Well, that's why it's called "complementary" medicine - it's to complement your more mainstream treatment.

In the real world where many people don't eat broccoli, or in some hypothetical world where you can compare imaginary scenarios?

Given that one requires a prescription and the other doesn't, the labelling issues you bring up seems a little irrelevant.

The primary responsibility for discussing the effects and potential side effects of PRESCRIPTION ONLY medication falls on the medical practioner doing the prescribing.

It is here that the major problem arises due to misleading practices in the Pharmaceutical industry.

Somewhat different to the "medicines" available without subscription or even the intervention of a medical professional.

From my understanding, Dr Goldacre's book was well received by the advocates of science based medicine due to the fact that it highlighted the practice of Bad Science - which happens to be the name of his previous book and regular blog.

As with Dr Rachael Dunlop, Dr Ben Goldacre is well respected in the skeptical community and his works consumed with that particular delight for science that is charcateristic of said community.

In my view the only thing of value in this article is the criticism of the TGA and ARTG.

As a longtime herbalist, every day I hear amazing stories of people who have beaten diseases such as cancer with alternative medicinal practices.

It's no wonder alternative medicine is so popular, these stories get around the community, but probably never make it to academia, and to scientific forums. These forums mostly just seem to dismiss CAM therapies as nonsense.

There is place in health and medicine for both modalities, and always will be.

"a sticker saying “this is not medicine” or “there is no evidence this works better than placebo” would make me think twice about handing over my 20 bucks."

Yes, I like that idea.

And perhaps a big sign above the vitamin shelves that says "You can get all this and more from real food (actual REAL food - not the highly processed stuff in the next isle!)"

Yes, good one, Pat, what about the many who have died after shunning conventional medicine, and seeking herbs, homeopathy and irradiated water for their cancers?

Mia - there is "hearing amazing stories of people..." Etc, and there is proper evidence for efficacy. I have friends who work in health outside the mainstream, yet they speak the same language when it comes to evidence. Maybe familiarise yourself with this http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025 and see where your anecdotal evidence fits in...

Yes there is room for CAM, but in the immortal words of Tim Minchin, "what do you call alternative medicine that has been demonstrated to work? Medicine!"

Ben Goldacre's book exposes the fact that routinely dispensed/precribed drugs (antidepressants!) have a quesitonable track record in regards to effectiveness and safety and that the evidence available is flawed/biased. The main argument here (one would think) is in regard to effectiveness,- in both cases: CAM and prescription drugs. So on that subject, I will refer back to Goldacre.

"It is here that the major problem arises due to misleading practices in the Pharmaceutical industry."
The Pharmaceutical industry was able to do what it did, because the medical community signed off on many of the publications that were used by the drug industry as evidence, so the book paint a sad image of the medical profession, and not just the practices of 'big pharma'.
Information leaflets of prescription drugs are based and sourced from flawed research/publications.

Can you direct me to the source of this research of are you just making this up?

True Mark, but what about the 88% of chemo recipients who have also died?

I've just endured two years of intensive chemo, and with the help of alternative modalities, so far I'm okay, even tho the cancer I had was a difficult one to deal with, having usually a 12 month survival rate....I've made four years so far. I'm not in the 88% yet......

But as I said, there is definately a place for both modalities. I've been there....been thru it.

I think it is salient here to look at what a placebo effect is.
It is real effect that confuses scientific testing and it has to be ruled out there, so an effect under test can be given a clean test.

Placebo does not mean zero.

To do this the conductor of the test, the subject, and virtually anyone else can not know what the test substance is and if a particular person is getting it.

Of course placebo is an effect, David Maddern. That's why it's called "placebo effect".

To be judged as efficacious, medications have to be shown to be MORE effective than placebo.

Thank you for pointing this out Mathew, excellent point. I have used several mineral supplements to help with a degenerative condition in my knee, when all conventional medicine could offer were cortisone shots into the joint, and an eventual knee replacement.

The supplements have been so effective, that I no longer require a knee replacement, and have been pain free for over a year now.

