Nature vs Law, Which one is superior?

Use this forum to discuss the July 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure by Sylvie Beljanski
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 321
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Nature vs Law, Which one is superior?

Post by Sushan »

This topic is related to the philosophical book for the month of July Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure by Sylvie Beljanski

https://forums.onlinebookclub.org/shelv ... ?id=264811


Sylvie Beljanski struggled to patent her father's cancer treatments which are based on extracts from nature. And she has described the issues in legally accepting the natural drugs while synthetic ones can be easily patented legally.

Do you think naturally extracted drugs need to be approved through a similar process as the synthetic ones are approved? Or are the natural extracts are too dangerous to be used on humans because their exact composition can vary or sometimes can be toxic?

On the other hand, there are many natural drugs that have proven their effectiveness throughout the history of native medicine in various cultures. Why such drugs cannot be accepted in to today's medical systems?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 5320
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Nature vs Law, Which one is superior?

Post by LuckyR »

Sushan wrote: July 3rd, 2021, 2:05 pm This topic is related to the philosophical book for the month of July Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure by Sylvie Beljanski

https://forums.onlinebookclub.org/shelv ... ?id=264811


Sylvie Beljanski struggled to patent her father's cancer treatments which are based on extracts from nature. And she has described the issues in legally accepting the natural drugs while synthetic ones can be easily patented legally.

Do you think naturally extracted drugs need to be approved through a similar process as the synthetic ones are approved? Or are the natural extracts are too dangerous to be used on humans because their exact composition can vary or sometimes can be toxic?

On the other hand, there are many natural drugs that have proven their effectiveness throughout the history of native medicine in various cultures. Why such drugs cannot be accepted in to today's medical systems?
You are bringing up several mildly interesting but unrelated issues.

First, you are correct that you can't patent a natural product. Why should you be able to? They're found naturally, they're not your's.

Second, herbal medicine is well recognized in modern medicine, ie it is a myth that modern medicine is unaware of natural products. True, large drug companies aren't enthusiastic about products with a low profit margin, but everyone who has walked by the supplement aisle knows that they are widely available at this time, so go ahead cure your cancer with apricot pits.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 321
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Nature vs Law, Which one is superior?

Post by Sushan »

LuckyR wrote: July 4th, 2021, 3:01 am
Sushan wrote: July 3rd, 2021, 2:05 pm This topic is related to the philosophical book for the month of July Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure by Sylvie Beljanski

https://forums.onlinebookclub.org/shelv ... ?id=264811


Sylvie Beljanski struggled to patent her father's cancer treatments which are based on extracts from nature. And she has described the issues in legally accepting the natural drugs while synthetic ones can be easily patented legally.

Do you think naturally extracted drugs need to be approved through a similar process as the synthetic ones are approved? Or are the natural extracts are too dangerous to be used on humans because their exact composition can vary or sometimes can be toxic?

On the other hand, there are many natural drugs that have proven their effectiveness throughout the history of native medicine in various cultures. Why such drugs cannot be accepted in to today's medical systems?
You are bringing up several mildly interesting but unrelated issues.

First, you are correct that you can't patent a natural product. Why should you be able to? They're found naturally, they're not your's.

Second, herbal medicine is well recognized in modern medicine, ie it is a myth that modern medicine is unaware of natural products. True, large drug companies aren't enthusiastic about products with a low profit margin, but everyone who has walked by the supplement aisle knows that they are widely available at this time, so go ahead cure your cancer with apricot pits.
There are accepted ways for treating cancers in Western Medicine. The conventional doctors never and also cannot prescribe whatever the herbal supplements as they need for treatments because there are approved ways and regulations for everything. For that such drugs or supplements should undergo proper research and included in the accepted drug regimes. Being freely available does not make them either accepted or better medicine.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 5320
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Nature vs Law, Which one is superior?

Post by LuckyR »

Sushan wrote: July 4th, 2021, 3:10 am
LuckyR wrote: July 4th, 2021, 3:01 am
Sushan wrote: July 3rd, 2021, 2:05 pm This topic is related to the philosophical book for the month of July Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure by Sylvie Beljanski

https://forums.onlinebookclub.org/shelv ... ?id=264811


Sylvie Beljanski struggled to patent her father's cancer treatments which are based on extracts from nature. And she has described the issues in legally accepting the natural drugs while synthetic ones can be easily patented legally.

Do you think naturally extracted drugs need to be approved through a similar process as the synthetic ones are approved? Or are the natural extracts are too dangerous to be used on humans because their exact composition can vary or sometimes can be toxic?

On the other hand, there are many natural drugs that have proven their effectiveness throughout the history of native medicine in various cultures. Why such drugs cannot be accepted in to today's medical systems?
You are bringing up several mildly interesting but unrelated issues.

