Study finds ginkgo biloba does not prevent dementia

[cosmik debris]

Long touted as an elixir of eternal mental acuity, the herbal extract ginkgo biloba in fact does not prevent or delay the progression of dementia or Alzheimer's disease, according to a clinical trial reported today involving thousands of volunteers between the ages of 75 and 96.

The subjects swallowed round, reddish tablets twice a day for an average of more than six years, but at the end of the study, those who got ginkgo biloba were slightly more likely to be diagnosed with dementia and Alzheimer's than their counterparts who received dummy pills.

The results, published in the Journal of the American Medical Assn., are sure to disappoint the millions of people who take ginkgo in the hopes of boosting their brainpower and staving off the ravages of dementia and Alzheimer's, which affect more than 5.2 million Americans. Alzheimer's passed diabetes two years ago as the sixth-leading cause of death in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

More at: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-ginkgo19-2008nov19,0,1270521.story

Science wins again.

[Orrex]

1. But so many people really really believe it!

Surely that must count for something?

[trotsky]

5. *SNORT*

:spray:

[cosmik debris]

6. Well, it shoots the shit out of the old joke about ginkgo viagra

for people who can't remember what the fuck they are doing.

[UndertheOcean]

2. Science : +1 , Snake Oil : 0

[Mike 03]

3. We'll see. I know some neurologists still advise their patients to take it,

and it would be nice if these so-called "prevention" studies would focus on people under the age of 75 because, once again, the parameters of the same are preposterous to establish prevention.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

4. No reputable herbalist ever said it DID prevent dementia or Alzheimers.

:shrug: It is prescribed as a mild memory booster/overall brain tonic.

This happened with St. John's Wort, too -- the western medicine studies concluded it did not cure major depression, something herbalist already know -- it is for mild to moderate depression.

[trotsky]

7. Do you trust "Dr." Mercola? n/t

[kimmerspixelated]

10. He has some good advice. There are quite a few others,

to investigate, but why would you if you think all of alt. medicine is snake oil? Wouldn't that be a waste of your time? If you trust your mainstream doctor to keep you informed about what is right for your body, then GO for it! But your doctors aren't trained to cure you. They are trained to provide a pill that is synthetic(based on herbals, etc.) that have side effects that are harmful, but mostly they will only curb a symptom(at best!!) To cure anything you must get to the ROOT of the problem!

[trotsky]

14. Excuse me, was I talking to you?

And does your rambling have anything to do with the answer to my question?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

11. I trust the herbalist I have seen over the years...

who have gotten me through some very tough times using herbal remedies. Some of our most commonly used medicines of today are old herbal remedies. Do you like taking aspirin? It's from one of the oldest herbal remedies out there:

"It was Hippocrates who first noticed that a potion made from the bark and leaves of the willow tree could relieve the pain of childbirth and control fever. In 1758, an English clergymen stumbled upon the same discovery, and soon willow bark was being prescribed to treat fevers. In the early 1820s, chemists discovered the secret of the willow's success: its bark and leaves contain salicin, a substance with analgesic properties from which salicylic acid is derived."


http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4251341.html

[trotsky]

13. So are you answering my question with a "yes" or "no"? n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

16. I can't answer your quesion....

because I am unfamiliar with the person you named. :shrug:

[kimmerspixelated]

8. TOUCHE'!!!

And also, the truth is, natural meds can't be patented so they are not allowed to say they are "the cure", but somehow, toxic pills that have been proven to actually make the dementia worse, or at best only slightly slow some progress are touted as a miracle from heaven for those that buy into mainstream medicine.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

12. Yup, once St. John's, Kava Kava and the like started...

started horning in on the pharmaceutical companies' bottom line, they have to discredit them. I am always suspect when a study looks at the effectiveness of an herbal that tests for a claim never made about the herbal -- like St. John's being a cure for major depression -- to me, that means the study was designed for a particular outcome from the start.

[trotsky]

15. And thus it's just like a religion.

Completely non-falsifiable.

When "big pharma" and scientists DON'T look into herbs, it's because they really know they work and don't want to verify it.

When they DO perform studies (which completely discredit the claims), it's because they really know they work and don't want to announce they verified it.

Just so you know the irrationality of your position. Not that it matters, of course. You possess the TROOF!

[kimmerspixelated]

18. Why be rude about it?

It's obvious where you stand.

[trotsky]

20. Because irrational thought annoys me when it tries to trump science. n/t

[kimmerspixelated]

29. It boils down to what you believe is the best info, doesn't it?

Simple.

[Orrex]

30. Belief has nothing to do with it

It boils down to which body of data can be better demonstrated to be accurate and reproducibly consistent with reality. In fact, the entire structure of science is designed to minimize the impact of "belief" specifically because "belief" is an incredibly poor descriptor of reality.


Simple.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

19. When tney show me a study on the effectiveness...

of St. John's Wort on mild depression (all an herbalist would prescribe it for), then I might be interested. Likewise, a study on ginko for mild memory boost & brain function (not dementia) then I will certainly look at it.

[Orrex]

24. Let the Herbalist Guild (or whatever) fund the study

You know why they don't? Because when the results show "no discernable effect," then those noble herbalists will either have to admit that they've been hawking snakeoil, or they'll have to cover up the results.

They could add enormous legitimacy to their profitable industry if they'd just engage in a little actual science, instead of relying on testimonials and gut instinct. An objective, scientific study would also silence a great many of "alternative" "medicine's" critics, so one can't help wondering why herbalists et al don't do this...

[cosmik debris]

25. And ruin their multi-billion dollar scam?

They will never test their potions because they can't sell the truth. And this is really all about sales numbers.

[Orrex]

26. Surely you're not implying that they're knowingly engaging in an unethical practice?!?

I'm offended that you'd even suggest such a thing.

[cosmik debris]

27. Unethical?

I believe their ethical vision is blinded by their bright indigo auras.

(Or maybe by the high profit, low overhead sales opportunity)

[Orrex]

28. There's a very simple way to allay your suspicions

If you're really concerned that the pharmaceutical companies will design a dishonest study as you describe, then let the proponents of St. John's Wort et al step up and do an actual, objective controlled study for themselves.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I can think of only two reasons why they won't do this:

1. Because their long-standing claims are bullshit, and they know it. Therefore, if they publish a study demonstrating this fact, they'll be on the hook for it.

2. Because their long-standing claims are bullshit, but they really believe them, but they fear that they're actually bullshit. Therefore, if they publish a study demonstrating this fact, they'll have to admit that they've been selling snakeoil and patent medicines for the past few centuries.

If you can think of a legitimate reason why proponents of these superfantastic herbal nostrums don't fund an independent study, then I'd love to hear it. But here are two reasons that aren't legtimate:

1. Because they already "know" that these herbal whatsits "work," so there's no need to prove them. This is a cowardly position to take, and it stands as an obstacle to the advancement of knowledge. If such and such an herb is shown to work, then what else might we learn as a result?

2. Because such tests are too expensive. The herbal supplement industry (and, by extension, the "alternative" "medicine" industry) is a multibillion dollar cash cow that has more then enough petty cash floating around to fund a whole bunch of high-quality studies.

[kimmerspixelated]

9. Agreed!

[cosmik debris]

17. You really should have read the article

Before you showed your ass.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

22. I did read the article.

:shrug: They were testing an herbal for its effectiveness on staving off dementia & Alzheimers. They were testing that particular herbal for something it was never intended to do. There is a subtext there I am uncomfortable with. I would have been very happily surprised if it had been shown to be effective.

And speaking of ass...

[niyad]

21. does it say who funded the study?

[cosmik debris]

23. Did you read the article? n/t