>> In some cases herbs still are the best answer, but those are few and far between when you consider the dangerous drawbacks to the wild form of medicine. That's a rather sweeping statement - what are the dangerous drawbacks to the "wild" form of medicine? >> Also keep in mind that big pharma can get a legal monopoly on a compound derived from an herb, or a group of compounds, the only reason that big pharma isn't testing echinacea or SJW or burdock is that the evidence doesn't point to much useful coming from them compared to drugs already on the market. Sure, someone could patent a compound or the use of a compound - if it is novel. But if an herb (like SJW) has long been used for treating depression, and if the chemical or synergistic group of chemicals that are in SJW were discovered long ago, there is very little newness to warrant a patent. Numerous studies have shown that SJW is comparable to existing antidepressants in efficacy, and generally has a lower side effects profile. I don't think that the pharmaceutical companies are being evil, but the rules are set up so that their first goal is making money. If they could develop a product that was equal to (or even somewhat inferior) to existing products but much more profitable, they absolutely should push that product. Because the function of the corporation is to return as much profit to the owners as possible. The fact that they may need to meet some 'need,' or that the 'solution' is also much more expensive to the consumer is incidental and irrelevant to the driving force of the corporation. Drugs are no different than shampoo - sure, a decent product could be produced at a very low cost. But instead, we see thousands of products competing against each other to fill the same basic function of removing dirt and oils from the hair. There are shampoos pitched specifically to males or females, specifically to particular age groups, different economic groups, different ethnic groups, etc. In the marketplace, demographics and psychological needs are more important than physical needs. >> with medicine we are typically going after one thing that has gone wrong pathologically, trying to activate one receptor, and typically a whole bunch of chemicals grabbed essentially at random (well, they are in the same plant, but from a human physiology standpoint they have nothing in common) In a few cases, that is true, but more often, it is not. If a child has a fever, is holding its ear and screaming in pain, an antibiotic is a good choice to relieve an acute infection. But if the child comes back time after time with ear infections, then maybe the real problem is not antibiotic related - it could be air or water quality, a nutritional deficiency, the bacterial ecology of their sinuses, sanitation, or a variety of other things. The focus on 'the one thing that has gone wrong pathologically' (bacteria) can easily become myopia. Illness generally involves more than one thing that has gone wrong - activating or blocking one gene or receptor may help, but complex systems are rarely optimized with a single such tweak. The 'modern' approach to heart disease has focused very narrowly on cholesterol and the HMG-CoA receptors, and that has yielded some progress. But cholesterol is only one part of the atherogenic process, accounting for 30-40% of risk. Half of men who have their first heart attack have normal cholesterol levels. What about CRP, homocysteine, inflammatory cytokines, reactive oxidation, platelet aggregation, and a host of other factors? What about the complex patterns of gene expression that exist in various diseases, or in health?

While there's some evidence that grapefruit might have cancer-fighting properties, a recently published study found that grapefruit actually increased the risk of breast cancer in some women: "Women in the highest intake categoryÂ60 grams or more per day, equal to slightly more than one-quarter grapefruit per day or half a grapefruit every other dayÂhad a relative risk (RR) of breast cancer 30% higher than women who ate no grapefruit (RR = 1.30). The trend of increasing risk with increasing consumption was significant (P = 0.015) after adjusting for weight, exercise, use of postmenopausal hormone therapy, family history of breast cancer, and other factors that could impact risk. The same association was evident for women who had never used postmenopausal hormone therapy (RR = 1.44; P = 0.038) and for those with a body mass index below 25, the cutoff for overweight (RR = 1.32; P = 0.011). Although risk also increased for women who were current or past users of hormone therapy (either estrogen-only or estrogen-progestin combination therapy) and for those with a higher body mass index, the differences were not statistically significant. This finding suggests grapefruit's effect on estrogen is greatest in women whose baseline levels are lower to begin with, Monroe says. The results are consistent with a biological effect of grapefruit on estrogen metabolism. At least 2 previous studies have found higher estrogen levels in women consuming grapefruit or grapefruit juice, the authors note, and grapefruit is known to elevate serum concentrations of many drugs, including hormone replacement therapies. The US Food and Drug Administration requires hormone replacement products to carry warning labels stating that grapefruit juice may increase plasma concentrations of estrogen. More study will be needed before this possible link to breast cancer can be confirmed. We do know that grapefruit affects metabolism of a number of drugs, so checking with your doctor before adding a grapefruit seed extract product is a good idea.

vacuumfreak - congratulations on your adoption! He's absolutely beautiful!! And congratulations on adopting a rescue . . . I believe they make the best companions. I'm very thankful for another year with my aging shelties and cat. It's been touch and go year for my male sheltie, but he's still here and still enjoying his life. My female sheltie has "grown up" and stepped into the role of "alpha" in our house. My beautiful snotty cat is still the little light in my life. She's absolutely hateful to anyone but "her" immediate family, but we adore her and wish others could see the lap-kitty side of her. But, after 17 years, I will assume that it's possible that everyone will always think of her as a little . . . snot. It's a wonderful day to be thankful for the little furry blessings that grace our homes and keep us company. Happy Thanksgiving, Everyone!

No licenses here. The vet didn't seem concerned about what this dog might have. It is an indoor dog. My dog is up to date on all of his shots. I suspect the other dog is more likely to have dementia or some other terminal illness related to age rather than rabies or other contagious disease. I'm proceeding with caution because this probably is the beginning of the end for this dog. I'm not happy with the dog, but it has obviously been cared for and loved all of these years. Toni, I've had some neighbors who weren't my favorite over the years, but I've always gotten along with them. I may have said something about one of them that made you think it was me.