Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Safety and Effectiveness of Herbs and Pharmaceuticals
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 61 of 209 (448299)
01-12-2008 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by subbie
01-12-2008 7:26 PM


Re: Banning Herbals
Hi Subbie,
Caveat emptor indeed, but the fact is that a great many fools have held onto their money, thanks to legislation that forces Big Pharma to prove the efficacy of its wares. The system works. That is proven by the way that quacks have been driven out of pharmaceutical medicine, leaving only the "alternative" market unregulated.
What makes you think that regulation of herbals would play out differently?

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by subbie, posted 01-12-2008 7:26 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by subbie, posted 01-12-2008 11:49 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 62 of 209 (448328)
01-12-2008 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Granny Magda
01-12-2008 10:12 PM


Re: Banning Herbals
Greetings, Granny! I don't think we've run into one another before.
the fact is that a great many fools have held onto their money, thanks to legislation that forces Big Pharma to prove the efficacy of its wares.
You say that as if it's a good thing. I say it's not.
So Big Pharma hasn't cheated them out of their money. That also means that they haven't had a chance to learn from a foolish mistake. As a result, they simply lost their money to some other scam. No improvement, as far as I can see. In fact, I'd say that the fact that we have this Big Brother agency making everyone think that medicine is safe just makes it easier for those on the fringes to take the fools' money. Effective by association, as it were.
What makes you think that regulation of herbals would play out differently?
I never said that I thought it would. I said I thought that would be bad.
Let people buy and use whatever nonsense they want to. What's it to you? Morons are going to waste their money somewhere or other. Why should the government protect them from some frauds but not others?
So we start to regulate herbals. What's next? Magnet therapy? Aroma therapy? Copper bracelets? Gimmick diets? Cosmetics claims of younger-looking skin? There is virtually no end to quack remedies out there, and if the government is going to try to regulate it all in the same way that they do with drugs, the FDA would quickly become the biggest bureaucracy in the history of human civilization, probably eating up half the federal budget or more.
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.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Granny Magda, posted 01-12-2008 10:12 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Rrhain, posted 01-13-2008 12:08 AM subbie has replied
 Message 67 by nator, posted 01-13-2008 8:06 AM subbie has not replied
 Message 68 by Granny Magda, posted 01-13-2008 8:49 PM subbie has not replied
 Message 71 by nator, posted 01-19-2008 1:06 PM subbie has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 63 of 209 (448332)
01-13-2008 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by subbie
01-12-2008 11:49 PM


Re: Banning Herbals
subbie writes:
quote:
There is virtually no end to quack remedies out there, and if the government is going to try to regulate it all in the same way that they do with drugs, the FDA would quickly become the biggest bureaucracy in the history of human civilization, probably eating up half the federal budget or more.
Um, what makes you think they don't do this already?
As Title 21 specifically states, there a disclaimer that must be placed on all such products:
This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
As for your whine of "Why should the government protect them from some frauds but not others?" it is because the average person is not in a position to test the efficacy of chemotherapy. Somebody has to.
This is not a license to consumers to turn their brains off, though. They still need to do their research, but the governmental activity is to help people make informed decisions.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by subbie, posted 01-12-2008 11:49 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by subbie, posted 01-13-2008 12:34 AM Rrhain has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 64 of 209 (448339)
01-13-2008 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Rrhain
01-13-2008 12:08 AM


Re: Banning Herbals
Well, the very disclaimer that you quote shows that the FDA doesn't perform the same kind of testing for products bearing the disclaimer as it does on drugs.
As for your whine of "Why should the government protect them from some frauds but not others?" it is because the average person is not in a position to test the efficacy of chemotherapy. Somebody has to.
This is not a license to consumers to turn their brains off, though. They still need to do their research, but the governmental activity is to help people make informed decisions.
Whine? Nice.
If it were only to give people information, then the sale of untested drugs, or drugs that were tested but not approved, wouldn't be illegal. Instead, the government would require companies to inform people that the drugs haven't been tested, or that testing failed to confirm the claims that the companies make for the drugs.
No, FDA regulation is far more than just a full disclosure program for informed decision making. The FDA makes the decisions itself, then makes it a federal crime for anyone to prescribe the drug contrary to FDA decree.
You are correct that the average person is not in a position to test the efficacy of just about any medical treatment. Of course, it doesn't follow from that fact that the government has to do it. There are hundreds, thousands of sources of information that people can turn to to see what those with informed opinions have to say about virtually anything. Learning how to investigate and evaluate claims would be of considerably more value to people than for them to rely on someone else to simply outlaw bad decisions.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Rrhain, posted 01-13-2008 12:08 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Rrhain, posted 01-13-2008 1:29 AM subbie has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 65 of 209 (448345)
01-13-2008 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by subbie
01-13-2008 12:34 AM


