Should India PATENT seven Notes of Music

[Lurker]

Think of them as the more rigorous equivalent of ISI (indian standardization institute) that accertains if certain products are found to comply to a certain level of purity and preparation procedure. if any medicine is produced, it must be approved by the FDA before it can be marketed.

Well that would lead me to another gripe. The way the Western medicine works is not exactly by "proving" how affective a medicine is. Most of the time, if not all, it works on deduction. As in, 75 subjects were treated to Viaxx and 50 of them showed considerable improvements without any major side affects. If you look closely that doesnt explain anything other than that a certain number of people became better. What makes it even more interesting is that the data is etched against a comparison with what is defined as placebo, basically an inert medicine. Now this itself should be open to discussion. It is like saying 10 peoples were treated to coffee and 10 to water. The former group showed remarkable agility so caffein must make one active as against water. But how does that explain anything? How is that not any different to - 10 people ate Garlic and lowered cholestrol while 10 who did not, maintained the same level. This may be a very simplistic way of showing how drug testing works. I mean I am sure there is tons and tons of science behind the way drugs are manufactured etc but in the end the success is almost always based on that x% people showing symotoms of improvement over placebo methodlogy. xxx

[triam]

A more pertinent example is homeopathy, in India there are established universities teaching homeopathy as a career option. But, if anyone cares to read about the underlying science in homeopathy most if not all would accept it is laughable that it will treat anything. With Regards to Lurker's message, there are 3 stages in the FDA process, the first stage is to evaluate the safety of the drug, meaning healthy volunteers are given this medication and monitored any side effects (this stage comes after animal testing). The second stage is the double blind test that will take two control groups and one will be fed the medicine while the other group will be given some placebo. The term 'control' here means, all the other aspects of the groups are carefully monitored and actually curtailed, for example apart from the different types of medicine given, they eat the same, sleep the same, workout the same etc.

[Lurker]

The second stage is the double blind test that will take two control groups and one will be fed the medicine while the other group will be given some placebo. The term 'control' here means' date=' all the other aspects of the groups are carefully monitored and actually curtailed, for example apart from the different types of medicine given, they eat the same, sleep the same, workout the same etc.[/quote'] Yes that was the part I was concentrating on Triam. The control/placebo group vs group on medicine is a deductional approach, in my books. The logic that this method follows is that if two people are in the same environment, eating same thing, following same lifestyle than if one is fed on a medicine and certain changes are observed it must be down to that medicine only. And this is where I dont agree with it. As an example. Me and my elder brother. Say we are both put on the same diet, same exercise regime, same everything(I mention my brother because this way we would be closest to genetic nature). Now if we are out through the wringer for 2 months would be both have the same weight loss? Of course not. Even if we have two twins, say Mark and Steve Waugh, and you give them the same regime the result after 1 month shall be unique. Now imagine giving one of the two brothers a medicine and trying to explain the difference. The way this is take care of is by sheer number. So instead of 1 person you have a subject of 100s, even 1000s, to lend credence to the claim, but isnt that simply a larger dataset? xxx

[triam]

I agree in generality with the point you are making Lurker. But I think, weight loss is a very confounding thing based on a variety of factors as opposed to lets say we found 1000 cancer cells on Feb 1st in both X and Y. X was given miracle medicine abcd while Y got a placebo at the end of March X has 20 cancer cells while Y still has 980 Cancer cells. Now agreed X may have a remarkable immune system and did it on his own and 'abcd' is nothing but candied sugar. What happens if instead of 1 X you have 100 X and instead of 1 Y, you have 100 Y's, and at the end of March all the 100 X's have shown remarkable decrease in the number of cancer cells as opposed to all the 100Y's showing no difference? I think the higher the numbers are the higher it would correct the error due to extraneous circumstances.

[Lurker]

Thats a fair argument Triam. Yes in situations like Cancer where we know for a fact what seems to be the driving factor for a disease, if a drug does lower that factor then the drug should be construed not merely as deduced but also scientifically valid data.

