It looks like you’re contradicting yourself to me. You argue that clove oil is a medicine so my claim it should be considered one doesn’t apply, then you come back and say the evidence that it is a medicine is poor, which is why it is not approved by the FDA… Which is exactly MY point.
Clove oil is no longer used, medically, but eugenol is used in multiple dental medicines to have a proven pain relief effect.
Right. You are still claiming that eugenol is considered to be medicinal… Here is a database of all FDA medicines approved for human use. Why not show me a single medication that uses eugenol as an active ingredient?
That first link is just a research article and is not related to any government approvals/endorsements. If you disagree, then take a look at this one which is more recent and explicitly states, '…neither eugenol or other clove extracts have been approved for use in any medical condition in the United States."
It is still pretty much true, but the ‘exempt’ classification certainly complicates things. You could argue that medications that fall under the ‘exempt’ category are technically approved, but tbh it just looks like a loophole to me. Much like when such ingredients are declared as ‘inactive’ or ‘excipient’ ingredients. Regardless, I appreciate you taking in the time to put in the research when discussing this with me.
Yes, part of that evidence I was talking about. I providences the emmvidebce to show it is evidence based and the government link to show what you actually requested. Both combined shows your point is innacurate, even if food ibtentioned. Your link shows it is not useful in all the applications that alternative medicine proposes. Again, part of my point.
It is exempt is due to common usage and already proven safe and considered a standard part of drug and medicine armamentarium. It also negates your assertion that all medicines are listed. Patently untrue. Its also not a loophole.
Only medicine meeting the criteria are exempt and the link I provided is only in a formulation of zinc oxide and eugenol. Other formulations would need approval or be exempt under a different classification.
Clove oil is not a valid treatment in its own Neither is eugenol. However, it is incorporated into other medicines to improve their efficacy. Its use is reducing as despite its anti inflammatory effect it causes a reduction in bonding efficacy at the non emergency appointment later.
I’m not doing research. I know this, its my industry, I use it often and purposely avoid it often. I am not familiar with fda rules, but they are similar enough to classificiation and rules elsewhere to make it clear their intent and use.
You clearly have some grounding in science education. However, you obviously have no familiarity with the beurocracy of medicine approval or usage, nor are used to reading medical studies. I’ve had to make the same point, correctly, multiple times for you to see. Yet you still question the evidence.
It looks like you’re contradicting yourself to me. You argue that clove oil is a medicine so my claim it should be considered one doesn’t apply, then you come back and say the evidence that it is a medicine is poor, which is why it is not approved by the FDA… Which is exactly MY point.
Ok, let me rephrase to simplify.
Alternative medicine is unproven folk medicine.
Sometimes the idea is sound.
Studying outcomes of its use can legitimise it or show it is bunk.
Clove oil was studied. Eugenol being the active ingredient.
Clove oil is no longer used, medically, but eugenol is used in multiple dental medicines to have a proven pain relief effect.
It is now medicine.
Clove oil on its own does not have sufficient evidence to be useful. Eugenol built in to other medicines and restorativedoes.
That’s the progression from alternative medicine to medicine.
Right. You are still claiming that eugenol is considered to be medicinal… Here is a database of all FDA medicines approved for human use. Why not show me a single medication that uses eugenol as an active ingredient?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3702691/#:~:text=Numerous studies have reported that,use in oral care products.
Look at paragraph 2
For FDA, you likely won’t find them as they are exepmt,as this listing for commonly used zinc oxide eugenol cobfirns.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpcd/classification.cfm?id=EMB
That first link is just a research article and is not related to any government approvals/endorsements. If you disagree, then take a look at this one which is more recent and explicitly states, '…neither eugenol or other clove extracts have been approved for use in any medical condition in the United States."
It is still pretty much true, but the ‘exempt’ classification certainly complicates things. You could argue that medications that fall under the ‘exempt’ category are technically approved, but tbh it just looks like a loophole to me. Much like when such ingredients are declared as ‘inactive’ or ‘excipient’ ingredients. Regardless, I appreciate you taking in the time to put in the research when discussing this with me.
Yes, part of that evidence I was talking about. I providences the emmvidebce to show it is evidence based and the government link to show what you actually requested. Both combined shows your point is innacurate, even if food ibtentioned. Your link shows it is not useful in all the applications that alternative medicine proposes. Again, part of my point.
It is exempt is due to common usage and already proven safe and considered a standard part of drug and medicine armamentarium. It also negates your assertion that all medicines are listed. Patently untrue. Its also not a loophole.
Only medicine meeting the criteria are exempt and the link I provided is only in a formulation of zinc oxide and eugenol. Other formulations would need approval or be exempt under a different classification.
Clove oil is not a valid treatment in its own Neither is eugenol. However, it is incorporated into other medicines to improve their efficacy. Its use is reducing as despite its anti inflammatory effect it causes a reduction in bonding efficacy at the non emergency appointment later.
I’m not doing research. I know this, its my industry, I use it often and purposely avoid it often. I am not familiar with fda rules, but they are similar enough to classificiation and rules elsewhere to make it clear their intent and use.
You clearly have some grounding in science education. However, you obviously have no familiarity with the beurocracy of medicine approval or usage, nor are used to reading medical studies. I’ve had to make the same point, correctly, multiple times for you to see. Yet you still question the evidence.