Re: Banning Herbals
subbie responds to me:
quote:
Well, the very disclaimer that you quote shows that the FDA doesn't perform the same kind of testing for products bearing the disclaimer as it does on drugs.
And thus, you show you missed the point:
Since there has been no testing, why would anybody accept the claim that it does what the advertister says it does?
quote:
If it were only to give people information, then the sale of untested drugs, or drugs that were tested but not approved, wouldn't be illegal.
Huh? Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to lie. If you're going to say that "X does Y," then you need to back it up. It's why all those cosmetic commercials make heavy use of the word "appear." They don't say it actually gets rid of your wrinkles...merely that the wrinkles "appear" to be "less noticeable."
And that's why the "alternative" therapies are carefully advertised so as not to actually claim to be doing anything. With no real claim to prove, they avoid any regulation.
quote:
Instead, the government would require companies to inform people that the drugs haven't been tested
Um, what do you think that disclaimer says? Here it is again:
This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
What part of "has not been evaluated" is in conflict with the phrase of "haven't been tested"?
quote:
No, FDA regulation is far more than just a full disclosure program for informed decision making.
I never said it wasn't. The FDA is a lot of things and one of them is a means for people to learn about things they don't have the ability to find out for themselves.
quote:
The FDA makes the decisions itself, then makes it a federal crime for anyone to prescribe the drug contrary to FDA decree.
Incorrect. A doctor is allowed to prescribe any drug for any reason. It's pretty much the entire basis for the pediatric psychopharmacopeia. Drugs don't work the same in children as they do in adults and we really don't have much testing for any of the drugs that we have upon children. The only way we've found out anything is because doctors prescribed them off-label. It's how we dealt with childhood cancers: The drugs were tested off-label on children.
The way we managed to get a hold on childhood cancers (at least the ones we have a hold on) is because the doctors banded together to organize all of this off-label use. Every child ever treated for cancer is part of a study. They just are. You don't leave the data sitting on the table waiting for somebody to notice it and collect it. You specifically share it with others so that we can see what's going on.
So why don't the "alternative" practitioners do this? Make everything part of a study.
quote:
Of course, it doesn't follow from that fact that the government has to do it.
I never said it did. And technically, the government doesn't do it, either. The government just organizes it. You have to do your own study and the report your findings to the FDA for evaluation.
quote:
There are hundreds, thousands of sources of information that people can turn to to see what those with informed opinions have to say about virtually anything.
Indeed. They're called doctors. But in order to be trusted, you have to be evaluated. That's why there's such a thing as "malpractice." And there has to be. There has to be a way to weed out the wrong answers.
quote:
Learning how to investigate and evaluate claims would be of considerably more value to people than for them to rely on someone else to simply outlaw bad decisions.
That's the importance of a good education in science. But that doesn't solve the problem of the average person...even the average scientist...being incapable of doing the appropriate research.
There's an old fake ad from Saturday Night Live for the "Leland Myers Home Headache Test." You take vial of blood, run a chemical analysis of it, and wait two hours. If the spot turns blue, you have a headache! Now, for something like a headache, that's obviously ridiculous, but how is the average person supposed to determine if they have a deficiency in a particular protein? And how are they supposed to go about finding an effective treatment for it? That requires an awful lot of time, equipment, money, and study that most people don't have the means to do.
Who else is going to check on these things? Isn't that part of the function of government?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by subbie, posted 01-13-2008 12:34 AM subbie has not replied

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


Message 66 of 209 (448374)
01-13-2008 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by subbie
01-12-2008 7:26 PM


Re: Banning Herbals
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by subbie, posted 01-12-2008 7:26 PM subbie has not replied

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


Message 67 of 209 (448375)
01-13-2008 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by subbie
01-12-2008 11:49 PM


Re: Banning Herbals
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by subbie, posted 01-12-2008 11:49 PM subbie has not replied

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


Message 68 of 209 (448508)
01-13-2008 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by subbie
01-12-2008 11:49 PM


