Ginkgo Biloba
-
I am not qualified to comment on how good, bad, or indifferent the quality of research is irrespective of the published source.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Nobody should be recommending ginkgo biloba on the standard of evidence that exists for it, much less in uncontrolled preparations.
Again, I am not qualified to recommend or not ANY medical product/procedure. Are you qualified ????
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Are you qualified ????
Yes I am, when in an appropriate professional setting and under the proper supervision for my level of training. If you want to know what information I used to reach my opinion, it's my education, clinical resources like uptodate/medline, the meta-analyses related to ginkgo that I'm familiar with, the cochrane reviews on similar uses for ginkgo, and my own personal standards of evidence for pharmacological therapies, herbal or otherwise. Nevertheless, nobody should be particularly inclined to act on unsolicited medical advice they find on the internet. That's not the purpose of this forum.
- F
-
First you dismiss the study without reading the data. Now, having discovered that the study reports the results of animal trials - a necessary step towards use in humans, you know, you suddenly announce that the study is no good because it is a careful, step-by-step study.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Guess where animal studies are? Right.. at.. the.. bottom!
The next step after successful animal trials is clinical studies on humans. Publishing the successful results of those animal trials is the precursor to beginning to test the drug on human. I hope you understood those words - hell I hope you read them before deciding they're wrong - given your track record, that doesn't seem likely.
Fisticuffs wrote:
the researchers should ethically be doing
Why don't you write to Johns Hopkins and tell them their chief researcher doesn't meet up to your ethical standards - which, apparently, don't require you to read article before reviewing them.
Shepman wrote:
First you dismiss the study without reading the data.
I dismiss the clinical relevance of the study, which is all I'm really interested in, and which appeared to be the primary point of your discussion.
Shepman wrote:
The next step after successful animal trials is clinical studies on humans. Publishing the successful results of those animal trials is the precursor to beginning to test the drug on human
The recent meta-analysis I posted suggests there have already been several studies on humans with ginkgo extracts in treating acute CVAs and that the evidence is against efficacy. A mouse study doesn't particularly influence that finding. I'm perfectly willing to take their findings at face value - I have no reason to doubt the study. Mice studies are often well constructed because they're easier to do than human. But that doesn't magically mean that we can or should treat/prevent a stroke with some oral off-the-shelf ginkgo extract; in fact, the other existing evidence strongly suggests that right now it's a waste of resources. :rolleyes:
- F
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Medline, uptodate.org, and my cma.ca subscription
And which one of them told you the "Stroke" article was a fraud?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Forum:The Oakman wrote: Compounds found originally in plants now dosage controlled, pharmaceutically isolated, with reasonable evidence to support their use are also used to treat malaria, heart disease, bronchitis, hypertension, rheumatism, diabetes, muscle tension, arthritis, glaucoma, dysentery and tuberculosis, among other health problems. This was a mouse study.
Every one of those compounds are available by prescription for humans. However, I do congratulate you on reading about the Gingko study - better later than never. Anyone who had followed the link before responding to the OP would have known that, of course.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Are you qualified ????
Yes I am, when in an appropriate professional setting and under the proper supervision for my level of training. If you want to know what information I used to reach my opinion, it's my education, clinical resources like uptodate/medline, the meta-analyses related to ginkgo that I'm familiar with, the cochrane reviews on similar uses for ginkgo, and my own personal standards of evidence for pharmacological therapies, herbal or otherwise. Nevertheless, nobody should be particularly inclined to act on unsolicited medical advice they find on the internet. That's not the purpose of this forum.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Nevertheless, nobody should be particularly inclined to act on unsolicited medical advice they find on the internet.
Very true, but then all I did was to point readers of this forum to another, from what I gather is, well respected publisher, who have research material available. If the research material is wrong, for whatever reason, then tell them (the publishers), not me as I cannot judge how exactingly precise, or not, your objections/observations/views would be. The purpose of this Soapbox forum is to discuss "anything under the sun" so very little, as such, is off limits and that includes discussing medical ethics etc.
-
Oakman wrote:
Anyone who had followed the link before responding to the OP would have known that, of course.
Apparently he's "special."
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Nevertheless, nobody should be particularly inclined to act on unsolicited medical advice they find on the internet.
Very true, but then all I did was to point readers of this forum to another, from what I gather is, well respected publisher, who have research material available. If the research material is wrong, for whatever reason, then tell them (the publishers), not me as I cannot judge how exactingly precise, or not, your objections/observations/views would be. The purpose of this Soapbox forum is to discuss "anything under the sun" so very little, as such, is off limits and that includes discussing medical ethics etc.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Very true, but then all I did was to point readers of this forum to another, from what I gather is, well respected publisher, who have research material available. If the research material is wrong, for whatever reason, then tell them (the publishers), not me as I cannot judge how exactingly precise, or not, your objections/observations/views would be.