First, you are correct that you can't patent a natural product. Why should you be able to? They're found naturally, they're not your's.

Second, herbal medicine is well recognized in modern medicine, ie it is a myth that modern medicine is unaware of natural products. True, large drug companies aren't enthusiastic about products with a low profit margin, but everyone who has walked by the supplement aisle knows that they are widely available at this time, so go ahead cure your cancer with apricot pits.
There are accepted ways for treating cancers in Western Medicine. The conventional doctors never and also cannot prescribe whatever the herbal supplements as they need for treatments because there are approved ways and regulations for everything. For that such drugs or supplements should undergo proper research and included in the accepted drug regimes. Being freely available does not make them either accepted or better medicine.
Your postings are confused or confusing. First, doctors don't prescribe supplements because... they are available without a prescription. They are over the counter. You don't need a doctor to get them. If you think apricot pits will cure your cancer, and are upset that your insurance company never heard of it, good news, you don't need a doctor nor a prescription to buy it.

As to doctors using medications off label (for nonFDA approved uses) that's done all day, every day. It's routine.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 321
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Nature vs Law, Which one is superior?

Post by Sushan »

LuckyR wrote: July 4th, 2021, 3:27 am
Sushan wrote: July 4th, 2021, 3:10 am
LuckyR wrote: July 4th, 2021, 3:01 am
Sushan wrote: July 3rd, 2021, 2:05 pm This topic is related to the philosophical book for the month of July Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure by Sylvie Beljanski

https://forums.onlinebookclub.org/shelv ... ?id=264811


Sylvie Beljanski struggled to patent her father's cancer treatments which are based on extracts from nature. And she has described the issues in legally accepting the natural drugs while synthetic ones can be easily patented legally.

Do you think naturally extracted drugs need to be approved through a similar process as the synthetic ones are approved? Or are the natural extracts are too dangerous to be used on humans because their exact composition can vary or sometimes can be toxic?

On the other hand, there are many natural drugs that have proven their effectiveness throughout the history of native medicine in various cultures. Why such drugs cannot be accepted in to today's medical systems?
You are bringing up several mildly interesting but unrelated issues.

First, you are correct that you can't patent a natural product. Why should you be able to? They're found naturally, they're not your's.

Second, herbal medicine is well recognized in modern medicine, ie it is a myth that modern medicine is unaware of natural products. True, large drug companies aren't enthusiastic about products with a low profit margin, but everyone who has walked by the supplement aisle knows that they are widely available at this time, so go ahead cure your cancer with apricot pits.
There are accepted ways for treating cancers in Western Medicine. The conventional doctors never and also cannot prescribe whatever the herbal supplements as they need for treatments because there are approved ways and regulations for everything. For that such drugs or supplements should undergo proper research and included in the accepted drug regimes. Being freely available does not make them either accepted or better medicine.
Your postings are confused or confusing. First, doctors don't prescribe supplements because... they are available without a prescription. They are over the counter. You don't need a doctor to get them. If you think apricot pits will cure your cancer, and are upset that your insurance company never heard of it, good news, you don't need a doctor nor a prescription to buy it.

As to doctors using medications off label (for nonFDA approved uses) that's done all day, every day. It's routine.
Yes, doctors do not have to prescribe them. Anyone can freely buy them. But that does not guarant them anything. What can happen is people can be mislead and go for various supplements rather than following accepted treatment protocols and get their conditions worse. If anyone can buy whatever the supplements they want and treat their own illnesses what is the use of doctors? On the other hand, if such supplements are freely available and good as treatments why they are not supported by health insurances?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
mystery
Posts: 300
Joined: May 14th, 2021, 5:41 am
Favorite Philosopher: Mike Tyson
Location: earth

Re: Nature vs Law, Which one is superior?

Post by mystery »

we have doctors that are naturopathic .
https://healthwiseim.com/nd-compare-md/

Is this what you are looking for?
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 321
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Nature vs Law, Which one is superior?

Post by Sushan »

mystery wrote: July 4th, 2021, 6:16 am we have doctors that are naturopathic .
https://healthwiseim.com/nd-compare-md/

Is this what you are looking for?
It has something similar, doctors who treat patients with natural means. Yet we have to see what are these natural means. Are they whole natural products or their extracts which are converted into some sort of medicine. If it is the latter then it is more or less similar to the job of a conventional doctor.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 3986
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Nature vs Law, Which one is superior?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Sushan wrote: July 3rd, 2021, 2:05 pm This topic is related to the philosophical book for the month of July Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure by Sylvie Beljanski



Sylvie Beljanski struggled to patent her father's cancer treatments which are based on extracts from nature. And she has described the issues in legally accepting the natural drugs while synthetic ones can be easily patented legally.