Re: Banning Herbals
Hey Subbie,
subbie writes:
So Big Pharma hasn't cheated them out of their money. That also means that they haven't had a chance to learn from a foolish mistake.As a result, they simply lost their money to some other scam.
Sure, unless they're dead, because they had no way of evaluating the various medicines on offer, and they happened to choose the wrong one. How can ordinary people be expected to make life or death decisions without proper studies to provide the information? How are they to judge the worth of an unregulated clinical trial? For that matter, how can doctors make informed decisions if there is no agreed system of regulation to ensure that all medicines actually do what they claim they do. Regulation allows everyone, patients, doctors, researchers and drug companies, to assess the real value (and dangers) of medicines. This has advanced medical science and saved countless lives. Without it we'd all be in the dark.
subbie writes:
Let people buy and use whatever nonsense they want to. What's it to you?
I'm curious. The above comment implies that you would support full decriminalisation and deregulation of recreational drugs, such as crack-cocaine. What do you say to that?
subbie writes:
Why should the government protect them from some frauds but not others?
Exactly my point. Why should people be protected from most forms of fraud, but not from charlatans who peddle snake oil? Selling unproven rubbish as if it were a useful medicine exploits the sick and the desperate. It is an especially despicable form of exploitative fraud.
subbie writes:
So we start to regulate herbals. What's next? Magnet therapy? Aroma therapy? Copper bracelets? Gimmick diets? Cosmetics claims of younger-looking skin?
Yes, that sounds about right, with the possible exception of the diets. Where there is a claim of curative properties, there should be evidence to back up that claim. No evidence, no dice. Furthermore, herbs with genuine active ingredients should only be available from qualified persons, in order to avoid medical complications brought on by improper use.
If wacky alternative therapists want to be taken seriously, they should submit to regulation and clinical trials. Your claims about the necessary bureaucracy seem a little over blown to me. It is the industry that must pay for the testing, not the government. Believe me, they can afford it. In fact, many alternativists do perform trials, but, because they do so in an unregulated environment, many such trials aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by subbie, posted 01-12-2008 11:49 PM subbie has not replied

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


Message 69 of 209 (449775)
01-18-2008 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Granny Magda
01-08-2008 10:05 PM


Re: I'll try the opposing position
Hi Granny,
Delayed, but.......
Granny Magda writes:
That TCM is guided by scientific inquiry is open to debate.
My position does not include the expanded statements you make regarding “mystical elements” which I guess are part of TCM. In the context I outlined involving herbal drugs I contend that while scientific inquiry 1000s of years ago among the Chinese did not mirror our current process that in no way means that it did not meet the basic definition of scientific inquiry: “Full inquiry involves asking a simple question, completing an investigation, answering the question, and presenting the results to others.”
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.
This is speculative and OT.
We all know of examples of traditions that are false.
So that I’m clear on this, are you suggesting that our current system of scientific inquiry is “tradition” as well? If not, then please explain .
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.
This is a topic all of its own.
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.
I agree, the Chinese “are not idiots”. However, inerrancy is not the point . as I think you yourself have pointed out .
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.
Agreed, but maybe this suggests that regulating those who dispense herbs might help the general public?
So is it still your contention that anecdotal evidence is the equal of clinical trials?
I think that to ask this question the assumptions are:
1) The Chinese did not use ANY form of scientific inquiry, and
2) The Chinese did not have an organized manner to document their findings
and either assumption is problematic.
Granny Magda writes:
Devil's claw
For musculo-skeletal pain, such as backache. May increase stomach acid and should be avoided by people with ulcers
Taqless writes:
Sounds like a warning for ibuprofen.
Valerian
For insomnia. High doses may cause a drug "hangover" effect
Taqless writes:
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.
My comparisons were strictly meant to highlight the fact that a couple of herbs from your list of herbs with “serious side effects” matched a couple of FDA approved drugs that had similar “serious side effects”. Therefore, weakening the position that regulation and clinical trials somehow resolves these aspects of drugs. That was all.
When discussing whether or not drugs, herbal or otherwise, should be regulated one has to leave side effects, interactions, and even effectiveness out as supporting evidence on either side of the issue. Although these are valid concerns, they are not somehow resolved by regulation:
- Approved/Herbal drugs both have side effects
- Approved/Herbal drugs both have interactions, and
- Approved/Herbal drugs both have varying degrees of effectiveness across a diverse population.
Therefore, one is left with whether or not the drug is “proven” and I agree that this is facilitated through scientific inquiry. So, whether or not a drug has been proven seems to be what we are addressing, and this might be slightly OT according to what Percy originally intended. Regardless, my better defined position would be that herbs established and used for 1000s of years in Chinese Medicine do not require regulation as long as they are used in the manner documented. However, as I've stated before if the drug is being used in a different manner (tea vs. pill, with another medication, etc.) it would need to be scientifically re-tested in the "new environment" using the methods currently accepted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Granny Magda, posted 01-08-2008 10:05 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 01-19-2008 9:49 AM Taqless has not replied
 Message 72 by Granny Magda, posted 01-19-2008 1:15 PM Taqless has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 70 of 209 (449825)
01-19-2008 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taqless
01-18-2008 10:45 PM


