Safety and Effectiveness of Herbs and Pharmaceuticals

quote:

---

I try to look at each thread as a new beginning. No mistakes, no misconceptions, etc.

---

OK, so does that mean that you no no longer hold the following positions?(to paraphrase Percy):-clinical studies of pharmaceuticals are tainted by sources of funding-anecdotal data is not only every bit their equal but even superior because of the absence of bias-you have little confidence in clinical studies or in traditional medicine in general because you've lived long enough to know that experts can be right within the limits of the information available to them, and you also know that scientists can be wrong, peers can be wrong, doctors can be wrong. Experts can be wrong. You also know that some discoveries that change the way we do things today were not considered viable by their peers.Are you saying that Percy's characterization of your position is inaccurate?

quote:

---

The United States tried that once with alcohol. Prohibition I don't think our government wants to create a bigger problem than they already have. Now there's money attached to that tradition.

---

So, are you saying that any government regulation of any traditional practice is always a bad idea?

quote:

---

No, I haven't said always to anything. I pointed out in Message 21 that politically it would be difficult to ban all medicinal herbs. They didn't ban ephedra from being used by health practitioners. I think it would be like suddenly banning cigarettes. Politicians don't want to be unpopular.

---

Cigarettes are an addictive, dangerous product that are banned from certain groups and are highly regulated and taxed.Individual herbal drugs may or may not be dangerous, but unlike cigarettes, the research hasn't been done to find out for most of them, and they are minimally regulated and taxed. In addition, herbal drugs are supposed to be helpful, and are marketed, prescribed, and paid for by insurance companies with that in mind, even though we really don't know what their effects and interactions are, if any, if they haven't been tested.Seriously, do you really think that "herbal speakeasies" and underground smuggling of ephedra and kava kava are a growing problem since the FDA banned them?

quote:

---

So you're saying that banning herbal medicines across the board until they are throughly tested would have no impact whatsoever on any society or culture within the United States?

---

No, and I never said it wouldn't.The point is, you are making a pretty extreme claim that we would experience Prohibition era-style black markets if this were to happen, and I'd just like you to explain why you think this is likely.Have we seen such activity when ephedra and kava kava, or any other herbal drugs were banned, for instance?

Do you agree that the only way we can actually know if any drug or treatment or therapy is safe and effective is through scientific, controlled double-blind testing?

quote:

---

I don't think it's any legitimate use of governmental power to prevent anyone from taking anything for their health, welfare and happiness that they wish to. Caveat emptor!

---

So, sellers should be able to profit from the sale of a product as a cure for cancer when that product has not been shown to cure cancer?

quote:

---

Much better to spend that money to teach people how to evaluate claims of effectiveness and how to critically examine evidence, if you think it's the government's job to protect idiots from their idiocy.

---

1) Do you believe that sellers should be able to legally lie to or mislead consumers?2) Do you think that the food industry should also be similarly unregulated, and that consumers should bear the burden of making sure the flour they buy, for example, isn't cut with chalk, or the ground coffee they buy isn't mixed with dirt, or the lettuce they buy isn't full of E-coli?History is chock full of examples of the basic fact that business will not tend to be ethical and honest towards consumers or workers unless compelled to by power of law. This is particularly true in modern times since the advent of the corporation, which has allowed the owners of corporations to avoid a certain amount of personal responsibility for the behavior of their companies.Perhaps you disagree with this assesment of history? If so, please present your counterargument.3) Marketing, advertizing, and merchandising is based upon powerful psychological manipulation techniques and works on everybody, not just idiots.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Hi Subbie,It seems to me that every time the issue of government regulation comes up, you post something negative about it, then you get several rebuttals, and then you disappear. Then, a few months later, the same thing happens in a different thread, as if the points you made weren't rebutted in the previous thread.Believe me, I'm all about keeping government intrusion in our lives to a minimum, but I am puzzled why you, an obviously intelligent professional, seem to have this poorly thought through, kneejerk, "It is always bad!!!" reaction to any and all government regulation.I am open to changing my mind about the utility of the FDA, but I just don't see how your stated position wouldn't lead to a huge backslide in the safety and effectiveness of the food and drugs that businesses sell to us.Can you please come back and continue the conversation?