Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Safety and Effectiveness of Herbs and Pharmaceuticals
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 31 of 209 (447082)
01-08-2008 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Granny Magda
01-07-2008 10:49 PM


Re: Abuse
The caveat is that none of this means that any given tradition is correct about their herbal medicines. They could be wrong, just like people who believe that sex with a virgin will cure AIDS.
Granny, I gotta say. Badda bing badda boom.
Exactly.
Traditions (aka "anecdotal evidence") are suspect. And I gotta hand it to you. You have chosen the perfect analogy.
Does anyone really think that in ten years time (hell, in 50 years time -- it's been a good 30 years since it was recognized by Western medicine) that traditional African "remedies" will prescribe anything different?
Is it likely that any "traditional medicine" has any better "evidence"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Granny Magda, posted 01-07-2008 10:49 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 32 of 209 (447125)
01-08-2008 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Granny Magda
01-07-2008 10:49 PM


Re: Abuse
quote:
Dawn, I appreciate your comparison of banning dangerous herbs with prohibition, but I don't buy it. Alcohol is almost ubiquitous in western society, and whatever its dangers, it is at least of proven efficacy!
The point of the comparison was the rise of black markets. That is a situation the government would not want to create.
quote:
Herbs with active ingredients should be regarded as drugs, and subject to the same licensing regulations. They should only be prescribed by properly qualified individuals, operating within a regulatory framework.
I agree there needs to be regulation and I feel that will eventually come around. Change takes time.
quote:
Then why bring up the possibility that negative side effects of ephedra use were a result of misuse?
The article on Ephedrine I linked to in Message 17
Also known as ma huang, the aerial parts of this evergreen have been used in Chinese medicine for thousands of years to treat symptoms of colds and asthma. (1,2) Yet since 1993, at least 17 deaths in the United States have been linked to ingestion of products containing the botanical E. sinica, or its principal alkaloid ephedrine. This report describes the history of abuse and adverse effects of ephedrine products in the United States before and after passage Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.
quote:
The caveat is that none of this means that any given tradition is correct about their herbal medicines.
None of this what? Correct in what way? To understand the accepted proper use so that one can test accordingly, we would go to the health practitioners trained in herbal medicine. They should know how the herb has been used and the expected results.
quote:
Herbs are not as precise as lab-prepared drugs.
Sorry, typo. That should have said herbal remedies, when done correctly, aren't as precise as the drugs.
quote:
It deals with the whole subject of herbal medicine, not just foxglove, and it is a fantastic read.
Yes, I read it. The use of foxglove is another example of what I mean when I say mixtures. In the article, Flower for the Heart, we see that when first discovered; foxglove was used in a mixture, not by itself. Just as the use of ephedra in Chinese Medicine is supposedly not given by itself.
Of the 20-odd herbal ingredients in her mixture, the botanically trained Withering noticed only one that he considered potentially “active””foxglove.
So if we test herbals are we testing just the active ingredient of the herb or the mixture for a certain ailment. The herb by itself may not have the same outcome as the mixture. Do we test one, both, or all the ingredients and their interactions to truly test how they affect the body?
quote:
Herbs are drugs.
But for the ease of discussion can we just call them herbs and drugs so that we don't have to type pharmaceutical drug or herbal drug to differentiate? This debate concerns safety and effectiveness not whether herbs are or are not drugs. We've already agreed they need to be tested and I don't have the knowledge or resources to debate molecules.
quote:
The only sensible definition of misuse and abuse is where harm outweighs benefit, or benefit is non-existent.
Misuse is when one uses something incorrectly. It doesn't matter whether the outcome is beneficial or not.
We just call it a discovery when we misuse something and a benefit is found.
quote:
Does the drug heal(by which I mean "does it perform significantly better than placebo?")?
Does it heal what? The symptom or the underlying problem? Or both?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Granny Magda, posted 01-07-2008 10:49 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Granny Magda, posted 01-08-2008 1:17 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 33 of 209 (447188)
01-08-2008 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by purpledawn
01-08-2008 7:02 AM