Re: I'll try the opposing position
Tagless writes:
In the context I outlined involving herbal drugs I contend that while scientific inquiry 1000s of years ago among the Chinese did not mirror our current process that in no way means that it did not meet the basic definition of scientific inquiry: “Full inquiry involves asking a simple question, completing an investigation, answering the question, and presenting the results to others.”
Naturally I disagree that anything resembling modern approaches to scientific investigation were performed by the ancient Chinese, but there's no need to debate this particularly point. Given a scientific question, just ask yourself what is the difference between a scientific study never performed versus a scientific study that was meticulously performed and then all the results lost?
The answer becomes even more obvious when you consider the issue at a more detailed level. Even the most basic tools of medical inquiry, such as blood pressure, temperature and blood analysis, were not in the possession of the ancient Chinese. Systematic tracking of results using basic data like this could not possibly have been performed. Any results would have had to have been based upon self-reporting, i.e., asking people how they felt. Certainly they never performed the double-blind trials that would eliminate the placebo effect, and control of dosage levels would have been impossible.
But let's get real here. While it would be unfair to claim that no systematic investigations were ever performed by the ancient Chinese, the reality is that Chinese herbal folk knowledge for the most part accumulated the way all such knowledge accumulates, gathered anecdotally and spread by word of mouth.
My comparisons were strictly meant to highlight the fact that a couple of herbs from your list of herbs with “serious side effects” matched a couple of FDA approved drugs that had similar “serious side effects”. Therefore, weakening the position that regulation and clinical trials somehow resolves these aspects of drugs. That was all.
This paragraph asks the wrong question, which you acknowledge later, but let me emphasize anyway that no one questions that drugs, which includes herbs and pharmaceuticals, can have serious side effects. The issue is one of whether the requisite studies have been performed to reveal what the side-effects might be. You appear to agree with this at least somewhat when you say:
Therefore, one is left with whether or not the drug is “proven” and I agree that this is facilitated through scientific inquiry.
But you go on to repeat your initial premise:
Regardless, my better defined position would be that herbs established and used for 1000s of years in Chinese Medicine do not require regulation as long as they are used in the manner documented.
There's no documentation. There are no records of studies by the ancient Chinese. There's only folk knowledge, and the only thing resembling documentation is what people have recorded concerning this folk knowledge. Until you can point to the journals documenting the peer-reviewed double-blind placebo-based studies you have no assurance about things like safety, effectiveness, dosage level, potential side-effects, drug interactions, etc.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taqless, posted 01-18-2008 10:45 PM Taqless has not replied

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


Message 71 of 209 (449852)
01-19-2008 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by subbie
01-12-2008 11:49 PM


bump for subbie
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by subbie, posted 01-12-2008 11:49 PM subbie has not replied

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


Message 72 of 209 (449855)
01-19-2008 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taqless
01-18-2008 10:45 PM


