I really doubt that most supplements have undergone any testing nearly as rigorous as pharmaceuticals. And supplements are not regulated (at least in the U.S.) and with no oversight. Don't get me wrong, I use some supplements myself. It just doesn't make sense to me when people have a long list of supplements that they take and then say they are afraid of pharmaceuticals. Supplements -- no regulations, Pharmaceuticals -- heavily regulated and tested.
Pharmaceutical treatment of UC has a very low success rate in terms of remission, despite the billions of dollars of design, research and testing. I think it's inappropriate to say that one thing is better than the other when a lot of patients are languishing despite complex treatment protocols. I am glad you've found success with biologics but I have failed all conventional treatments over the course of 10 years of having UC. Yet the "unregulated" supplements I talk about
in this thread put me in remission in 1 month after 2.5 years of flaring and prednisone dependence.
Dr. Pravda is about
to post peer reviewed data on this matter, and peer review *is* regulated. Just because a theory does not receive big pharma endorsement does not mean it's doubtful. It just means there's no profit to be made.
I think it's unfortunate that you have divided things into "unregulated = doubtful" vs "regulated = trustworthy" when it's not that simple, especially given how big corporate politics get involved. There are many trustworthy supplement companies out there who post their entire scientific methodology, often in peer review. Other companies are less trustworthy. That's why some supplement brands are recommended while others are not. Conversely, those who have failed biologics are unlikely to succeed on future ones by virtue of the fact that new biologics are largely just minor tweaks of previous ones, so that new patents can be filed and "new drug" profits can be made. Supplements, however, are highly diverse and are usually biochemical compounds derived from nature that have bio-compatibility with humans. So there is a lot to choose from and experiment with.
Up until now, supplements have been a total wild guessing game based on various shaky theories. However, now that we know UC is likely caused by hydrogen peroxide, it's a simple matter of choosing the highest quality, most bioactive antioxidants from the best supplement companies. I believe this theory is true after years of fidding with so many other incomplete theories. Nothing has healed me so quickly and so effectively. I believe this is the golden arrow we have been looking for and I encourage doubters to wait patiently for Dr. Pravda's next peer reviewed paper to be published.
Again, if conventional medicine works for you and is your preference, that's fine, but please allow others to
openly discuss different alternatives and preferences without trying to shift the conversation back to your preferential treatment protocol. We are all just trying to figure out our disease and for some it's a very complex path. The pharmaceutical industry has committed to anti-inflammatories and immune suppression. They show no sign of changing from that pathway. Without alternative thinkers, we will be stuck with the same low-success treatment protocols indefinitely. This thread is part of a very important, larger conversation about
how we are going to deal with UC in the 21st century. Respectfully, please grant it some latitude.
I disagree with you that UC has to be life long and that there is no cure. That kind of thinking comes from big pharma because they have failed so far. I also know all too well that it's a result of living with UC for so long and having so little treatment success. We are all dealing with some level of hopelessness. But permanent remission with return to normal lifestyle is a de facto cure. I believe a cure is not only possible but soon attainable. Stay tuned and don't give up hope.