[THX_1138]

Well that would lead me to another gripe. The way the Western medicine works is not exactly by "proving" how affective a medicine is. Most of the time' date= if not all, it works on deduction. As in, 75 subjects were treated to Viaxx and 50 of them showed considerable improvements without any major side affects. If you look closely that doesnt explain anything other than that a certain number of people became better. What makes it even more interesting is that the data is etched against a comparison with what is defined as placebo, basically an inert medicine. Now this itself should be open to discussion. It is like saying 10 peoples were treated to coffee and 10 to water. The former group showed remarkable agility so caffein must make one active as against water. But how does that explain anything? How is that not any different to - 10 people ate Garlic and lowered cholestrol while 10 who did not, maintained the same level. This may be a very simplistic way of showing how drug testing works. I mean I am sure there is tons and tons of science behind the way drugs are manufactured etc but in the end the success is almost always based on that x% people showing symotoms of improvement over placebo methodlogy. xxx

knowledge of human anatomy and its biochemistry is still not as advanced to analytically pin point how a particular drug targets a particular ailment. the current breadth of knowledge is able to obtain an approximate notion of how a drug is working, and then tests is effectiveness with rigorous double blind tests. true, these tests are not at par with the level of analytical explainations available for more physical phenomenon. for instance, we know exactly why Uranium 235 is fissile, how it disintegrates, what consitutent particles it disintegrates into; the nature of the subatomic particles; the mass, the interaction of these particles with electromagnetic fields etc etc. in comparison with this breadth and depth of knowledge, modern medicine is equivalent to well... a game of poker with the human body. but still man... this is all anyday much more advanced than the anecdotal evidence you are supplying for ayurvedic medicine. true those seaseme seeds are working great for you, but you dont know what exactly the seaseme seed is doing inside your body (before everything else, let me point out that seaseme seeds effectiveness simply is good dietary advice, not an ayurvedic medicine as it is not really curing any disease). so how can you deduce that seaseme seeds are some magical drug? forget everything... ask yourself this simple questin: food resources are stretched more amongst a signficantly larger population; environmental pollution is higher; and above all, lifestyles are much more sedantary... yet life expectations are virtually 50% higher than they were some 600 years ago! why? if you are interested, i will forward you a bbc discussion on the black death, i.e. the plague when it hit europe during the 17th century and how it was combated, for attempts to combat it gave rise to modern medicine.

[THX_1138]

Well that would lead me to another gripe. The way the Western medicine works is not exactly by "proving" how affective a medicine is. Most of the time, if not all, it works on deduction. As in, 75 subjects were treated to Viaxx and 50 of them showed considerable improvements without any major side affects. If you look closely that doesnt explain anything other than that a certain number of people became better. What makes it even more interesting is that the data is etched against a comparison with what is defined as placebo, basically an inert medicine. Now this itself should be open to discussion. It is like saying 10 peoples were treated to coffee and 10 to water. The former group showed remarkable agility so caffein must make one active as against water. But how does that explain anything? How is that not any different to - 10 people ate Garlic and lowered cholestrol while 10 who did not, maintained the same level. This may be a very simplistic way of showing how drug testing works. I mean I am sure there is tons and tons of science behind the way drugs are manufactured etc but in the end the success is almost always based on that x% people showing symotoms of improvement over placebo methodlogy. xxx

well the numbers need to be much higher, the control group must be similar to group subjected to the medicine, in this place garlic, and above all, there should be a double blind component, i.e. both observer bias and placebo bias removed. if such a study is done, and the results suggest that garlic does indeed lower blood cholestrol as compared to just plain water... garlic would indeed be regarded as a medicine! thats what i am asking mate... why the bloody hell cant homeopathic doctors not do the above test!!??? for alopathic medicine, there is a long procedure of certification required from the FDA before such a trial, but if ayurvedic medicine is using simple components such as turmeric and garlic, they can circumvent this FDA certification process and move straight to the double blind studies... but they dont! and when alopathic doctors take it upon themselves to test homeopathic drugs, they do not find any suggestion of the drug being effective, which in my book suggests that the claim that homeopathy works is bogus!