Re: I'll try the opposing position
Hello again Taqless,
My position does not include the expanded statements you make regarding “mystical elements” which I guess are part of TCM.
How exactly do you propose to extricate the "mystical elements" from the more effective aspects of TCM? Mysticism is part and parcel of TCM, with many herbs being prescribed for their effect on qi, jing or other non-existent factors. Mysticism is there at diagnosis, in prescription and in the explanations of effects. You can't just pretend it isn't there.
I contend that while scientific inquiry 1000s of years ago among the Chinese did not mirror our current process that in no way means that it did not meet the basic definition of scientific inquiry: “Full inquiry involves asking a simple question, completing an investigation, answering the question, and presenting the results to others.”
Perhaps you would like to substantiate that claim with some evidence of ancient Chinese science. Of course, you will find no such evidence.
Taqless writes:
Granny writes:
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.
This is speculative and OT.
No, that was based on a thing called "research". Whilst I wouldn't suggest that anyone rely 100% on Wikipedia, it does make it remarkably easy to look up stuff like this;
quote:
most historical accounts of the system will acknowledge it was invented by a culture of people that were already tired of listening to shamans trying to blame illnesses on evil spirits
  —Wiki
All very laudable. Unfortunately, they did not go far enough, mostly for the reason that Percy has already pointed out.
So that I’m clear on this, are you suggesting that our current system of scientific inquiry is “tradition” as well? If not, then please explain.
I am quite happy to describe evidence-based medicine as a tradition. It's just that some traditions are simply more effective than others.
This is a topic all of it's own
Quit dodging. I have demonstrated that TCM contains much that is untrue. The question for you to answer is how are we to the useful information from the nonsense? If TCM is willing to deal in such rubbish, why should we take any of its claims at face value?
I agree, the Chinese “are not idiots”. However, inerrancy is not the point . as I think you yourself have pointed out .
Error is very much the point. I assume that you will not contest my claim that TCM contains much that is in error, so how are we to detect these errors without testing?
{maybe}... regulating those who dispense herbs might help the general public?
That is what I have been saying all along.
Taqless writes:
Granny writes:
So is it still your contention that anecdotal evidence is the equal of clinical trials?
I think that to ask this question the assumptions are:
1) The Chinese did not use ANY form of scientific inquiry, and
2) The Chinese did not have an organized manner to document their findings
and either assumption is problematic.
1) I never claimed any such thing, indeed, I specifically mentioned that TCM represents a move toward scientific enquiry. I contend that there was not enough science and that their methodology was insufficient, as explained above, by our host.
2) This is not an assumption, but rather a fact. If you disagree, please provide evidence of the ancient Chinese equivalent of the FDA or the UK's National Institute of Clinical Excellence. (Hint - You won't find any such evidence, because it doesn't exist)
It is actually worth taking a look at studies into TCM. I think we can agree that todays TCM practitioners (as opposed to their less empirical Classical Chinese Medicine forebears) are much better placed to conduct useful trials. They have knowledge of blood pressure, the placebo effect, double-blinding, all the modern improvements mention above. So let's see how reliable modern TCM trials might be. This from Ben Goldacre again;
quote:
one study looked at the entire cannon of research on traditional Chinese medicine, and found 1100 papers: not one single trial published in China, in the entire history of research into traditional treatments, had ever found a test treatment to be ineffective. Not a single one.
The link is to PubMed and appears in the original article.
Do those results sound impartial and scientific to you? Because they sound more like a North Korean election result to me. If we cannot even trust the modern research into this topic, it does not look good for ancient research, carried out without proper knowledge and equipment.
Therefore, weakening the position that regulation and clinical trials somehow resolves these aspects of drugs. That was all.
For god's sake, I never claimed that clinical trials would eliminate side effects! That would be a stupid claim. If you must put words in my mouth, please try to make them less stupid. Regulation allows us to make informed decisions about side effects and all the other factors that you describe.
So, whether or not a drug has been proven seems to be what we are addressing, and this might be slightly OT according to what Percy originally intended. Regardless, my better defined position would be that herbs established and used for 1000s of years in Chinese Medicine do not require regulation as long as they are used in the manner documented.
The topic is " Safety and Effectiveness of Herbs and Pharmaceuticals". You have yet to demonstrate how either of those concerns is addressed by reference to Chinese tradition.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taqless, posted 01-18-2008 10:45 PM Taqless has not replied

