Yes, rat studies are extremely common. Rat studies are used as a jumping board, not solid, irrefutable evidence that it does the same in humans. One shouldn't imply or claim that results from a rat study would be the same in people, especially all the time. One should also know how to interpret the results, as well as look into the study's quality.
Investigators determine whether a chemical is safe by looking at its bioavailiability, how it could accumulate, and what the chemical be used for and it what dosages. Inhaling vs. ingesting vs. topically applying the chemical makes all the difference between dangerous and safe. Again, you must look at study quality.
True, there are some treatments called "alternative medicine" because of how the surveys worded it.
How can anyone else not interpret that statement the way I did with these lines: "Putting chemicals on your skin is actually far worse than ingesting them... so the toxic chemicals from toiletries and beauty products are largely going directly to your internal organs"?
Also, some of the ingredients Mercola claimed were "toxic"/cancer-causing on that page actually aren't, especially when they're in very low concentrations that can't really absorb through the skin and accumulate, and he's misleading on the formaldehyde part.
True, investigators have been looking into linoleic acid, but it's not at the "approved" stage yet.
Yes, rat skin is similar, but not so similar that we can just enroll rats in clinical trials and have to go straight to the market. Lots of promising medications crash and burn after the in vitro and rat stage. The same thing happened to oral resveratrol for a lot of diseases. There's a call into researching the conjugates instead.
Yes, there are flaws in studies and there is a lot of fraud in pharameceuticals. Read Ben Goldacre's Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients if you haven't already. But there's a ton of fraud in alternative medicine too, as exposed in Goldacre's Bad Science book.
Not true with the bolded part. The stratum corneum blocks a lot of things (that's the whole point of the stratum corneum), and that doesn't account for ingredients degrading between the layers of skin, particularly the epidermis. Substances with high lipophilicity and under 500 Daltons tend to penetrate the skin the best. Polarity and penetration enhancers like propelyne glycol and occlusives like petrolatum also influence penetration, as well as if you have diseases like psoriasis or atopic dermatitis. How much you apply, where you apply it and the concentration matters too.
The petroleum found in skin care isn't crude oil. The "petroleum", AKA petrolatum, in skin care is highly refined and the hydrocarbon numbers are 25+. Yes, petroleum is combustible, but the main concern is transporting and storing the raw product, not a finished lotion.
Greenmedinfo concluded incorrectly on the mice study. First, mice aren't people, and second, there were so many problems in the study you can't conclude anything from it. No randomization (apparently not until later or something? It's confusing), small sample size, the table conflicts with reported data, missing data from the mice on the follow-up, and at some points the data actually shows no difference between the treated and untreated mice. I've combed through the paper twice, and I wouldn't be surprised if I missed a few more flaws.
It's black-hat marketing technique where you put a cookie on someone's computer without them knowing. So, the person/"pawn" doesn't have to click on the link for you to get the commission, because the cookie is on the computer like a virus/malware would be. Cookie stuffing violates the affiliate agreement and is absolutely illegal.
As long as you use the affiliate program normally and to the agreement, you won't get into trouble.
We don't know if buying apples with residual pesticides is dangerous, if at all, compared to spraying apples with lots of pesticides. If you've ever owned apple trees and needed to spray them, you have to spray it carefully and you need to wear a mask and other protective clothing while doing so. One point I should make is that "green pesticides", although they may be safer to us than "synthetic pesticides", the former might be more dangerous to the environment.
What the plant is,how it's genetically modified, and what environment you grow it in determines whether it can grow twice as fast and have the same amount of nutrients.
"The [pharmaceutical companies are suppressing the cure to diseases] is one of the biggest, most pervasive myths on the Internet. On the very surface it makes sense--but not when you know other forms of monetization. Pharmaceutical companies would love to find the cure. Do you realize how much profits they would rake in then? It'd be nearly infinite fame and glory to the team of researchers who found the cure, and to the first company. Every single university would war over each other to get the scientists working for them. Whatever universities the researchers graduated/came from would now be famous and would only have to rely on word-of-mouth. All the media outlets would clamor over interviewing them. The pharmaceutical company could charge whatever they wanted for the cure, and they know the vast majority would be willing to pay for it. The companies know that there will always be more people (born). The companies could always sell the cure, too."
Are you implying that everything we know about germs are wrong? Germ theory came about to explain why so many people were getting sick and dying. During and before the 19th century, people were getting cholera, typhoid fever, tuberculosis, smallpox, and dozens of other diseases transmitted by all sorts of ways. Sanitation exists because of the germ theory.
Doing a bunch of research by yourself is sometimes meaningless if you don't know what makes a good study/source and why. For example, I could come to the conclusion that drinking bleach cures stomach cancer and that soaking my feet in maple syrup will prevent arthritis because I "researched" it. Is there a value to being self-taught? Sometimes, but it depends on the subject. Medicine and science is one of the hardest subjects to self-teach, and you can only get so much accurate information through the Internet, which is why you need 8-10+ years of going to school (not including residency) for this. Then, you have to go back, which happens in some fields more than others.
Wait, what? Just two nutrition classes? So, how and why do specialties/branches like pediatric nutrition and bariatrics exist? Chemistry and nutrition do go hand-in-hand, because nutrients like Vitamin A and Vitamin B3 are "chemicals".
The "severe" statin side effects are rare and overblown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin#Adverse_effects It's highly dependent on dosage, how long one has taken it, what the conditions/diseases are and what other drugs and foods it interacts with.
Not true with the inflammation part. What do you think causes the inflammation in the first place for heart disease and obesity? Also, not true with the prevention part. See the whole purpose in bariatrics alone.
"You are what you eat"? Not always true. I suppose you include diseases like seizures, Tay-sachs, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, sepsis, and especially Antisocial personality disorder?
GMO is meaningless. People have been genetically modifying plants and animals for hundreds of years (i.e, culling), albeit in an imprecise manner. "Organic" is nearly meaningless, because it's most often used for what people want it to be.
This is very dangerous nonsense. The raw foods/detox "treatment" ignores everything known about scars, and advocates the notion that uneducated laymen are somehow smarter, better, and more ethical than educated professionals.
I can understand the sentiment that there should be some approval process of what gets put on these boards. Fasting and herbs are not deadly like taking cyanide for cancer, but with the way that people purvey these "simple, easy cures" no one ever brings up possible drug/disease interactions or other side effects, it can be just as dangerous as some of the worst quackery. All it takes for a horrible side effect to happen is someone taking the wrong treatment at the wrong time. Worse, there's the implication that side effects can't and don't exist with "natural, alternative cures."
I'm assuming you got that info from the Business Insider article. You're jumping to conclusions on why they commit suicide. This is equivalent to me saying that massage therapists have such a high divorce rate because they are all cheating on their spouses. Also, in some states some naturopaths are considered physicians, so does your assumption apply to them as well?
The "covering up the symptoms" is nonsense. Alternative medicine somehow doesn't? "Natural" antibacterials and "stress-relievers" like rose root are still covering up the symptoms, because advocates say that they work just as well as pharmaceuticals if not better and imply its through the same mechanisms of action. What's the difference, really? You're just switching one treatment with another.
I've wrote about "suppressing the cure" nonsense here:
The pH getting thrown off is an actual disease called ketoacidosis, which can be fatal. Do you have any solid evidence that pH isn't tightly controlled or any of your other assertions for that matter?