Hi I’m dr. Fred templeman, and I assume that if you’re listening me to me today, then you are interested in maintaining good health and getting rid of problems as well as you possibly can, and so today I’d like to share what I consider some medical insights with you.
That may be interesting when the value of supplements is examine. The primary medical evidence comes from sources often considered by academics as weak evidence, namely anecdotal report, meaning what people say after they & # 39.
Ve tried a supplement and preclinical studies, meaning laboratory studies conducted in Petri stemcell dishes and test tubes are in animal subjects, but not humans. Critics of supplements often categorize this evidence as being of little value, but as a primary care physician with decades of experience in clinical care.
I can honestly tell you that the value of what people reported to me after I tried to treat them was often the most important information I received in making my decisions as to the direction of therapy.
In fact, without this valuable reported input from my patients, I would have been practicing something akin to veterinary medicine, where patients are completely unable to communicate through speech. So for this and other reasons, in my opinion, the critics of anecdotal reports are often unjustifiably dismissive of what is valid medical evidence now, in my experience again, primary care physicians, who are on the front lines of patient care, have a better appreciation of what is useful In treatment than experts who may be sequestered in laboratories and who never see patients now, finally, in the case of supplements, there is a form of anecdotal evidence which I believe to be superior in value to modern, random placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trials.
Isn’t that a mouthful. Let me explain to you why it’s important to talk about this, because most researchers and many clinicians think that these trials should be the gold standard green papaya of evidence when it comes to determining whether a proposed remedy is safe and effective.
And for that reason I’m, going to spend just a minute here discussing the basics of such trials. The clinical trial is intended to determine the safety and the efficacy of the proposed remedy. The trial involves choosing people from a group at random in order to reduce the possibility of bias.
It is called controlled because the subjects are divided into two groups, one of which receives the proposed remedy and the other receives an inactive substance. The trial is called blinded because neither the investigators nor the subjects themselves know what each person has received.
The numbers of subjects in these trials range from hundreds of people to the low thousands in larger trials. Now the safety of the remedy, usually a drug, is determined from its side effect profile. All remedies have both desirable and undesirable effects, the latter being called side effects.
If the side effects soursop leaves or the unintended effects are dangerous or deadly, it will hopefully become evident in the trial participants before the remedy is approved for use by the general public. The efficacy of a remedy is evaluated by comparing the active substance with an inactive look-alike substance called a placebo.
Previously, we used to call these sugar pills if the desired effect of the remedy is not more evident in the active patient roop than in the placebo patient group. Then the remedy is considered to be ineffectual and should never make it to the marketplace.
Excessive or deadly adverse should also exclude a remedy from becoming commercially available, in the same way that the inability to stimulate desirable change superior to the placebo would exclude something from the marketplace.
So this is the theory, but in actual practice, remedies which later proved deadly are more dangerous than the trials revealed very often make it into the hands of consumers, because the limitations of the predictive value of a trial in a smaller group does not become evident until More people use the product now.
This is the point that I wish to make as forcefully as I possibly can. A significant proportion of drugs make it to the market only to be withdrawn. Later after many, thousands of patients use the drug and deadly side effects which were missed in the trials become evident.
So let’s. Resume exposure over time to large numbers of consumers is the only real way to determine the safety and the efficacy of a remedy. Now let’s. Consider traditional medical mangosteen paradigms where remedy has, by definition, being used not by thousands but by millions of patients, not over a matter of months, but over a period of sometimes hundreds of years.
People are not stupid. Collectively they will not pay or trade for a remedy that simply doesn’t produce desirable results. They will also not continue to use a remedy that causes significant harm. Natural products in most instances have this type of longitudinal experience of safety and efficacy.
They are, by definition, both safe and efficacious, and this is definitely the case for the mangosteen. It’s been used by millions of people for hundreds of years in many different countries. So there really is no question that it is both safe and that it helps the body to protect the individual against health threats.
So we and critical colleagues of mine chastised me for recommending the mangosteen as both safe and efficacious in the absence of the wonderful randomized trials that they accept as proof of the fact and which they love.
While I simply smile. So I’m dr. Fred templeman, and I want to thank you again for taking your time to listen today.