[THX_1138]

Yes that was the part I was concentrating on Triam. The control/placebo group vs group on medicine is a deductional approach, in my books. The logic that this method follows is that if two people are in the same environment, eating same thing, following same lifestyle than if one is fed on a medicine and certain changes are observed it must be down to that medicine only. And this is where I dont agree with it. As an example. Me and my elder brother. Say we are both put on the same diet, same exercise regime, same everything(I mention my brother because this way we would be closest to genetic nature). Now if we are out through the wringer for 2 months would be both have the same weight loss? Of course not. Even if we have two twins, say Mark and Steve Waugh, and you give them the same regime the result after 1 month shall be unique. Now imagine giving one of the two brothers a medicine and trying to explain the difference. The way this is take care of is by sheer number. So instead of 1 person you have a subject of 100s, even 1000s, to lend credence to the claim, but isnt that simply a larger dataset? xxx

results are never exactly the same since the day to day routines are never exactly the same... the starting state of all the subjects of the test is not the same, and the dietary intake is never exactly the same. however, the results are compared to a statistical mean. i.e. if a 1000 candidates are subjected to a test, and those subjected to a medicine experience an average weight loss of about 35lbs, with a standard deviation of 3lbs, then it suggests that about 85% to 90% of the subjects experience a weight loss in the range of 32lbs to 38lbs. on the other hand, if the average weight loss of a 1000 candidates subjected to the placebo, usually a sugar tablet that has no medicinal value, experience a weight loss of about 15lbs with a standard deviatino of 20lbs, i.e. 85% to 90% experience a weight loss of -5lbs (weight gain) to about 35lbs, then while the upper strata are experiencing a weight loss equal or comparable to those administered a drug, it is nonetheless statistically demonstrable that the sugar pill has no medicinal value as the standard deviation is quite large and of course, the average is much lower. this is ofcourse a fictional example, but i am using it to show the power of statistics. we use statistics to prove the energy states of electrons to the probability of natural calamities, to weather prediction, to stock price modeling etc etc... statistics are a very very powerful tool indeed and as a person who has studied them for over 5 years, they have my unanimous support and faith!

[triam]

And that is what is lacking with respect to Ayurveda. without that, any number of anecdotes will not satisfy scientists or scientific organizations like FDA. So, if ayurveda wants to get recognized properly they should follow a peer reviewed process before complaining about conspiracy theories

[Brainfade]

And that is what is lacking with respect to Ayurveda. without that' date=' any number of anecdotes will not satisfy scientists or scientific organizations like FDA. So, if ayurveda wants to get recognized properly they should follow a peer reviewed process before complaining about conspiracy theories[/quote'] There is a growing trend in this direction, with the scientific community (not the herbalists) being the prime mover. Active ingredients are being extracted from herbal concoctions and used in mainstream, pre-clinical research. For instance, the anti-bacterial and anti-tumorigenic effects of curcumin (active ingredient in turmeric) are being rigorously established. NIH has an entire division devoted to this research. Check this out: http://nccam.nih.gov/

[Lurker]

but if ayurvedic medicine is using simple components such as turmeric and garlic' date= they can circumvent this FDA certification process and move straight to the double blind studies... but they dont! and when alopathic doctors take it upon themselves to test homeopathic drugs, they do not find any suggestion of the drug being effective, which in my book suggests that the claim that homeopathy works is bogus!

I dare say you are confusing couple of issues. a) Homeopathy is not the same as Ayurveda. b) You are holding the same standards of Allopathy and want Ayurveda to follow it. If for a second we twist this argument, that is hold Allopathy on same standard as Ayurveda, then will that make sense in any way? Would you be comfortable taking a medicine that is being used for generations without any metric data? Probably not. So it is only fair not to ask Ayurveda to do the same. Now if the question here is why doesnt Ayurveda do similar tests to further its merits the answer is rather obvious. It is one of those dieing arts that majority of Indians dont have any time for. Seriously how many rich Ayurveda practitioner did you see in India? And how many Ayurveda organization do you hear of that are on the same level as say Indian Medical Association(IMA)? And if there is not too many practitioner(or a powerful agency) just how do you suggest these large scale test be done?? The large scale test that you allude to(by FDA and WHO) are done in Western world mind you. Here everything is tested(which is one of the reason why the price goes up so much). It doesnt exactly work that way in our part of the world, certainly wasnt done 2000 years back. Even the Turmeric, Garlic tests that are done these days are done in Western world to prove/disprove it. It is not exactly that over a dozen tests have been done in Indian labs on this.