There are other things that need addressing here.
the statement that
'People can get all their nutritional needs from a balanced diet'
implying that supplements can't help are touted without any supporting evidence.
In the US there is roughly 1/100 of the iron in spinach tested, compared to Popeyes wonder food.
Fruit is harvested in an unripe state and treated with the ripening hormone ethylene. However, the roots pack the fruit with sugars and antioxidants which selectively allow fruit to be taken a long way from the source plant.
In the US two peaches for a woman would supply 50% of her vitaminA, but now she would have to eat (and keep down) 53 commercial peaches.
Our forebears plucked incidental fruit as they moved through bush and the later of these may have carried one or two to their camp.
Antioxidants are getting shorter also. The US Dept of Ag now recommends 10-12 extra serves of fruit and vegetables to get sufficient to counter the estimated 10000 of so oxidative hits we get from our using oxygen, pollution in food and in our bodies ( such as the plastic via the water in refilled one-use PET water bottles )

There are now some 90+ autoimmune diseases, and cancer is something approaching one in two.

Australia is using the same industrial methods as the US for food production. The fantasy that it comes from a 'Babe' type family small scale operation over the hill is just that.

The Western Diet does not what it is cracked up to be and supplementation is a must. Further plant fruit trees wherever possible, and get your vegetables from your own organic garden or a genuine Famers Market .

"The Western Diet does not what it is cracked up to be and supplementation is a must."

David Maddern - do you sell nutritional supplements?

Although organic fruit and vegetables may be gentler on the earth, they do not contain more or better nutrients than conventionally grown fruit and vegetables - this has been well-studied and reported.

A "Western Diet" (whatever than means), when it contains moderate amounts of meats or other protein sources and enough quantity and variety of fresh, plant-based foods, is perfectly good at supplying the nutrients we need. There are many more dietary iron sources than US spinach.

Please show us evidence of nutritional deficiency in AUstralians of this century, eating a well-balanced diet of foods readily available in the marketplace.

I am licensed to sell nutritional supplements but I have learned a lot about some

I take issue with the statement and subject studies about organic and conventionally grown. Those studies, to study the difference between organic and conventionally grown might legitimately only look at the manuring regime and not post harvest techniques,

Further because they do not consider the sugars that are on protein projections that poke out of the cell wall of all your cells. French researchers found 8 sugars. When we are under stress we can't properly prosecute the high energy conversion of glucose to these, if they aren't in the diet. A constitutional lack of any of these can cause autoimmune disease. If you want I can explain the mechanism of that.

And they aren't in the Western Diet. Except for glucose and galactose.

Now the Western Diet I submit the landmark book 'The China Study' by L Colin Campbell. I hope you read it.

'When we are under stress we can't properly prosecute the high energy conversion of glucose to these, if they aren't in the diet'

I don't even know what this statement means!

When we are under stress or sleep deprived the expensive ( in energy terms ) reactions that convert glucose to these other needed sugars slows down or stops. Although they can be got in some diets when the alpha bonded sugars are in beta bonded packages then they can get through stomach acid digestion, they typically aren't in the Western Diet.

My comment was regarding the statement: 'When we are under stress we can't properly prosecute the high energy conversion of glucose to these, if they aren't in the diet', which makes no grammatical sense.

The universal plea from you naturopathic types is that 'stress' and 'lack of sleep' somehow alter our bodies ability to perform some basic physiological function yet we all manage to glycosolate the proteins on our erythrocytes, i.e our blood group antigens, and produce DNA and RNA hand over fist all of the time (these are also glycosolated), plus a whole heap of other glycoproteins!

Not just erythrocytes (where the terminal sugar seems to be fructose and the lack of a neighbouring galactose means blood group O, galactose there is A, and n acetylglucosamine is there for group B, and AB is both. A2 is probably a chimeral situation)

Well if we all do all the complete glycosolation, and poke it through the plasma membrane on all new cell surfaces, build up collagen and the vast number of other functions of sugars, and not get them in the diet then have you a cogent hypothesis why people's immune systems are going awry, like getting allergic to food, which is a huge trend in society?

After my head stopped spinning......

What you're talking about is diet science - interaction of food with biological response tested by scientific method.

If something is CAM then it is invariably untested scientifically - once something is tested scientifically it can be classified under existing sciences, diet science, physiotherapy, medicine, physcology, etc. If it fails the scientific method of proof it goes back to CAM as a sCAM.

