PDA

View Full Version : Garlic No Substitute for ARVs


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



kebaldwin
Thu, Aug-23-07, 05:17
Garlic No Substitute for ARVs
By Robert Koenig
ScienceNOW Daily News
22 August 2007

PRETORIA, SOUTH AFRICA--Injecting scientific rigor into the intense debate over health policy in South Africa, the nation's most influential science academy issued a report today warning that consuming certain foods and supplements--although possibly helpful in maintaining overall health--are no substitute for drug therapies prescribed to fight the nation's HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis (TB) epidemics.
The study by a 15-member panel named by the Academy of Science of South Africa came in the wake of renewed controversy about the policies of the health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, who has angered AIDS activists by contending that foods such as beets and garlic could help slow the progression of the disease. The report complained that public debates over these kinds of approaches "have caused confusion within communities and among health care workers." Meanwhile, the report said, certain political leaders have exacerbated the confusion by expressing concern "about potential toxicities of ARVs [antiretroviral drugs] while simultaneously promoting alternative nutritional therapies for benefit or cure of HIV."

"We're not aware of any scientifically credible study that has identified a specific food or food supplement as being an effective alternative to appropriate medications," the academy panel's chair, hematologist Barry Mendelow, told ScienceNOW. He said the U.S. National Academies had advised the South African academy on conducting the study, intended to be similar to a National Research Council report. The panel included immunologists, biochemists, physicians, nutritionists, and epidemiologists.

Although the study states that healthier eating habits help protect against what it called South Africa's third epidemic--malnutrition--Mendelow said the panel considered nutrition as a "supportive treatment" that cannot replace drug therapy against HIV/AIDS and TB. Nevertheless, the report recommends more research into the impacts of nutrition on disease, including further investigation of studies indicating that the gastrointestinal tract is "a major anatomical front line" in the pathogenesis of HIV.

Nutritionist Esté Vorster, director of the Africa Unit for Transdisciplinary Health Research at North-West University in Potchefstroom, South Africa, agrees that diet is no substitute for effective drugs. Still, she points out that malnutrition is widespread in South Africa and, for that reason, "we should have a well-integrated public health and individual medical approach in addressing malnutrition problems associated with HIV/AIDS and active TB."

Shortly after the academy's report was released, South Africa's main opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, cited the study in calling on President Thabo Mbeki to fire the health minister. The South African Department of Health was not commenting on the report as of press time.

Related site

http://search.sabinet.co.za/images/ejour/assaf/Study%20%20pdf%20final%20ASSAf%20HIV%20TB%20and%20Nutrition%20doc.pdf

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/822/1

kebaldwin
Thu, Aug-23-07, 05:18
He said the U.S. National Academies had advised the South African academy on conducting the study, intended to be similar to a National Research Council report

No wonder! They did a study to "prove" a predetermined outcome. That is not science.

I don't know that natural remedies can cure anything as invasive as HIV - partially because this groups nutrition is so screwed up in the first place. For example, here in America, if type 2 diabetics started eating garlic and taking probiotics - I doubt you would see significant improvement.

If both groups (those in Africa and type 2s in America) had a complete makeover of their nutrition - then we might see some progress.

Isn't it ironic how poor, disadvantaged, starving people in Africa could have so much in common with overweight advantaged people in America that eat all they want.

cs_carver
Thu, Aug-23-07, 07:51
The South African Minister of Health--equivalent to our surgeon general--said that garlic worked as well as the real AIDS drugs. C'mon, now, there is NO evidence that good nutrition prevents AIDS transmission. About the only thing that has been found to "help" AIDS survival, outside the drug, is whether you came from a gene pool that had survived small pox at some time.

And I suspect much of Africa has not had the waves of small pox that sorted the European gene pool almost 2000 years ago.

The minister wasn't "promoting good nutrition." She (I think it's a she) was saying that people didn't need the drugs if they ate beets. (Which isn't exactly the way your quotation presents it--I've heard this debate from South African citizens.)

I do not want any one on a plane next to me who is treating TB with beets alone, thank you.

kebaldwin
Thu, Aug-23-07, 08:00
I agree that the best course for anyone with HIV or TB is proper nutrition and drugs.

My understanding is these people are so poor - they can't afford the proper nutrition - much less afford the drugs? Sounded to me that the health minister was saying - if you can't afford the drugs - and you can't afford proper nutrition - at least try to eat things that will help - and this (garlic, beets, etc) is what will help.

I don't understand why beets should help?

cs_carver
Thu, Aug-23-07, 08:31
In your reference, yes, that's what it sounds like the minister was saying.

However, the people I was talking to said she got up in front of an all-Africa AIDS conference and said that South Africa was telling its people to eat beets and that would protect them better than those American drugs.

It was not a message about what you could afford; it was a message that said, "I am completely ignorant and going to trust tribal wisdom over serious science. Not only that, I am willing to let my nation's people die because I do not believe that western medicine knows anything."

It was, as was told to me, an embarrasment on the order of Reagan's "ketchup is a vegetable" incident, only at least his statement didn't condemn people to certain death.