Mini Forklift Ⓥ wrote:
Thanks for all the replies, appreciate it. Good to see cancer and heart disease trending downwards, a few conferences and talks I have been to in the last few years have said otherwise (and they also provided references) so I guess it's hard to know what the exact situation is. The facts linking meat (especially processed meats) to various health issues have been around for many years but yet this type of strain on our healthcare systems are deemed 'normal' and acceptable? I do know that last year 200 million people in the US alone were treated for heart disease of some form; I would hazard a guess that only a tiny percentage of them would have been vegan/vegetarian.
It's important to separate mortality rate, prevalence, and incidence. For the past 20 years, they've all generally been dropping, with some spikes in prevalence and incidence. Mortality has been falling consistently. Also, don't forget that incidence and prevalence are bound to increase along with lifespan.
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.htmlI think we can agree on the vegans/vegetarians.

Mini Forklift Ⓥ wrote:
Firstly, I am not against doctors and/or medications and I am all for science, studies, data etc. I had a heart attack about 3yrs ago, was put on statins and BP medications which I stayed on for a year before deciding to try and get off them and rectify things by a more natural approach. I tried 3 different statins and they all came with awful side effects including lethargy and severe muscle aches. Today I have perfect BP and cholesterol, despite have a condition called aortic stenosis which I was born with. I've had a couple of years ~ and great success from taking high doses of Omega 3's (I take an algal source of EPA/DHA), hawthorn, garlic and red yeast rice. Red yeast rice is probably the most interesting, better suited for lowering cholesterol rather than BP. It has the same actions in the body as regular statins so can actually be classed as a levostatin itself; it did temporarily get taken off the market I believe as it was too effective and comparable to regular statins so they tried to regulate it. This is due to the fact that it contains something called Monacolin K which is essentially the same as Lovastatin (prescription statin called Mevacor). Although it is recognised as an ancient and common Chinese herb it definately has merit as being one of the most potent natural means of cholesterol/BP reduction. It basically falls in the 'natural medications' category as it is essentially just fermented rice, and is an excellent option along with something like garlic and Hawthorne Berry.
Some natural medicines are great, sure. Red yeast rice is definitely an effective statin. However, as you noted, it was taken off the market for just that reason. High levels of statins can cause kidney failure. This is exactly why drugs need to go through FDA approval. I have nothing against natural remedies that hold up to research. I just don't like the dismissal of drugs that have survived rigorous testing in favor of untested "natural" drugs.
Mini Forklift Ⓥ wrote:
For me the attraction was that I MIGHT be able to get the same end result from taking something natural and not have to suffer any side effects. Added to this my worries of using heart medication at my age (I was early 30's then), when I came across a study showing a new heart medication that initially showed great promise. Aparrently they were saying the next area of heart drugs the pharmaceutical industry wants to get into is ones that lower LDL and raise HDL. I was reading about a trial that had just been closed after 12 patients died during trials of one of these new type of drugs. Got me thinking how many people die in the development of a new drug, and what the risks are with taking prescribed medication(s) for long periods of time as I was about to.
It sounds perfectly reasonable to me to be skeptical of any drug and to do that sort of personal research. Just apply the same degree of rigor to any medication, synthetic or natural. Also, it's true that many people die in trials, but that's the cost of saving many, many more lives in the future. Nobody can be forced to participate, and all participants must be advised of the dangers, including death.
Mini Forklift Ⓥ wrote:
FWIW this was a slide that I got from one of the talks I attended on heart disease and cancer last year:
Obesity & Diabetes in 2011
Ø In 1900 obesity, diabetes, heart disease & cancer were virtually non-existent
This should immediately raise a red flag, because it's a combination of untrue and misleading. Diabetes was certainly less prevalent, but also well-known. Researchers were already working on it steadily. Heart disease was the #4 cause of death in the US and cancer was #8. As we developed better treatments for TB, pneumonia, and other infections -- and as average life span increased -- they quickly climbed in the rankings.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/lead1900_98.pdfMini Forklift Ⓥ wrote:
Ø Obesity is now the #1 cause of premature death
This is also not provable. Most of these claims have been based on the CDC's 400,000 claim back in the mid 2000s, which they then withdrew and adjusted way, way downward. The problem is in assigning a causal relationship between obesity and mortality. It's certainly a big factor, but making a claim like #1 is specious.
Mini Forklift Ⓥ wrote:
Ø Heart disease now causes 40% of all deaths in the Western world
This sounds right, but is becoming meaningless. People need to die of something, and our hearts are one of our weakest points.
Mini Forklift Ⓥ wrote:
We can expect to see cancer continue to grow as a leading cause of death unless changes start to be put into place and successfully implemented:
Ø In 1900 cancer was a rare disease (less than 1% of deaths)
Again, at least in the US, the CDC lists cancer as causing 3.7% of deaths. And again, we would expect it to be more common with a greater life expectancy.
What I'm getting at is that these presentations have a clear agenda, and they're not above massaging (or falsifying) information to push it. Absolutely obesity is an issue, as are diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. And prevention is essential. But that has nothing to do with natural vs synthetic drugs.
Mini Forklift Ⓥ wrote:
I do realise that natural medicine is also a money making sector of the health industry, although personally I feel that
overall the intentions of the companies producing these products are probably more honest, ethical etc. I can't quite think of the right word to use there

I completely think there is a need for them, simply due to the products on the market being regulated; while I like the ideology of people growing their own herbs or collecting plants from a forest, obviously there are little to no safety measure in place with that. It's a shame that doctors and medical herbalists, dieticians etc can't work closer together as I believe serious ground could be covered if disease was looked at from a prevention perspective rather than waiting until we have to treat an actual problem.
I think I'm just less charitable towards the naturalists than you are.

I agree that they should work together more, and I think any reasonable treatment should be researched and tested.