David, it seems your "planning" your PhD to prove some mystery conclusion you know about. Have you already done some scientific research regarding this, have you published any papers to prove/disprove a thesis, have you tested any hypothesis? Have you even developed a thesis or hypothesis - or is this to mystical to tell us all about yet?

Did you actually read what Rachel Dunlop wrote about CAMs and taking each at face value. She actually excluded folic acid supplementation and St John's Wort from the discussion and they were excluded because of evidence; not hearsay or testimony but robust, statistically validated evidence. I would suggest that she actually does "keep up." The point of the article is, as I can see, the need to rely upon evidence and the success of one CAM cannot point to the success of another or support the use of another.

Others have done the tests scientifically and published but not confirmed. I have DVDs of Doctors talking about their patients and lots of people appear to get good results including me so it is prime time to get this in the public domain.
It seems it went underground when a power that was told some contributors to an AIDS conference 'how could a simple sugar affect the most intractable disease of the 21st Century'

You would do well to not explain the mechanism of how some "constitutional lack of these cause you autoimmune disease'" but rather point us to a peer reviewed paper documenting the mechanism you claim. At the end of the day, the discussion is about evidence that has been substantiated and subject to review; not hearsay, anecdotal comments or what you think someone may have said at a science conference.

I blame the spellchecker but it should be fuctose is the terminal sugar on erythrocytes. Most other cell types have sialic acid as the terminal in humans. Fungi have mannose as the terminal sugar.

She didn't exclude, she rather understated folic acid as people often do to limit it to NTD (neural tube defect) when even one leukaemic kid is a trajedy. It sounded like 2 obscure things perhaps help in two obscure ways.

I wouldn't put it as a CAM it is a vitamin, and the precursor to thymine one of the DNA bases.

I don't know that the discussion is about peer reviewed papers. Some of this is way past that. For instance the build up of collagen, the glycolation of proteins copied from RNA, the passage through the Endoplasmic Reticulum and Golgi Body be budded off to join the Plasma Membrane is in glyconutrient text books used by some doctors in the US who are learning about this technology.

The discussion is about evidence. Consumers should be able to know whether something being sold has the evidence to do what has been claimed that it will do. I have no idea how you have diverged onto basic cellular processes that many of us are well aware of from our studies. If you believe that there are substances available to facilitate these processes then there needs to be evidence provided that indeed they do facilitate it and also that the facilitation is beneficial.

Well there were papers presented to the Jenner Conference on Glycobiology that showed that plant fragments ingested changed the glycolation on IgG so that was pivotal evidence, with big implications.
As I said I am looking to do a big PhD to bring this stuff into the light of day,

Regardless of any implications, until the evidence is actually in that ingestion of plant fragments has been replicated and then is of actual benefit, there is no ethical basis for selling any product that may or may not impact upon IgG glycoslylation.

"I am licensed to sell nutritional supplements". Thought so. Follow the money, as they say.

David Maddern - you have a long way to go before you understand human physiology. You won't be able to "explain the mechanism of that" - because it's nonsense. You could start by reading up about the structure of the cell membrane.

I've read a lot of books about the human body - starting with anatomy and physiology. I;ve read pathology, histology, embryology, statistics, pharmacology, electrocardiology, clinical signs...so many books I can;t remember them all.

That;s how I know that your stuff is nonsense.

David Maddern - what other sugars is glucose "converted into"?

(Pro Tip - you are way off the mark)

Rubbish, these are foods and therefore able to be taken without ill effect, if someone has a situation that is resolved by taking these then there is a good basis for someone else with the same condition to try them.

Interested readers who want to know about this stuff can read up on red blood cell membrane structure - for example, here http://www.scribd.com/doc/13659089/RBC-Membrane

The red blood cell membrane structure does not change with "stress" or "lack of sleep."

David Maddern has read stuff that he has not understood, and regurgitated some nonsense. Much like I might do if I tried to explain how computers work from first principles.

David Maddern - the biochemical structure of cell membranes is undergraduate stuff. It is not a magical new discovery.

It is dead easy to explain on what I have already written about the cause of autoimmunity.

