Did anyone ever come back here to tell us the Buhner protocol fully healed them?

Mustard Seed said...

Psilociraptor said...

There is no scientific justification for the belief that synthetic antibiotics are more potent than herbal ones. Period. It's just not true. It's just that as a culture we have put so much less time into exploring herbal antibacterials and utilizing them than we have into synthetic medicines.

We debated this in that thread last week, and I still think this is slightly misleading.

We have strong scientific justification to use antibiotics to kill Borrelia and very little scientific evidence to suggest any herbs kill Borrelia (outside of the well-studied artemisinin).

Is it fair to say some herbs may kill Borrelia? Absolutely, but it's not proven in the same way.

That's not what I said. In fact I didn't say anything about Borrelia because Charlies comment was on infectious disease management in general. I said, on a general level, there is no scientific justification for the belief that synthetic antibiotics (and by this i guess I mean all pharmaceutical ones whether sythetic, semi-synthetic, or extracted) are more potent than herbal ones. A fungus makes penicillin to kill a bacteria. A plant produces a chemical to kill a bacteria. What justification is there for suggesting that one is inherently stronger than the other? It is entirely context dependent. What chemical, what bacteria. But it's totally asinine to think that out of the millions of species of plants on this planet we've somehow ruled out their utility in treating illness in favor of lab-derived compounds. No. We just have a cultural bias towards studying antibacterials in this context.