Re: Abuse
Hi Dawn,
purpledawn writes:
The point of the comparison was the rise of black markets. That is a situation the government would not want to create.
I can see it now. Shady characters hanging around on street corners, whispering "Hey kid, wanna buy some gingko?". Seriously, ephedra is part of a very small group of drugs that can be used recreationally. That is where the black market is. I can't see purely therapeutic herbs being a big thing on any black market. Even if it did become a concern, better that the majority of herb vendors act under regulation, than none of them.
I read the article on ephedra that you linked to, and it does indeed seem to suggest that most of the case of toxicity were to do excessive doses, possibly apart from this one;
quote:
The first case had not significantly exceeded the normal daily therapeutic dose, although the duration is not mentioned.
I'm still not sure what point you are trying to make here. Ephedra was a disaster when left unregulated. Prescribed by proper doctors, it might be a better bet. Actually, this article makes obvious the fallacy of people thinking that a "natural" drug must be safe.
quote:
In fact, much product marketing and packaging leads many consumers to believe that because an ephedrine product contains only the botanical source of the drug, it is safe.
purpledawn writes:
Granny writes:
The caveat is that none of this means that any given tradition is correct about their herbal medicines.
None of this what? Correct in what way? To understand the accepted proper use so that one can test accordingly, we would go to the health practitioners trained in herbal medicine. They should know how the herb has been used and the expected results.
"None of this what?" - I mean to say that the many success stories of herbal medicine offer us no guarantees that that the next herb to come under consideration will prove useful, or that the traditions associated with its use are correct.
"Correct in what way?" - Correct in that the traditional claims of efficacy/safety match what happens in reality, eg. if tradition X says that herb Y cures malady Z, is this claim true? It could well be wrong, and it is for this reason that traditional herbal know-how can't be completely relied upon. It is worth listening to, since the tradition may be correct, but that is only a starting point. Believing that traditional wisdom is reliable enough for use in medicine strikes me as shockingly naive.
You then go on to talk about herbal mixtures, rightly saying that the effects of mixtures of many herbs are more difficult to test than single herbs. This is a major problem with modern herbalism, where the "holistic" mindset holds that personalised mixtures are more effective than standardised products. This is faith-based wish-thinking, with a total lack of evidential backing. I linked to this article before, but I link it again because it deals specifically with the dangers of using these mixtures. Interaction between drugs, is a problem for all kinds of medicine and I'm afraid that it all requires testing.
purpledawn writes:
But for the ease of discussion can we just call them herbs and drugs so that we don't have to type pharmaceutical drug or herbal drug to differentiate? This debate concerns safety and effectiveness not whether herbs are or are not drugs. We've already agreed they need to be tested and I don't have the knowledge or resources to debate molecules.
You call them whatever you like. I think that understanding that herbs are drugs is an essential point if we are to promote understanding of what herbal medicine is and how it should be approached. If that requires my typing the word pharmaceutical a few times, then fine. The characterisation of herbs as drugs was right there in the OP.
purpledawn writes:
Misuse is when one uses something incorrectly. It doesn't matter whether the outcome is beneficial or not.
We just call it a discovery when we misuse something and a benefit is found.
But who decides what is correct or incorrect. If my doctor treats me with a herb, and he uses it a way that a traditional Chinese herbal practitioner would describe as "incorrect", yet I am cured of my illness, does that really make it incorrect? Is it misuse? I don't think so. I don't care whether someone thinks a treatment is "misuse", all I care about is outcome.
purpledawn writes:
Does it heal what? The symptom or the underlying problem? Or both?
Either. Both. Whatever. Quite clearly, it depends on what you are trying to achieve. You are splitting hairs.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by purpledawn, posted 01-08-2008 7:02 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by purpledawn, posted 01-08-2008 2:55 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 34 of 209 (447211)
01-08-2008 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Granny Magda
01-08-2008 1:17 PM