Do you think naturally extracted drugs need to be approved through a similar process as the synthetic ones are approved? Or are the natural extracts are too dangerous to be used on humans because their exact composition can vary or sometimes can be toxic?

On the other hand, there are many natural drugs that have proven their effectiveness throughout the history of native medicine in various cultures. Why such drugs cannot be accepted in to today's medical systems?

No one should have the right to patent any natural substance. If the things she is using were not invented, developed or sysnthesised by research and development paid for her. Then there is no basis for a patent.
If there were someone would have patented water and air, and we'd all be paying for it and making sure you got a reciept when you had a pee.

Without the details its not easy to say whether she deserves a patent for a system of "treatments". My instinct here is that once you try to patent a medical procedure it has to be proven to be effective. Whatever she might say, if she really had the effective treatment she wants you to beleive she has, she would not have much trouble peddling it.
I very much doubt that her treatment qualifies for any validation by medical assessment. In fact I doubt it works at all.

Further I would suggest that anyone reading her book, should take it as a fiction and not to risk their lives by foregoing tried and tested treatments in favour of her "treatment"
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 3986
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Nature vs Law, Which one is superior?

Post by Sculptor1 »

It is probably worth pointing out a couple of things.
1) Sylvie Beljanski is trying to patent a treatment. Presumably she is seeking exclusive right to sell that treatment.
2) Sylvie Beljanski has no science qualification, but a degree in LAW, and has the Bar in Paris.
3) Given here skill set you have to wonder why she has failed to secure a legal basis for her (ahem!) treatments.

So how good are these treatments if a lawyer with a vested interest in succeeding to gail exclusive rights to them has failed to do so?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 5714
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Nature vs Law, Which one is superior?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sushan wrote: July 3rd, 2021, 2:05 pm Or are the natural extracts are too dangerous to be used on humans because their exact composition can vary or sometimes can be toxic?
This, basically. Unregulated supplements can be as dangerous as illegal drugs, because there is little control over the manufacturing process. You don't know exactly what's winding up in the pills, at what concentrations.

We need to foster a culture of more "serious" research into natural supplements, where they're then regulated for manufacture to help ensure their safety.
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 321
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Nature vs Law, Which one is superior?

Post by Sushan »

Sculptor1 wrote: July 4th, 2021, 7:17 am
Sushan wrote: July 3rd, 2021, 2:05 pm This topic is related to the philosophical book for the month of July Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure by Sylvie Beljanski



Sylvie Beljanski struggled to patent her father's cancer treatments which are based on extracts from nature. And she has described the issues in legally accepting the natural drugs while synthetic ones can be easily patented legally.

Do you think naturally extracted drugs need to be approved through a similar process as the synthetic ones are approved? Or are the natural extracts are too dangerous to be used on humans because their exact composition can vary or sometimes can be toxic?

On the other hand, there are many natural drugs that have proven their effectiveness throughout the history of native medicine in various cultures. Why such drugs cannot be accepted in to today's medical systems?

No one should have the right to patent any natural substance. If the things she is using were not invented, developed or sysnthesised by research and development paid for her. Then there is no basis for a patent.
If there were someone would have patented water and air, and we'd all be paying for it and making sure you got a reciept when you had a pee.

Without the details its not easy to say whether she deserves a patent for a system of "treatments". My instinct here is that once you try to patent a medical procedure it has to be proven to be effective. Whatever she might say, if she really had the effective treatment she wants you to beleive she has, she would not have much trouble peddling it.
I very much doubt that her treatment qualifies for any validation by medical assessment. In fact I doubt it works at all.

Further I would suggest that anyone reading her book, should take it as a fiction and not to risk their lives by foregoing tried and tested treatments in favour of her "treatment"
I too think that no one should just read a book and accept its content, especially when the content is related to something important like your health.

It is true that a medical procedure or a drug has to be effective first, before it is forwarded for a patent. But the only reason for the difficulty to obtain such an approval is not that it being effective. There can actually be reasons like the opposition from the sceptics, as the author says. I think we have to look from the aspect of the author as well.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 321
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Nature vs Law, Which one is superior?

Post by Sushan »

Sculptor1 wrote: July 4th, 2021, 7:23 am It is probably worth pointing out a couple of things.
1) Sylvie Beljanski is trying to patent a treatment. Presumably she is seeking exclusive right to sell that treatment.
2) Sylvie Beljanski has no science qualification, but a degree in LAW, and has the Bar in Paris.
3) Given here skill set you have to wonder why she has failed to secure a legal basis for her (ahem!) treatments.

