nator:
Why, then, are ND's allowed to prescribe any treatment or theraputic substance which hasn't been rigorously tested and shown to be safe and effective?
They can do it because, legally speaking, they are not prescribing medicines. They are recommending diet supplements. They enjoy the same innocent-until-proven-guilty legal standing as your auntie recommending a bowl of chicken soup when you have a cold.
The fine print on the label on any 'nature med' explicitly denies that the contents are medicine. The labels say straight out that the contents have not been shown through scientific means to have any curative effects for any disease. The companies aren't committing fraud because the companies make no claim.
The people who believe in the stuff ignore the disclaimers on the label. They rely on magazines, paperbacks, web sites and word-of-mouth reports (like some of the material quoted on this thread) for all their information about what the stuff 'really' does. The companies who sell it are (ahem) not legally responsible for the rumours that go around.
People who buy the stuff are quick to observe, too, that the absence of any research supporting the effectiveness of the 'natural' stuff means the (apparent) absence of side effects as well. If you show them that the label of their 'nature med' says flat out that the stuff isn't medicine, they will happily ask you to read the fine print on any prescription meds in
your cabinet. Inevitably a document has been placed in the box of any prescription med describing the undesirable things some individuals had to deal with when research was conducted. It gives you the statistics.
The 'nature med' believers don't take much note of the benefits of research, accountability, and disclosure. What they see is 'My medicine has no known side effects. But look what
that poison does to you!'
____
Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.
Archer
All species are transitional.
™ Version 4.2
