Quote:

---

Inadvertently, some of the very same companies and interests which require that natural substances not receive the same drug-approval status as synthetic ones, are funding research that prove basic vitamins, foods and spices are as effective or more effective – and usually much safer – than the drugs they are developing to replace or supplant them.

If the companies are funding research then they are not acting inadvertently, and requiring double blind human studies is simply science. You remain free to take all the natural 'cures' you like regardless of the absence of human studies. I do.

This means that tens of thousands of studies do exist showing that natural substances may prevent and/or treat disease, at least in the in vitro (test tube) and animal models . These results often confirm traditional uses in Ayurvedic, Chinese and other traditional systems of medicine, and therefore may be compelling enough for individuals or healthcare practitioners to use the information to inform their treatment decisions.

Is that NOT happening? Are you not able to purchase over the counter and online the very remedies the author is touting as 'may help'? WebMD does exactly the same thing with the word 'may'.

https://www.webmd.com/diet/supplement-guide-turmeric#1-2

The author should have had someone proofread for the consistency and coherence of his argument.

The Case For Curcumin In the Prevention and Treatment of Disease

The government biomedical and life sciences database known as Medline contains over 28 million published study citations, and is accessible to search through engines such as Pubmed.gov. 3.6 million of them contain reference to cancer. 250,000 of them remain after applying the "Complementary Medicine" filter. There are 1,042 topics related to cancer which can be found indexed on the GreenMedInfo.com database, referencing 838 natural substances of potential value.

---