So how good are these treatments if a lawyer with a vested interest in succeeding to gail exclusive rights to them has failed to do so?
What you point out is a reasonable and a valid argument. But she does not care about a patent (as she says), but what she want is the liberty or the legal approval to let the public have the information of her father's research and let them decide what is the treatment mmodality that they will undergo. I am not saying that she is telling 100% truth (we can never know that by simply reading a book), but I think what she says is worth considering.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 321
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Nature vs Law, Which one is superior?

Post by Sushan »

Terrapin Station wrote: July 4th, 2021, 7:49 am
Sushan wrote: July 3rd, 2021, 2:05 pm Or are the natural extracts are too dangerous to be used on humans because their exact composition can vary or sometimes can be toxic?
This, basically. Unregulated supplements can be as dangerous as illegal drugs, because there is little control over the manufacturing process. You don't know exactly what's winding up in the pills, at what concentrations.

We need to foster a culture of more "serious" research into natural supplements, where they're then regulated for manufacture to help ensure their safety.
I agree. There are herbs which are known as medicine for various illnesses for years. Yet no one has ever researched over them or has not experimented regarding the content. So, though people can and are using them, no doctor can prescribe them because,

1) it is illegal
2) the effect cannot be presumed
3) it can simply be toxic since there are no recorded evidence regarding its safety
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 5714
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Nature vs Law, Which one is superior?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sushan wrote: July 4th, 2021, 8:39 am
Terrapin Station wrote: July 4th, 2021, 7:49 am
Sushan wrote: July 3rd, 2021, 2:05 pm Or are the natural extracts are too dangerous to be used on humans because their exact composition can vary or sometimes can be toxic?
This, basically. Unregulated supplements can be as dangerous as illegal drugs, because there is little control over the manufacturing process. You don't know exactly what's winding up in the pills, at what concentrations.

We need to foster a culture of more "serious" research into natural supplements, where they're then regulated for manufacture to help ensure their safety.
I agree. There are herbs which are known as medicine for various illnesses for years. Yet no one has ever researched over them or has not experimented regarding the content. So, though people can and are using them, no doctor can prescribe them because,

1) it is illegal
2) the effect cannot be presumed
3) it can simply be toxic since there are no recorded evidence regarding its safety
Right. Although there are many herbal supplements that are legal to buy. It's just that they're risky and/or a gamble on whether they'll do anything at all, because we don't know exactly what's in them, at what concentrations. There aren't always nefarious intentions behind that (motivated by profit); sometimes it's just due to poor quality control and/or difficulty and expense in obtaining just what needs to be obtained. For example, natural cordyceps is very difficult and expensive to harvest, because it only grows on a particular caterpillar that lives in a particular part of China. So the cordyceps supplements that you can buy are laboratory-made, and the exact process used often makes it not as potent or effective as natural cordyceps.
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 321
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Nature vs Law, Which one is superior?

Post by Sushan »

Terrapin Station wrote: July 4th, 2021, 9:19 am
Sushan wrote: July 4th, 2021, 8:39 am
Terrapin Station wrote: July 4th, 2021, 7:49 am
Sushan wrote: July 3rd, 2021, 2:05 pm Or are the natural extracts are too dangerous to be used on humans because their exact composition can vary or sometimes can be toxic?
This, basically. Unregulated supplements can be as dangerous as illegal drugs, because there is little control over the manufacturing process. You don't know exactly what's winding up in the pills, at what concentrations.

We need to foster a culture of more "serious" research into natural supplements, where they're then regulated for manufacture to help ensure their safety.
I agree. There are herbs which are known as medicine for various illnesses for years. Yet no one has ever researched over them or has not experimented regarding the content. So, though people can and are using them, no doctor can prescribe them because,

1) it is illegal
2) the effect cannot be presumed
3) it can simply be toxic since there are no recorded evidence regarding its safety
Right. Although there are many herbal supplements that are legal to buy. It's just that they're risky and/or a gamble on whether they'll do anything at all, because we don't know exactly what's in them, at what concentrations. There aren't always nefarious intentions behind that (motivated by profit); sometimes it's just due to poor quality control and/or difficulty and expense in obtaining just what needs to be obtained. For example, natural cordyceps is very difficult and expensive to harvest, because it only grows on a particular caterpillar that lives in a particular part of China. So the cordyceps supplements that you can buy are laboratory-made, and the exact process used often makes it not as potent or effective as natural cordyceps.
Yes. There are many valuable natural herbs which are very difficult to extract or find. So the frauds just find something, label it, and just sell. People actually buy these things and get in trouble. So though these things are ethically cannot be patented, a regulation is a must.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
Post Reply

Return to “Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure by Sylvie Beljanski”

Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021