# Survival > Bushcraft Medicine >  what is old becomes new

## randyt

I often wonder what secrets are hidden from modern man. I enjoy history

check out this link
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...xt=%3Fpage%3D1

----------


## fjrmurph

Amazing
How did they figure all that out ? I guess trial and error, same as they do today.

----------


## hunter63

Pretty cool......does kinda make you wonder.
Gonna check back on that site tomorrow.

----------


## Batch

I saw that yesterday Randy. Ain't that some thing else!

----------


## Jeffery Chattanooga

Thank you sir for the link. Most awesome article. The kind of article Big Pharma does NOT want you to know.

----------


## Auban

i have a feeling that if this were a modern folk remedy, it would have never been tested.  the only reason THIS particular remedy was tested was because it is a thousand years old.  and that makes it interesting.  

makes me wonder about modern folk remedies.  as far as i can tell, scientists dont test them because they assume they are based on hocus pocus assumptions and outlandish beliefs.  


makes you wonder...

----------


## Rick

I would think Big Pharma, as you put it, would be most interested in this article. If they are able to identify and synthesize what it is the kills MRSA that might lead to a whole new class of drugs and save a lot of folks from suffering.  

Maybe scientists don't test folk remedies because they don't know about them. They are, after all, trained in traditional medicine and chemistry not bat wings and werewolf dander. I would venture a guess that not many on this forum could even list a half dozen folk remedies for serious medical conditions such as emphysema, kidney failure, TB or the like. Why would we expect scientists to know any?

Just playing devil's advocate and looking at the other side of both issues.

----------


## ravenscar

Just a question, has anyone back checked this? I will research into this too!!

----------


## kyratshooter

I think the key phrase is "as good if not better" in regard to an ailment for which there is no known cure.

If nothing works on it you can smear bear crap on it and claim it works "as good if not better" than modern meds.

----------


## randyt

the nickname for chaga is "bear crap smeared on tree" LOL sorry don't know the latin for this.

----------


## hunter63

> the nickname for chaga is "bear crap smeared on tree" LOL sorry don't know the latin for this.


LOL.....Around here we know and use old Native American names more than Latin names.

----------


## edr730

When I had blood poisoning running up my leg as a kid, my mom put some leaves in a sock, smashed them up with a hammer and plastered them on. I got better quick. She used the same leaves to cure an infection in the finger of a woman who had been taking antibiotics and was scheduled to have it amputated. She got better. 
My wife was waiting as a child to have her hand cut off since the antibiotics were not working. An old black woman from the mosquito coast approached them and said she thought she could help this child. She did and my wifes hand got better and was close friends with the woman until she died. 
These things occur all the time. But even if the formula in the article was proven by 100 scientific studies to be absolutely effective in all cases, it would be illegal to sell it and refer the public to these scientific studies. 
As an example, the FDA threatened to classify cherries as a drug when the cherry producers of Michigan started siting scientific studies. They stopped informing the public because it was ....illegal or cherries would be classified as a drug and only drugs can legally be claimed to treat or cure anything.
I believe information and choice is a good thing. Some people the idea of information and choice makes them angry.

----------


## Rick

The FDA sent warning letters to the cherry producers that placed disease claims in the label. Good for them. Snake oil salesmen have been around a long time and anecdotal claims of this or that curing something holds no valid scientific authenticity. By those standards I could start selling Fescue and claim it cured cancer. Do you really want to allow some producer to make the unfounded claim that tart cherry juice concentrate cures cancer? Here are the letters that were sent. 

http://www.fda.gov/Food/ComplianceEn.../ucm081724.htm

----------


## ravenscar

I was reading through the forums yesterday morning and I read someone said colloidal silver cures cancer. along the same line I guess

----------


## edr730

No, I do not want food or drug producers to make false claims as many of them do. I have no qualms about the FDA treating all even handed and equal.
Yes, I would like to know if foods or formulas have an effect on cancer, inflamation, pain, or any other ailment and I wish they could legally tell me and cite their scientific sources as well.
Here is some information the FDA states with the warning letter.
Under the act, articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease in man are drugs, . 
No information from universities, or peer reviewed articles or any kind of scientific study or opinions may be legally given to the public by someone who sells anything that treats an ailment unless it is  classified as a drug.  
I have more faith in  the freedom of sharing science by all people than I do with the censorship, laws, and marketing regulations.
When Michigan cows died by the 10's of thousands 1.5 million chickens and the cats, dogs, worms, birds, fleas and flies and who knows what else from PBB in Michigan, the largest chemical contamination in U.S. history, the FDA and others said it was fine, send the cattle to market because a little bit like that isn't gunna hurt nobody. 
But, now they say, heh, those cherries...we gotta stop this... we gotta stop this spread of information.  
In the end, peoples life experiences lets them choose what agencies or people they can trust and what agencies or people they can't. We come from very different environments. Everyone should have the right to the information and the freedom to make what may be very different choices.

----------


## Rick

You are welcome to interpret that however you want. The term "drug" is a legal definition and has been codified. If you intend to make specific medical claims about an item you can only do so if the item is a drug. That seems intuitive to me. 

"(1) The term drug means(A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and
(B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and
(C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and
(D) articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in clause (A), (B), or (C). A food or dietary supplement for which a claim, subject to sections 343(r)(1)(B) and 343 (r)(3) of this title or sections 343 (r)(1)(B) and 343 (r)(5)(D) of this title, is made in accordance with the requirements of section 343 (r) of this title is not a drug solely because the label or the labeling contains such a claim. A food, dietary ingredient, or dietary supplement for which a truthful and not misleading statement is made in accordance with section 343 (r)(6) of this title is not a drug under clause (C) solely because the label or the labeling contains such a statement."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/321#g_1

You are more than welcome to look up those university studies and/or peer review articles and make your own decision as to whether you believe them or not and whether you want to use that product as outlined. So you maintain the right to the information just not through some food producer. You also retain the right to make your own choices as to whether you will use a food as a drug or not. I don't see that as censorship on the part of the FDA. I see that as good stewardship doing their job. They are the Food and Drug Administration. There is a distinction of the two in their name.

----------


## Enigma

Thalidamide was a 'drug' and look what that did to people. :-)

medicine is a business like any other business, most of the time thay get it right, but it's NOT 100% foolproof. Every body reacts differntly to certain substances, wheteher it's classed a as a modern 'drug' or if it's part of native medicines.

Research is the key, to personal life choices.

----------

