must have known about the controversy, yet chooses to make a recommendation rejected by most scientists who have investigated it. This characterises alternative medicine: why let the evidence get in the way of prejudice and profit.

And, just to prove I'm a hypocrite .... Avoiding and curing colds, by Dan:
1. Avoid people with colds.
2. Eat well. Sleep well. Drink lots.
3. Be fit. Exercise in the fresh air. Try to get some sunshine every day.
4. Make sure there's always a source of fresh air in the room you're in.
5. Be your own expert. Know when to run and when to take a day off.

Can you name one single alternative remedy that is actually marketed as a "cold cure"?

I fully agree that natural remedies need much more testing and that there should be more guidance on how to use them safely, but if you're taking the stance that "all natural remedies are worthless and all prescription drugs are good" then you're really no more constructive than people who take the opposite view.

You are so right - skinny whippet.

There have been many studies done on Echinacea
which suggest that it is beneficial for some athletes ;-see
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0897.htm


Strikes me that 'modern drugs' have been around for less than a lifetime - so their long term side-effects are really not known at all.

Yet in the 10's of 1000's of years that we've evolved - we - like other animals - have previously used a range of natural plants to help when ill - instinctively - its just that our Western instincts have suddenly been lost in the last 100 years. Think of dogs eating grass & horses which will seek out a range of herbs in the hedgerows - according to the time of year - and they're not all 'sweet' food stuffs - and they don't eat much of them - but their instinct tells them they need them.

Native people around the world without access to medicinal drugs still use 'alternative' remedies - they have no choice - and they base this on folklore handed down through the generations. Some of these cures are being investigated by drug companies - anxious to exploit the same product. They wouldn't be doing this if it was all bunkum - but of course as soon as the companies produce a 'modern' drug based on the plant - their research - which they have to do to get a licence - will show how effective it is, and the origins of the drug - and its natural form - will de facto be played down - if you can pick it for free would you really buy it? And for the doctor - they know that the patient has a nice measured dose - with a nice explanatory label.

Why should our Western folklore be ridiculed so intensely by people trained only in a modern system that's only been around for such a short time? I guess because it doesn't need licensing - so there's been no incentive for research on a lot of 'natural remedies'- they've been taken for granted - and now some doctors are being made to think by drug companies that there is no alternative to their profitable products.

I can not for the life of me see why any medic genuinely interested in the wellbeing of his / her patients would totally and irrationally discount any source of potential cure for their client - except of course that there's a wealth of PR about modern drugs which makes them far easier to prescribe - and also which provide the comfort blanket of indemnity in case anything goes wrong (you know - the ever increasing list of possible adverse side effects included with every drug these days...'well didn't you read the leaflet - you were warned').

I know I know but what about Bach Flower remedies. What a hoot!!!!