Re: Abuse
quote:
I'm still not sure what point you are trying to make here.
The point was in Message 17.
The point being that testing for safety and effectiveness only applies to the proper usage of the product. It can't stop people from misusing and abusing the products.
Having FDA approval doesn't stop people from misusing them and the study did not differentiate as we mentioned before. So to interpret the info from the study as support for having herbs tested, we would need to know whether these were properly used drugs or misused.
quote:
This is a major problem with modern herbalism, where the "holistic" mindset holds that personalised mixtures are more effective than standardised products. This is faith-based wish-thinking, with a total lack of evidential backing.
So isn't it also necessary to test these mixtures for effectiveness and safety?
quote:
It is worth listening to, since the tradition may be correct, but that is only a starting point.
Isn't that what I've been saying, that's where we start?
quote:
But who decides what is correct or incorrect.
If it is FDA approved, then whatever it was approved for is designated as correct. Like I said before, if something is misused and something good happens, it is a discovery. It is still misuse until the standards are changed. A good outcome just wouldn't make the adverse affects list. It doesn't change the meaning of misuse though.
quote:
Quite clearly, it depends on what you are trying to achieve.
Agreed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Granny Magda, posted 01-08-2008 1:17 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Granny Magda, posted 01-08-2008 5:08 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 35 of 209 (447266)
01-08-2008 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by purpledawn
01-08-2008 2:55 PM


Re: Abuse
Ah, I see...
purpledawn writes:
The point being that testing for safety and effectiveness only applies to the proper usage of the product. It can't stop people from misusing and abusing the products.
Yes and no. Preventing deliberate abuse is not one of the aims of trials, nor should it be. Quite obviously, no amount of testing is going to stop idiots from overdosing on a drug, taking it the wrong way, etc. One of the main aims of testing however (and this is something that you've already mentioned), is working out what the best dose actually is. Only when this is established can people use the drug in an informed way, thus guarding them against unknowing or accidental misuse.
No testing = no knowledge of safe dose = no definition of proper use = guaranteed misuse.
Proper testing = improved knowledge of safe dose = improved definition of of proper use = misuse minimised.
You can apply similar logic to other aspects of drug performance, eg. tolerability, efficacy, price.
purpledawn writes:
So to interpret the info from the study as support for having herbs tested, we would need to know whether these were properly used drugs or misused.
Wrong. Proper trials, carried out prior to the drugs release, might have picked up these concerns a lot sooner, and lent more weight to health warnings for use and might actually have saved some lives. If people knew that herbal drugs were taken seriously enough that they required thorough testing before release, then they might be less susceptible to the "natural=safe" fallacy, and more inclined to obey the dosage limits. Lack of testing trivialises herbals and that is dangerous.
I believe the point that Percy was trying to make by reference to the example of ephedra was simply "herbs are drugs, with powerful and even dangerous side effects". This suggests that testing is needed.
purpledawn writes:
So isn't it also necessary to test these mixtures for effectiveness and safety?
A guarded yes. It is clearly impossible to test every conceivable combination of herbs and other drugs. For this reason I think that herbalists should start testing their wares one herb at a time, before charging in like a bull at a gate, and mixing them together in a myriad of personalised cocktails. This kind of thing makes it much harder to detect where any potential side effects are coming from.
It is worth noting that many herbalists claim that mixtures are more effective than single herbs, and especially that personalised mixtures have a special therapeutic power. There is no evidence to back this claim up. Wish thinking, nothing more.
purpledawn writes:
Isn't that what I've been saying, that's where we start?
Agreed then.
purpledawn writes:
If it is FDA approved, then whatever it was approved for is designated as correct. Like I said before, if something is misused and something good happens, it is a discovery. It is still misuse until the standards are changed. A good outcome just wouldn't make the adverse affects list. It doesn't change the meaning of misuse though.
I see what you mean. Of course, a novel use for an existing drug requires (you guessed it) more trials, to test the drugs efficacy in the new situation. I believe that drugs are only licensed for a specific use use. New use, new test, new license.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by purpledawn, posted 01-08-2008 2:55 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
Taqless
Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 36 of 209 (447275)
01-08-2008 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Granny Magda
01-07-2008 9:18 PM


