Clownfish,

Do your messages here in this forum affect anybody? Do they ever cause people to do something differently in the physical world?

Yet where are they? all virtual - there is not a single molecule in them?

Clownfish you are being disingenuous. It seems I must state the obvious - chemicals in the form of pesticides and artificial fertilisers. Everything is made of of chemical elements but if you did not discern my meaning, may I suggest you need to approach the subject more honestly and do a double-check on your analytical abilities.

Suze
One of the naturopaths I saw also had a medical background, one was a research scientist, the other two were natural therapy college trained but came at it from a sensible POV (from my interpretation).

My former GP was also open to alternative medicine when the situation demanded. People have to make a judgement on the validity of what their therapist/Dr proposes and the reasons why.

Appreciate your concern, suzeonline.

>>Read it and let me know what you think.<<

This is one of the (many) papers that my GP and I have discussed over the years. The key - as we decided between us - was to understand more specifically the groups that were being surveyed.

Bear in mind that, as your paper states, "Australian data has also demonstrated that the combination of high blood cholesterol, high blood pressure, and cigarette smoking are responsible for 75% of the cases of coronary artery disease that occurs"

We determined between us that in the absence of secondary considerations - my blood pressure is normal, my resting heart rate is sixty, I am still an active sportsman and a non-smoker - I should be concerned when, and if, the evidence pointed to statin benefits for a cohort where cholesterol was the only adverse indicator.

If you look into the studies in more detail - WOSCOPS, for instance - you will find that their claim to a "randomized" sample would probably exclude me.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199511163332001#t=articleMethods

Read the section on "Recruitment and Follow-up", which begins the selection process for the study with "[a]pproximately 160,000 men ranging in age from 45 to 64 years were invited to attend the clinics to assess their coronary risk factors."

Follow the logic through from there, via the 81,161 who appeared for the first visit, through the 20,914 who returned for the second visit, down to the final 6,595. I would suggest that, right from the start - where only 50% of those invited actually turned up - that there could be a significant element of self-selection happening, and that this self-selection would be substantially lifestyle-driven.

As in "I don't smoke, my blood pressure is normal, my parent both lived to a ripe old age, I don't see myself as being in the danger zone."

Hey, you could well be right, and I could be kidding myself. But I have tried statins, under doctor's orders, and their side effects on me convinced me to give them away. With my GP's - conditional - blessing.

Yuyutsu - I have nothing to say but ... *head-desk*

Pelican - I'm not being disingenuous, simply pointing out the bleeding obvious. What's the difference between a chemical if it's produced naturally or artificially?

Clownfish are you arguing that the chemicals in DDT are the same as the beneficial chemicals in brocolli? Chemicals are everywhere and they are not all harmful, everything is made up of chemicals, but you know very well the intent of my earlier post despite blustering protestations to the contrary.

There is a huge difference between chemicals that do harm and chemicals that are beneficial or neutral.

I am not sure of what your point is but there are numerous articles and programs by scientists that reveal the damaging effects of some chemicals that are causing harm to human and animal health; and to environments.

Clownfish

"Before you take your dog to your homeopathic 'vet' ..."

No need for the inverted commas. The vet in question is fully qualified. He just happens to have added homeopathy and acupuncture to his traditional qualifications. Why would he bother to do this? He lives in a high growth area where demand for vets is high. He didn't have to reinvent himself. The reason he looked to alternatives is that he was observing firsthand and with growing frustration the limitations of conventional treatment.

I had no personal experience with homeopathy until I visited this particular vet. I only did so after having witnessed the sad deterioration in my first dog and deciding there had to be a better way. I turned to the yellow pages and his was the only alternative veterinarian practice I could see. I actually had a strong degree of scepticism toward homeopathy at that particular point, but I was so disillusioned with what I'd experienced up to that time that I was willing to give him a try.

"Also, before you deride 'Big Pharma' (as they often deserve, I might add), you should also consider that Homeopathy is likewise a multi-billion dollar industry, only unlike 'Big Pharma', it is almost totally unregulated."

I'm not defending any multi-billion dollar industry. I'm defending the work of dedicated professionals whose knowledge of alternative treatments can and does make a valuable and legitimate contribution to the health of the nation. As I've already made clear, I'd treat any homeopathic concoction from Boots with the same degree of scepticism I'd apply to most bottled 'solutions' on their shelves.