Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–127 of 127 posts

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#121

Post by electic »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #49
electic wrote: post #3

How about, "Don't take any medical advice from any magazine?" Now why is that? Well because it is a run of the mill magazine. I am not sure why people read and follow this stuff.

The slate article isn't providing any medical advice, it's merely telling people that they shouldn't fear synthetically manufactured medicines while being completely trusting of naturopathic ones. If anything it's telling people to be more informed, skeptical, and to use reason rather than emotion when making informed choices about medicine.

Yes, I got that. However, it is still medical advice...coming from a magazine. What to "fear", "use", or any other word you can swap in there is still the same thing....advice.

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#122

Post by carbocation »

Alex3917 wrote: post #118
carbocation wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, but marijuana is used in standard modern medicine already. Any examples of things not used by modern medicine that are shown to have efficacy? Do you have a source to support the concept that the problem with plant medicine is the lack of funding in the face of promising early studies?

"Interesting, but marijuana is used in standard modern medicine already." First, marijuana is still illegal for doctors to prescribe in all 50 states, so saying that it's already used in modern medicine is a bit dubious. Any examples of things not used by modern medicine that are shown to have efficacy?" This largely depends on how you define 'modern medicine' and 'have shown efficacy'. E.g. modern as in modernism, o…

> First, marijuana is still illegal for doctors to prescribe in all 50 states, so saying that it's already used in modern medicine is a bit dubious.

Dronabinol is on formularies all over the US. There are marijuana dispensaries in many places. MDs write letters saying they believe their patients are best served by inhaled marijuana. What is legal and what has evidence are sometimes two different entities.

> And presumably the amount of commercial research done on naturopathy is almost zero since plants can't be patented.

Plant derivatives are patented all the time, so this isn't the reason that nobody is willing to invest in naturopathy.

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#123

Post by Alex3917 »

carbocation wrote: post #122
Alex3917 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Interesting, but marijuana is used in standard modern medicine already." First, marijuana is still illegal for doctors to prescribe in all 50 states, so saying that it's already used in modern medicine is a bit dubious. Any examples of things not used by modern medicine that are shown to have efficacy?" This largely depends on how you define 'modern medicine' and 'have shown efficacy'. E.g. modern as in modernism, o…

> First, marijuana is still illegal for doctors to prescribe in all 50 states, so saying that it's already used in modern medicine is a bit dubious. Dronabinol is on formularies all over the US. There are marijuana dispensaries in many places. MDs write letters saying they believe their patients are best served by inhaled marijuana. What is legal and what has evidence are sometimes two different entities. > And presu…

Dronabinol and 'plant derivatives' aren't plant medicine. One of the core tenets of naturopathy is that it's often (but not always) better to have the full plant rather than just a single molecule.

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#125

Post by carbocation »

Alex3917 wrote: post #123
carbocation wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, marijuana is still illegal for doctors to prescribe in all 50 states, so saying that it's already used in modern medicine is a bit dubious. Dronabinol is on formularies all over the US. There are marijuana dispensaries in many places. MDs write letters saying they believe their patients are best served by inhaled marijuana. What is legal and what has evidence are sometimes two different entities. > And presu…

Dronabinol and 'plant derivatives' aren't plant medicine. One of the core tenets of naturopathy is that it's often (but not always) better to have the full plant rather than just a single molecule.

Ok, perfect, that would be a fascinating question to ask. Is there any randomized controlled trial supporting that notion? I would suspect that everything is reducible, but experiment trumps theory.

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#126

Post by Alex3917 »

carbocation wrote: post #125
Alex3917 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dronabinol and 'plant derivatives' aren't plant medicine. One of the core tenets of naturopathy is that it's often (but not always) better to have the full plant rather than just a single molecule.

Ok, perfect, that would be a fascinating question to ask. Is there any randomized controlled trial supporting that notion? I would suspect that everything is reducible, but experiment trumps theory.

"Is there any randomized controlled trial supporting that notion?"

There are definitely trials showing that marijuana is more effective than pure THC. As for whether it holds as a general rule, I don't think that's really empirically testable since there are probably an infinite number of cases both where it is and isn't true. I don't think everything is reducible though, because for any given plant there are trillions upon trillions of possible permutations of chemicals, and I think the fact that it's a little bit different every day and somewhat random probably helps to prevent the efficacy from declining over time, as happens with most pharmaceuticals. (The first rule of recreational drug is 'rotate your receptors', and I see no reason as to why that shouldn't apply to medicine as well.)

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#127

Post by jonnathanson »

carbocation wrote: post #101
jonnathanson wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Errr, no. Examples abound in the history of medicine of breakthroughs that were deemed effective before they were fully understood. Penicillin was shown to be an effective antibiotic agent long before science had a complete grasp on exactly why. Even basic sanitation (washing hands between surgeries) was a breakthrough that occurred before the germ theory of disease, and was originally believed effective for entirely…

So the argument is that because there are historical examples of the active ingredient of an herb being extracted into a useful drug, therefore the OP's personal belief that "constellations of chemicals in these concoctions which, in concert create an altogether particular and unique effect" is now a scientific claim? There is no scientific basis for that. It's just one guy's opinion. Could he investigate it in a sci…

That's not at all what I'm saying, and to whatever extent you think it's what the OP is saying, I guess we are interpreting him very differently.
Post reply on HN