Fair enough. I would comment that it's difficult to get an idea of what should/shouldn't be done medically from only reading the primary literature. Expert summary sites are usually better for that, for instance, I think that uptodate.org has a patient side specifically for that. If you're interested, check it out! :)
- F
-
Shepman wrote:
First you dismiss the study without reading the data.
I dismiss the clinical relevance of the study, which is all I'm really interested in, and which appeared to be the primary point of your discussion.
Shepman wrote:
The next step after successful animal trials is clinical studies on humans. Publishing the successful results of those animal trials is the precursor to beginning to test the drug on human
The recent meta-analysis I posted suggests there have already been several studies on humans with ginkgo extracts in treating acute CVAs and that the evidence is against efficacy. A mouse study doesn't particularly influence that finding. I'm perfectly willing to take their findings at face value - I have no reason to doubt the study. Mice studies are often well constructed because they're easier to do than human. But that doesn't magically mean that we can or should treat/prevent a stroke with some oral off-the-shelf ginkgo extract; in fact, the other existing evidence strongly suggests that right now it's a waste of resources. :rolleyes:
- F
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Are you qualified ????
Yes I am, when in an appropriate professional setting and under the proper supervision for my level of training. If you want to know what information I used to reach my opinion, it's my education, clinical resources like uptodate/medline, the meta-analyses related to ginkgo that I'm familiar with, the cochrane reviews on similar uses for ginkgo, and my own personal standards of evidence for pharmacological therapies, herbal or otherwise. Nevertheless, nobody should be particularly inclined to act on unsolicited medical advice they find on the internet. That's not the purpose of this forum.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Yes I am, when in an appropriate professional setting and under the proper supervision for my level of training.
Junior med tech? Ambulance Driver? You obviously are unwilling to reveal your professional credentials so tell me, has you level of training included the suggestion that you read a medical article before trashing it?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Very true, but then all I did was to point readers of this forum to another, from what I gather is, well respected publisher, who have research material available. If the research material is wrong, for whatever reason, then tell them (the publishers), not me as I cannot judge how exactingly precise, or not, your objections/observations/views would be.
Fair enough. I would comment that it's difficult to get an idea of what should/shouldn't be done medically from only reading the primary literature. Expert summary sites are usually better for that, for instance, I think that uptodate.org has a patient side specifically for that. If you're interested, check it out! :)
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
I would comment that it's difficult to get an idea of what should/shouldn't be done medically from only reading the primary literature.
So it's much better not to read the articles, just declare them to be frauds, right?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Would you be willing to take ginkgo for the purposes of preventing stroke based on this study? In terms of clouding the issue, I thought the issue was precisely that question. Am I mistaken?
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
In terms of clouding the issue, I thought the issue was precisely that question. Am I mistaken?
The issue at hand is that you decided to call the OP's link a fraud without bothering to read it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
I'm perfectly willing to take their findings at face value - I have no reason to doubt the study.
You mean now that you have decided to read about it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
You seem determined to be provocative. Nevertheless, Jon, you're out of your league here. Are you upset because I didn't write "AND I READ IT AND THIS IS A MOUSE STUDY" in my original post? Because that seems to be your only line of discussion - whether or not I have basic reading comprehension :rolleyes:. If you had any training in epidemiology, you would know that mouse studies do not translate well to humans. Obviously, the physiology is quite different. Regarding this study, existing studies on humans deny exactly the specific effect they found in the mice. The clinical benefit from this, in my opinion, is dubious. Got any more one-liners you would like to share? It's always fun to see you forget your calls for a higher level of discourse in the Soapbox as soon as you have nothing of value to add.
- F
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
In terms of clouding the issue, I thought the issue was precisely that question. Am I mistaken?
The issue at hand is that you decided to call the OP's link a fraud without bothering to read it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Fisticuffs wrote: Medline, uptodate.org, and my cma.ca subscription And which one of them told you the "Stroke" article was a fraud?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
I would comment that it's difficult to get an idea of what should/shouldn't be done medically from only reading the primary literature.
So it's much better not to read the articles, just declare them to be frauds, right?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Yes I am, when in an appropriate professional setting and under the proper supervision for my level of training.
Junior med tech? Ambulance Driver? You obviously are unwilling to reveal your professional credentials so tell me, has you level of training included the suggestion that you read a medical article before trashing it?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
B.Sc biochemistry/MD in progress. And yes, my training suggests I should place very little weight on animal studies when making clinical decisions like, "should I take ginkgo to prevent a stroke." [edit: though, I'll point out that this is exactly the extrapolation that journalists make to spin their articles and researchers hint at to spin their studies, for obvious reasons] Are we done, or are you still interested in trying to score points off me?
- F
-
It's obvious you didn't read it, but now that you're lying to cover it up. I won't belabor the point.