Re: I'll try the opposing position
Granny Magda writes:
Tradition, anecdote, call it what you like. The point is that traditional use of a herb only gives us some weak evidence of its safety and no more than a hint of evidence of its efficacy.
I have to admit that when I consider herbal medicine the Chinese are what comes to mind. Obviously with this specific group of people in mind you get a large population, a certain amount of scientific inquiry, and most important documentation. So, I am taking a very specific opposing position.
People around the world believe some pretty weird stuff. That some tradition might believe that herb x is a sovereign cure against malady y, when in fact it does nothing, seems pretty reasonable, especially when you compare it to some of the beliefs expressed on this board! Unless you believe that every traditional belief about the safety and efficacy of herbs is correct, we must somehow find a way of telling the useful ones from the crap.
I would still point out that physician reporting is useful in separating the crap from the keepers. Obviously this kind of reporting has proven to be important in FDA approved drugs as well.
You say that traditional use means that we have evidence of the safety of a herb. You also say "maybe we, as a group, were not using it the way the Chinese used it for 5000 years". When I say that we must compare like with like, I am saying that we must be assured that it is safe to use the herb in the way it is used today.
I understand and agree.
It is my contention that they are the only appropriate tool in investigating such issues.
I agree that it is a great tool even before an issue exists. If the herbal drug was used in the manner with which it was documented for a long period of time and no issues have been reported I do not see the necessity of requiring re-assessment. I do think that such information exists given the parameters I mention in the first paragraph of this response. However, if an issue does exist I would agree that it is fair game for regulation. As you point out not every drug helps every person . ..herbal or FDA approved.
With regard to your hypothetical compound, I think that we are both in agreement that it should be tested before release.
I’m sure you realize that the interaction/scenario I proposed is hypothetical, BUT the phenomenon is not.
Given that many herbals contain active ingredients capable of causing serious side effects or of interfering with prescription medicines, I think that regulation of herbalists is essential.
It sounds like you’re suggesting regulation of herbalists will eliminate serious side effects and/or drug interactions(which occurs with many approved drugs already).
That's fantastic, but there is a catch; St.John's wort has also been implicated in inhibiting the action of other medicines, as in this trial.
As many drugs, so . . . . . .
St. John's wort is not the only herb to have serious side effects.
Of course it isn’t. Once again, as with many other drugs, so . . . . ..?
Devil's claw
For musculo-skeletal pain, such as backache. May increase stomach acid and should be avoided by people with ulcers
Sounds like a warning for ibuprofen.
Valerian
For insomnia. High doses may cause a drug "hangover" effect
This is a common side-effect of anti-insomnia drugs.
Remember safe and effective does not mean
1) No serious side effects
2) No drug interactions.
Have a great evening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Granny Magda, posted 01-07-2008 9:18 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Granny Magda, posted 01-08-2008 10:05 PM Taqless has replied

  
Taqless
Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 37 of 209 (447278)
01-08-2008 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by molbiogirl
01-07-2008 10:30 PM


Re: Anecdotal "evidence"
Whew!
I thought you might use the stronger position of Bigfoot!
I have not read about or seen chicken soup bringing about beneficial results for those who suffer from leprosy.
Context can be everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 10:30 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 38 of 209 (447308)
01-08-2008 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by purpledawn
01-05-2008 1:53 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by purpledawn, posted 01-05-2008 1:53 PM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Percy, posted 01-08-2008 7:49 PM nator has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 39 of 209 (447309)
01-08-2008 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by nator
01-08-2008 7:45 PM


Purpledawn doesn't seem to be advocating those positions. Let's have peace in the house.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by nator, posted 01-08-2008 7:45 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 40 of 209 (447310)
01-08-2008 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by purpledawn
01-07-2008 7:18 PM


Re: Abuse
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by purpledawn, posted 01-07-2008 7:18 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by purpledawn, posted 01-08-2008 9:21 PM nator has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 41 of 209 (447328)
01-08-2008 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by nator
01-08-2008 7:50 PM


Re: Abuse
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by nator, posted 01-08-2008 7:50 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by nator, posted 01-09-2008 8:53 AM purpledawn has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 42 of 209 (447334)
01-08-2008 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Taqless
01-08-2008 5:36 PM