Terminal sugar is sialic acid and if that is removed by a lectin, or not actually capped because of a lack of sialic acid and a macrophage slides over it and interrogates, it will mark that cell for destruction, and in the same way that immune reactions are mounted other cells remember the pattern, and all other cells with that pattern will be attacked.

Have you got a more parsimonious hypothesis?

Coincidence is not evidence by any logical application of Evidence Based Medicine. It may be pertinent to investigate any association if something was out of the usual but the occurrence itself is not evidence. A doctor prescribed an antibiotic to one patient with a condition and they took it and recovered in a week; another patient with the same condition declined the script and recovered in 7 days; which coincidence will you run with?

If I can sink to flaming I didn't say red cells change with stress, although I have seen asterocytes, I said the production of these sugars which our ancestors got in their diets, from glucose is a energy hungry process that occurs in sleep and is affected by lack of sleep, dur and stress.... Perhaps it is you who doesn't understand what you read, and your ascribing immaturity to me takes the cake, and you seen to think pushing down someone else elevates you.

That is a postulated cause, a hypothesis that you are suggesting, based on what trials or clinical papers I don't know as you seem to reluctant to provide evidence. If this is actually happening in the human body (not cell cultures, not animal studies, not just hypothesised) then there is somewhere to move from. Until you or someone else shows that it is more than a suggestion/postulate again, it would be unethical to sell anything on the basis of this suggestion.

Understood but when it comes to food, and the aim is resolution a suspicion can be all you need.

All you need or all YOU will go by. If the pharmaceutical industry applied the same standard that you seek to legitmise for your self (and your supplement sales?) I would hypothesise that you would be amongst those leading the charge against the legitimacy of that standard of "evidence."

David Maddern - enough of the gobbledegook. You have no idea how this stuff works. Maybe you're not immature (I don't know you) - but just plain ill-informed. Your "explanations" are like word salad out of a dictionary - without even correct transcription.

I get that you want to sell stuff - just don't pretend to be informed about it because it's too easy to see through what you say.

You have seen "asterocytes" (sic)? Where - in the sky?

This stuff is all basic science - already documented in every physiology text book. David Maddern has just misquoted it by mixing up the words and concepts. There won't be any "evidence" for the model he describes because he's got it wrong.

I haven't been near a dictionary for a whle
asterocytes. down a microscope, they are red cells under osmotic or heat stress
Who is spouting gobbledegook? What evidence have you for a statement that I am wrong... certainly not a Scientific stance.

I am not allowed to write about the guy in Launceston who has alpha-1-anti trypsin deficiency, on oxygen and experimental drugs exhausted, gave him $200 worth of product on spec but not allowed to tell you what happened, and I haven't a hypothesis on how that could work. Or any number of cases that I know about.

Astrocytes are a type of brain cell; there is nothing else similar that I am aware of. I did 2 units of haematology and can't recall anythiing similar. It would be interesting what stains or microscopic technique you were using; was it live blood analysis?
As a pointer; when you make a claim it is up to you to prove you are correct (with evidence). When that claim is inconsistent with the body of knowledge and you fail to provide that evidence, expect to be called out and some to refer to your statements as "gobbledegook."

When you are equally as fervent as reporting your treatment failures then maybe you can garner some respect for being fervent about mentioning your "successes." In Australia, it is very unusual for patients to be on "experimental drugs." Patients may be enrolled in clinical trials but there is no guarantee that they will be on the drug being trialled; they may well be on the placebo arm. Special access schemes sometimes allow a patient access but this involves major barriers, so to have done this more than once (as you say...drugs) lacks credibility. I may not be able to disprove your claim, however your story lacks credibility and again is sans evidence.

There is no such cell as "asterocyte"

Red cells under osmotic or heat stress? What osmolality? What temperature?

Or are you just making this up, again.

No I am not making it p.. although the name might be wrong... these were sometimes seen in SIDS kids as if the kid had cooked.

David, it is time to provide references...ie evidence ..for your claims. Saying something was so just doesn't cut it.