[Brainfade]

The FDA' date=' or the Federal Drug Association .[/quote'] I agree with your POV, but just a small quibble: FDA = Food and Drug Administration. Here's what happens before a drug is put into the market: http://www.fda.gov/CDER/HANDBOOK/DEVELOP.HTM The statistics used in clinical trials are among the most rigorous and thorough of any application of statistics. Here is an overview of the rigor that is applied: http://www.ukccsg.org/public/clinical_trials/13stats.html While, by and large, the FDA does a through job, sometimes (as in the case of Vioxx), certain drugs are fast-tracked. People cut corners, don't study side-effects thoroughly enough, and boom ... the drug does more harm than good, and has to be withdrawn.

[Lurker]

could you list one such article' date=' the author, and the magazine (along with the date it was published), i will take it upon myself to email the publisher to present their research sources... and then we could pick this discussion up again.[/quote'] THX, You may want to check a bit about Gugglesterone. It is one of the top fat loss ingedients in many Fat loss supplements alongside EGCG, Caffein, Yohimbine etc. I had some time and I looked it up.

What is Gugglesterone (Gugulipid)? Gugglesterone is the active substance in guggulipid, an extract of the guggul tree (Comiphora mukul), which has been used in the ancient Ayuruvedic medicine for nearly 3000 years, to treat a variety of conditions including obesity. It is widely used in Asia as a cholesterol lowering agent, and is gaining popularity in the United States and Europe. Research suggests that gugglesterone may lower cholesterol and help to decrease body-fat levels.

Gugglesterone (Gugulipid) Research The active ingredients in gugglesterone are known as E-gugglesterone and Z-gugglesterone. They are believed to lower blood lipid levels by inhibiting a key receptor called the farnesoid X-receptor which plays a role in regulating fatty acids, cholesterol, and bile acid synthesis (Urizar et al., 2002; Brobst et al., 2004). Early research looking at the effects of gugglesterone appeared to have positive effects. Studies, in both animals and humans, appeared to demonstrate that gugglesterone may significantly lower blood lipid levels (Singh et al., 1990 & 1997; Urizar and Moore, 2003; Wang et al., 2004). Several studies have shown that gugglesterone may lower cholesterol levels (Dev, 1997; Wu et al., 2002; Urizar et al., 2002). These studies suggest that whilst it lowers the level of the “bad†low-density lipoproteins (LDL cholesterol) it may actually increases the levels of the “good†high-density lipoproteins (HDL cholesterol) (Wu et al., 2002). It may also decreases the rate of oxidation of LDL cholesterol which would help to prevent the build up of fatty deposits on artery walls (Wang et al., 2004). LDL cholesterol is considered bad cholesterol because it increases the rate of artherosclerosis and blockage of arteries by increasing the amount of fatty deposits on artery walls. In contrast, HDL cholesterol increases the removal of the fatty deposits from artery walls. These cholesterol altering properties have led to claims that gugglesterone may be of benefit in the treatment/prevention of high cholesterol and hardening/blockage of arteries (Wang et al., 2004). Gugglesterone was also found to have a thyroid stimulating

http://www.nutritionalreviews.org/gugglesterone.htm#What_is_gugglesterone_gugulipid xxxx

[THX_1138]

There is a growing trend in this direction, with the scientific community (not the herbalists) being the prime mover. Active ingredients are being extracted from herbal concoctions and used in mainstream, pre-clinical research. For instance, the anti-bacterial and anti-tumorigenic effects of curcumin (active ingredient in turmeric) are being rigorously established. NIH has an entire division devoted to this research. Check this out: http://nccam.nih.gov/

indeed... that is a big up for these alopathic doctors who are seeking active ingredients from herbs and other naturally occuring agencies... however, they do not make inflated and premature claims of miraculous cures! and irrespective of where these active agents come, the drugs thereafter invested would have to be undergo the very same rigorous analysis, scrutiny and testing under the guidelines of the FDA. ayurvedic scholars (for i refuse to honor them with the qualification of 'doctor') need to get off their high horse of invincibility and moral superiority and conduct these tests, otherwise refrain from making false claims!