Re: I'll try the opposing position
Taqless writes:
I have to admit that when I consider herbal medicine the Chinese are what comes to mind. Obviously with this specific group of people in mind you get a large population, a certain amount of scientific inquiry, and most important documentation. So, I am taking a very specific opposing position.
OK. We could talk about ayurveda or bach flower remedies if you wanted, but you're right, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) serves as a good example. That TCM has a long standing history of widespread use is true. That's good. That it has much documentation associated with it is also true, and that's very helpful. These pieces of information are like little flags that should draw our attention to a potential source of useful cures.
That TCM is guided by scientific inquiry is open to debate. There is no doubt that early TCM practitioners were seeking to move away from random tribal superstitions, and towards a standardised system of medical knowledge.The question is "how completely did they succeed?". How much of it really works?
We all know of examples of traditions that are false. When we look around the world we see millions of people labouring under various strange delusional beliefs. How can we be sure that TCM is isn't just another false belief system? Certainly it has some improbable mystical elements, such as chi, the theory that illness is caused by in imbalance between "stagnation" and "catastrophism", and something called "kidney essence" that creates bone marrow and semen. Does any of that sound likely to you? If this is the kind of stuff that TCM espouses, why should we take their assertions regarding their herbal cures at face value? How much is just dogma?
I'm suggesting that TCM contains much that is useful, after all, they are not idiots. The thing is, you don't have to be an idiot to make mistakes. It will thus include much that is in error (dried lizard anyone?). Unless your position is that TCM in inerrant, you surely have to agree with me on this.
With me so far?
Taqless writes:
I would still point out that physician reporting is useful in separating the crap from the keepers. Obviously this kind of reporting has proven to be important in FDA approved drugs as well.
Of course. That's why systems of feedback are built into modern medicine, such as the yellow card scheme here in Britain. You won't see those kind of set ups in herbalism. There isn't enough agreement amongst practitioners.
Taqless writes:
If the herbal drug was used in the manner with which it was documented for a long period of time and no issues have been reported I do not see the necessity of requiring re-assessment.
So is it still your contention that anecdotal evidence is the equal of clinical trials?
Taqless writes:
However, if an issue does exist I would agree that it is fair game for regulation. As you point out not every drug helps every person . ..herbal or FDA approved.
I’m sure you realize that the interaction/scenario I proposed is hypothetical, BUT the phenomenon is not.
All agreed.
Taqless writes:
It sounds like you’re suggesting regulation of herbalists will eliminate serious side effects and/or drug interactions(which occurs with many approved drugs already).
I'm suggesting no such thing. Trials will help reduce such risks, by forewarning us of the dangers.
Taqless writes:
Granny writes:
That's fantastic, but there is a catch; St.John's wort has also been implicated in inhibiting the action of other medicines, as in this trial.
As many drugs, so . . . . . .
Granny writes:
St. John's wort is not the only herb to have serious side effects.
Of course it isn’t. Once again, as with many other drugs, so . . . . ..?
So . . . . . we do trials until we are armed with enough data to allow physicians and patients to make informed choices, based on the very best evidence available. To do otherwise would be unethical.
Taqless writes:
Devil's claw
For musculo-skeletal pain, such as backache. May increase stomach acid and should be avoided by people with ulcers
Sounds like a warning for ibuprofen.
Valerian
For insomnia. High doses may cause a drug "hangover" effect
This is a common side-effect of anti-insomnia drugs.
Precisely why;
a) both herbs and pharmaceuticals should be regarded as drugs.
b) both herbs and pharmaceuticals should be subject to clinical trial.
c) both herbs and pharmaceuticals should be regulated.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Taqless, posted 01-08-2008 5:36 PM Taqless has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Taqless, posted 01-18-2008 10:45 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 43 of 209 (447420)
01-09-2008 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by purpledawn
01-08-2008 9:21 PM


Re: Abuse
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by purpledawn, posted 01-08-2008 9:21 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by purpledawn, posted 01-09-2008 11:53 AM nator has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 44 of 209 (447460)
01-09-2008 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by nator
01-09-2008 8:53 AM


Banning Herbals
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by nator, posted 01-09-2008 8:53 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 01-09-2008 12:26 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 47 by nator, posted 01-09-2008 12:51 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 45 of 209 (447463)
01-09-2008 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by purpledawn
01-09-2008 11:53 AM


Re: Banning Herbals
If the government decides that herbal medicines should be regulated by the FDA, including not only clinical studies of safety and effectiveness but also quality standards for delivery mechanisms, the broader question would be how best to structure and manage the interim period for each herb until FDA requirements are satisfied. Certainly an outright ban during the interim period would be extreme.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by purpledawn, posted 01-09-2008 11:53 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by purpledawn, posted 01-09-2008 12:49 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024