Well as I say I am planning a significant PhD and there is a paucity of Scientific papers accessible on the web, the Science is slowly catching up and explaining how it happens, and I have only talked about the sugars so instead of that I can give you foods that contain these sugars under beta bond covering (so they get through the stomach acid, but released in the bowel by bacteria )
they are kelp powder, shiitake mushroom, shark cartilage, fenugreek, psyllium seed, and lecithin is thought to assist absorption. These can be obtained on the web and/or health food shops.
A bar can be made, even with fresh berries and honey and should be frozen and used uncooked so that 1 tablespoon is consumed of this material a day.

It is good to see, David, that you are having to resort to two of the old stock standards that are used when you are unable and possible unwilling to be able, to support your claims:
The pharmaceutical industry and its "proved poisons"; please also take note of the definitely proven benefits. Yet to see a body of evidence supporting "proved poisons" as applying to the majority of the pharmacopoeia.
As for science catching up: hello; science explains phenomenon. If you can't explain how something happens nor prove something happens then it as good as has not happened.
Your PhD will be judged for its significance when it survives it defense and is published.

You are right Science describes phenomena and it manipulates system to test things, to exclude confusers and describes the results and seeks to explain them.

But things still happen and if for instance a man has an inoperable brain cancer takes buckets of product and comes good or a child is born with a blind oesophagus and surgeons sew a bit of bowel in but it isn't too successful, and then the mother hears about some food technology, and a bud forms on the oesophagus and grows up, then Science should take notice, eh?
But to define that as good as not happening is errant bullshit.

Manipulates? Puts in controls to ensure only one thing is being examined at a time and to ensure that nothing else could have caused the effect. In both of your hypothetical instances, it would be quite convenient to claim that the intervention caused the benefit without even acknowledging the possibility of confounders. How is it someone that is claiming to be about to do a PhD has yet to grasp the basics and also not even see the contradictions in their own post. If either of your "cases" were real, they would very likely have been written up as case studies somewhere; that would be a start in the process of substantiation; something you have constantly avoided.

There are hundreds of cases that have been unofficially presented to a State Senate in the US, or on Doctors testimonial DVDs and there is also uninformed speculation by people who should know better (like Sue and the 'this wont work ' ) and criticisms that have been overtaken by Science but persist on the web.
I am planning to reproduce, confirm and extend work done in the 1980s, and do population studies.

If there are hundreds of cases, then there will be records; dates, times, which Senators heard the "cases" etc.
Please provide the details. Senates don't have unofficial hearings. Bottom line is evidence and you have not provided one iota.

Unless you are privy to the workings of a US State Senates I would thank you not to revisionistically try to change history, as I have a DVD of that presentation, and I know hat is on it.

May I reiterate, I am planning a PhD to bring this into the public domain, confirmation, evidence, testing, papers, talks etc

"to exclude confusers"? I think you mean "confounders".

"a child is born with a blind oesophagus and surgeons sew a bit of bowel in but it isn't too successful, and then the mother hears about some food technology, and a bud forms on the oesophagus and grows up, then Science should take notice, eh?"

What on earth are you talking about?

"Anything that fails that assessment is defined as food"

I am not sure what you even mean by"fails this assessment"

Water has an LD50, Sucrose has an LD50. So does Vitamin C, table salt and ethanhol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LD50

There seems to be pretty sound reasons why you would first establish the lethal dose of any given compound as this would be pretty important if you want t use it to help people.

But I cannot see how any of this might negate the simple request that complimentary therapies provide some evidence to support their claims.

A substance has an effect or it is bilogically inert.

If someone claims it does X it seems entirely reasonable to ask that they produce evidence that supports this claim.

well I know of some stuff that did fail that assessment ( the only rat that died was stuffed with it and died of asphyxia), but I won't tell you what as it alludes to the later part of your statement and the PhD I am planning
I have no problem with there being an LD50 test, just that it is not compliant to say that something that is a food can help you, even if it does.

"I won't tell you what as it alludes to the later part of your statement and the PhD I am planning"

That's okay, your silence would be just as informative as the rest of your rambling.

Mr Maddern must be "planning" a PhD in the marketing of nutritional supplements, it seems.

No Sue, although I will not tell you specifically I will be confirming some work done in the 80s and doing population studies.