[THX_1138]

I dare say you are confusing couple of issues. a) Homeopathy is not the same as Ayurveda. b) You are holding the same standards of Allopathy and want Ayurveda to follow it. If for a second we twist this argument, that is hold Allopathy on same standard as Ayurveda, then will that make sense in any way? Would you be comfortable taking a medicine that is being used for generations without any metric data? Probably not. So it is only fair not to ask Ayurveda to do the same. Now if the question here is why doesnt Ayurveda do similar tests to further its merits the answer is rather obvious. It is one of those dieing arts that majority of Indians dont have any time for. Seriously how many rich Ayurveda practitioner did you see in India? And how many Ayurveda organization do you hear of that are on the same level as say Indian Medical Association(IMA)? And if there is not too many practitioner(or a powerful agency) just how do you suggest these large scale test be done?? The large scale test that you allude to(by FDA and WHO) are done in Western world mind you. Here everything is tested(which is one of the reason why the price goes up so much). It doesnt exactly work that way in our part of the world, certainly wasnt done 2000 years back. Even the Turmeric, Garlic tests that are done these days are done in Western world to prove/disprove it. It is not exactly that over a dozen tests have been done in Indian labs on this.

same is applicable to ayurveda... their active ingredients are quite benign which is why people are quite nonplussed about ingesting those medicines without much thought to ther sideeffects. and ayurvedic medicine is a multi million dollar industry in india... i am sure there are some resourceful people who can conduct these clinical trials. furthermore, both homeopathy and ayurvedic medicine suffer from the same ghosts... lack of testing and unwarranted, inflated claims of cures. its quite simple, either you adhere to the regulations and verify your claim or face litigation for false practise. unfortunately the social stimga related with bringing to court a few lunes dressed in safaron with long beards and supposedly wise words on their tongue would be a political suicide for any maverick individual. and finally, the tests are not conducted by the FDA or the WHO. the tests are conducted by the pharmaseutical companies, but predominantly the universities that conduct the research. they are done with the approval of the FDA.

[THX_1138]

I agree with your POV' date=' but just a small quibble: [b']FDA = Food and Drug Administration. Here's what happens before a drug is put into the market: http://www.fda.gov/CDER/HANDBOOK/DEVELOP.HTM The statistics used in clinical trials are among the most rigorous and thorough of any application of statistics. Here is an overview of the rigor that is applied: http://www.ukccsg.org/public/clinical_trials/13stats.html While, by and large, the FDA does a through job, sometimes (as in the case of Vioxx), certain drugs are fast-tracked. People cut corners, don't study side-effects thoroughly enough, and boom ... the drug does more harm than good, and has to be withdrawn.

yeah i should have seen that coming. when i was researching upton sinclair (could not recall his first name), i noticed that i wrote something else for FDA... but forgot the fix that. thanks. as for vioxx, actually there is the element of actuarial science there... again something i study: the revenue generated by the medicine is juxtapositioned with the number of patients experiencing side effects multiplied with the fraction who bring forth litigation multiplied by the average cost of settlement. if the former is higher, the drug company pushes forward with teh drug, however, if the later is higher, the drug is recalled. happens all the time: a year or two back, bridgestone recalled a massive batch of SUV pnematic tyres simply because the litigation brought forth by the few who claimed that the tyres with the alleged cause of terrible accidents was costing the company more revenue than the cost of a recall.

[THX_1138]

THX, You may want to check a bit about Gugglesterone. It is one of the top fat loss ingedients in many Fat loss supplements alongside EGCG, Caffein, Yohimbine etc. I had some time and I looked it up. http://www.nutritionalreviews.org/gugglesterone.htm#What_is_gugglesterone_gugulipid xxxx

finally you come through! lol ok i am looking at the references, and i can only find Science in my university library... thats the study by Urizar, N. L., Liverman, A. B., Dodds, D. T., Silva, F. V., Ordentlich, P., Yan, Y., Gonzalez, F. J., Heyman, R. A., Mangelsdorf, D. J. and Moore, D. D.. note that the first three are not studies, they are exploratory theseses... i.e. they are suggestions about potential research, not quite documented studies though. the second last one, "planta med" which i was most intrigued by, is not available in my library or for that fact, online... so i cannot read up on that. this will take some time, but i should be done with the journal entry in Science by friday. the predominant claim of cholestrol lowering is from a pilot study (exploratory theseses): Antonio, J., Colker, C. M., Torina, G. C., Shi, Q., Brink, W. and Kaiman, D. (1999) Effects of a standardized gugglesterone phosphate supplement on body composition in overweight adults: A pilot study. Curr Ther Res. 60 (4), 220-227. (warning... dont take the drug just yet!)