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


Message 73 of 209 (547391)
02-18-2010 10:58 PM


Chinese Medicine Cancer Scandal
A bit of thread necromancy...
The effects of unregulated medicine have been made starkly clear this week as a Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioner escapes direct prosecution for administering poison.
quote:
Calls for 'cancer' pills regulation
An Old Bailey judge has called for new regulation on traditional Chinese medicines as a "doctor" who sold cancer-causing pills walked free from court.
Ying "Susan" Wu sold the tiny brown "Xie Gan Wan" tablets to Patricia Booth for more than five years from a shop in Chelmsford, Essex.
Mrs Booth, 58, began taking the pills three times a day to treat a skin condition but they ended up destroying her kidneys and giving her cancer.
But Judge Jeremy Roberts ruled that, as the sale of traditional Chinese medicines was totally unregulated, there was no evidence that Wu knew of the potential harm.
Yes, that's Mrs Woo. It would be funny if it didn't involve a woman being given cancer by a negligent quack.
quote:
The judge threw out a charge of "administering a noxious substance" against the 48-year-old, of Holland-on-Sea, Essex, and she pleaded guilty to five lesser counts and was given a two-year conditional discharge.
Giving his ruling he said: "It is an unfortunate fact that there is no system in this country to regulate Chinese herbal medicine retailers like Ms Wu by requiring them to be registered with an appropriate professional body or trade association.
"Somebody like Ms Wu is entitled to set up shop as a herbal medicine retailer and to operate entirely unsupervised.There may be a gap in our law here which the Government might wish to address."
I like a judge with a gift for understatement.
quote:
The court heard that Mrs Booth took the medicine, which she bought from the Chinese Herbal Medical Centre in Chelmsford, from February 1997 to November 2002. She said she believed it was a "safe and natural alternative" to the antibiotics she had previously been taking for her skin condition - and which she feared could damage her long-term health.
Months after she stopped taking the Chinese pills, she was taken seriously ill and had to undergo an urgent blood transfusion. An analysis of the pills showed they contained a banned substance, aristolochic acid. Her health deteriorated to such an extent that her kidneys were "destroyed" and she had to have them removed, she contracted urinary tract cancer, and she later suffered a heart attack.
Note that the poison pills contained a substance known to be harmful. If someone had bothered to test this product before putting it to market, this need not have happened.
quote:
The Register of Chinese Herbal Medicine, which represents more than 450 practitioners, said the case highlighted "the urgent need for the statutory regulation of herbal medicine in the UK".
Source
If the RCHM are serious about regulation, then I applaud them. However, I am rather suspicious that their enthusiasm has a lot to do with their fear that upcoming Euro legislation might put them out of business altogether.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : Fix link.

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Buzsaw, posted 04-10-2010 10:15 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
rockondon
Member (Idle past 4926 days)
Posts: 40
Joined: 03-29-2010


Message 74 of 209 (554209)
04-06-2010 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
01-02-2008 3:45 PM


After reading the OP a few times, I've come to the conclusion that I really don't know what this thread is about.
Even so, I thought I'd throw out a few comments to try and stir debate.
When I see someone promoting "natural" products, it is usually a substance that has not been shown to work effectively and instead of admitting to a lack of research to support its effectiveness they often move the goalposts and whine about things like big pharmaceutical companies.
Lets talk about depression medications.
The mainstay treatment for most types of depression usually begins with SSRI's (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). But check this out...
Of 74 studies registered with the United States FDA, 37 with positive results were published in academic journals, while 22 studies with negative results were not published and 11 with negative results were published in a way that conveyed a positive outcome (one positive study was not published and three negative studies were published with results that were portrayed as negative). Overall, 94% of studies actually published were positive outcomes; when published and unpublished studies were included for analysis, the percentage of positive outcomes was 51%
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor - Wikipedia
However, one herb that has shown to be effective is St. John's Wort. It has a side effect profile similar to placebo. To put it another way, its about as harmful to you as drinking water. Now check this out...
St. John's wort had similar efficacy to standard antidepressants. The rate of side effects was twice lower than for newer SSRI antidepressants and five times lower than for older tricyclic antidepressants.
Hypericum perforatum - Wikipedia
I've spent a lot of time in Detox and on the Psych ward lately (working, not as a patient - I know what you guys were thinkin ) and I've never seen anyone taking St John's Wort, but dozens of my patients were on SSRI's. Why are people taking these drugs and suffering all these side effects when St John's Wort seems just as good and with virtually no side effects?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 01-02-2008 3:45 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Coyote, posted 04-06-2010 10:32 PM rockondon has not replied
 Message 76 by Apothecus, posted 04-07-2010 7:00 PM rockondon has replied
 Message 77 by Granny Magda, posted 04-07-2010 10:15 PM rockondon has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 75 of 209 (554214)
04-06-2010 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by rockondon
04-06-2010 9:46 PM


Why?
Why are people taking these drugs and suffering all these side effects when St John's Wort seems just as good and with virtually no side effects?
Marketing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by rockondon, posted 04-06-2010 9:46 PM rockondon has 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