"While assessing effectiveness of CAM is important, it can take some time and often when we think we have the final answer whether positive or negative"

- And while pharmaceutical companies get hammered for doing insufficient research before going to market. Alternative therapists keep on cashing in with no effort to establish efficacy at all!

I would be more impressed by such statements if there was a willingness to withdraw these products and the provision of treatment until this lengthy process is conducted.

Chances of this happening are...

Thanks for the reply Geoffrey

Strange I didnt think my last post was so controversial.....

I think we might be discussing slightly different subjects. For example I have had some concerns about calcium supplementation for some time. However the evidence either way is not conclusive. I was thinking of calcium as I wrote my last post.

https://theconversation.edu.au/can-calcium-supplements-cause-heart-disease-7282

Do you think that all calcium supplements should be taken off the market?

Or are you taking about something else, you were not being specific as to which products concerned you.

Also the main point of my last post was the concern about black salve. I had hoped that by discussing this product, it may deter others from using it.

Finaly I dont tend to make any money from supplement sales, I mostly use hypnotherapy, dry needling, trigger point massage and if I do recommend herbal tinctures ect I send them elsewhere.....

Thanks Rachael

I hadn't read the TGA alert, I will attempt to find out who supplied it to my client and try to stop it at the source.....

I personally don't think Calcium supplements are contraindicated because Western Society overloads on animal protein, which , amongst other things, acidified the body. The body responds by putting Ca into the blood from the stores aka bones.
So all you big meat eaters would be advised to keep up the Calcium lest you get osteoporosis in old age.

Rachel, I would never use or recommend black salve, but I know 5 people who have used it. One used it on his face and he has significant facial scarring. The other four are women, one used it on skin cancer on her arm, with little scarring, and the others used it on their legs, with significant scarring.

Some said they wouldn't use it again, it was a horrible experience, but in spite of that, some swore by it, and said they would use it again. I've never had skin cancer, but if you've got it, I guess you may be tempted to try anything, especially if the oncologists say they cant help you.

Mr Maddern - what do you mean by "acidified the body"?

The human body is kept within a very tight range of pH (7.35 - 7.45) by the action of the lungs and kidneys. IF disrupted, very serious illness results. One can ingest acid foods (cirtus, tomatoes) or alkaline substances (antacids), but the body will compensate through the exchange of CO2 and ion exchange in the renal tubules.

Your posts sound more and more like you are marketing nutritional supplements. Are you part of this huge industry?

Pat O'Brien - superficial skin cancers are mostly managed by dermatologists - they can be excised, or treated with laser or liquid nitrogen.

By the time an oncologist is needed, you are talking about malignant melanoma or perhaps SCC with spread (metastases). No amount of black salve will salve you then.

You're quite wrong Sue, all of the people I mentioned that used black salve had biopsys that showed cancer....malignant melanomas.....I've spoken to them and seen the scars. You shouldn't be so critical and so negative of something you know nothing about, it brings all your arguments into doubt.

You may not be aware, but Black Salve is obtainable at most stock food suppliers for use with animals only, but of course humans use it too....as they do 'animals only' liniments etc....because they work, often better than TGA "approved for human" products.

One of the modes of homeostasis is release of Ca , it seems well known that this happens, and I guess that it is under hormonal control

Seriously David, you are just making yourself look sillier with each post. You are talking with a bunch of people who appear to understand a whole lot more physiology than you. As Sue Ieraci has already pointed out, the body is not "acidified" by eating animal protein. Yes, it constitutes a load of fixed acid (excess hydrogen ions), which is buffered in the first instance by bicarbonate ions. The fall in bicarbonate in extra cellular fluid is then addressed in the kidney by generation of new bicarbonate (through phosphate and ammonium excretion) and pH is always maintained win a tight range, in the absence of another pathology. The only time calcium comes into it is if renal compensatory mechanisms are unable to excrete the acid, in end stage renal failure!! And then there is renal osteodystrophy... And hypocalcemia and hyperphosphatemia.

So really, you have come to the wrong place to peddle your wares, I sold be fascinated to see which institution is going to approve your PhD project..

Well if the body turns over every 8 years it would appear that the Ca is somewhat labile

What do you say to carbonated drinks? Are they ok?

Edward - folate supplementation for pregnancy is not "CAM" - it is an evidence-based medical recommendation. If one wanted to look at the evidence, it is well-documented.

Why shouldn;t we apply the same standards to all supplementation?

Pat O'Brien - you shouldn't post unsubstantiated anecdotes about what apparently happened to people you know - it brings all your examples into doubt.

Who did the biopsies? Did they recommend the Black Salve? Did they re-biopsy the edges to see that the entire melanoma was removed? Where are these cases written up?

Your story sounds highly dubious.

Dear me Sue, Ive been enjoying reading most of these responses, but not yours. You are a very aggressive and negative responder, just criticising every other response that doesn't agree with your views.

I believe you should quietly sit down and have nice cup of herbal tea, it may give you a better and more sympathetic outlook on other people's views and experience....and on what works and what doesn't work.

Pat, Sue raises a very valid point concerning anecdotal evidence/comments. "The people said they had melanomas and showed you the scars." Some people may hear they had a skin cancer and then take that to mean they had a melanoma whereas the informant kept it simple and they had a BCC or SCC. The issue with melanomas (or for that matter, any skin cancer but especially melanoma) is the issue of complete excision. Without that knowledge there is no predictor of recurrence and no extra action taken if necessary.

Hi Trevor, I take your point, but "evidentuary data" from those who have successfully used CAMS is not likely to happen, they are too busy living their lives that they thought may be cut short. Previously I mentioned 5 people I know who have successfully used Black Salve. I know of many more cases of those who have also successfully used other CAMS therapies, sometimes in conjunction with Chemo or other conventional therapies. I am only one of them, and I work in the health field.

One of the problems facing full community acceptance of conventional medicine is the knowledge in the community that the research is lacking in community input. Few people trust research that is only half complete, and if medical research doesn't, or can't, include anecdotal data, it won't get community support or trust.

It's been interesting reading the sometimes hysterical nonsense some commentators have produced, to try to denigrate CAMS, and I'm sure its only because they know the research is faulty, it's only half there.....it doesn't include comment from those thousands who have successfully used CAMS.

Then I get blasted by some of these aggressive conventional medicine believers, desperately pushing to justify medical practices, some of which have killed thousands of Australians. Anyway I'm out of here, I'm going to enjoy the rest of my life that would have been over four years ago, if it wasn't for a couple of CAMS therapies.....and lots of herbal tea. Cheers, Pat

Yes, I'm amazed at the fact that the raw material for protein powders is usually whey protein isolate, which retails for about $25 per Kg, yet they can repackage it and sell it for about $70/Kg!

Depends what has been done to it. Some actually have put some effort into the product, like flavourings and digestion aids, etc, but a lot haven't or charge too much for what they have done.

@Sue and Mark, the research on protein supplements for sports training is very extensive. While there isn't much of difference between whey isolate, whey concentrate and milk powder, in terms of benefits, there are definite benefits to recovery and muscle synthesis. Kevin Tipton did a lot of the early work in this area, his papers are pretty much the basis for protein supplements in sports science. Creatine is the other substance that is proven, which means most other "supplements" are dubious or not beneficial.

Tim, what is the population profile that actually benefits though? The hard core professional athlete or muscle builder or your average person going to the gym trying to maintain a fitness regimen as part of their health lifestyle.

It all depends on the goals, Trevor. If you take your training seriously or are competitive at sport there is a definite benefit. If you just do general fitness or the like, not much point, as your normal diet is more than enough.

See, the protein and carbs acts to switch metabolic states so that you recover and take in quality nutrients. From a protein shake these are absorbed quicker and thus the switch is quicker and so on. For someone who plays competitive sport or wants to look like an athlete, this is important. For the average person who isn't pushing themselves as hard, a standard meal would suffice.

But the problem I see with all of those supplements is the grossly exaggerated claims on the packets and in the marketing. 300% GROWTH, the steroidal model, etc, is just plain rubbish. It sucks some people in, but savvy trainees know it is just marketing spin.

Tim, I hope you forgive me for what was always intended as a leading question. At a guess, the greatest potential market would be the "average person." Hence some of the marketing hype and exaggerated claims.