Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
30 online now:
Diomedes, jar (2 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Herbal supplements in US commonly have traces of contaminants
nator
Member (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 91 of 102 (579621)
09-05-2010 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Buzsaw
09-04-2010 4:31 PM


What brands of supplements do you buy, buz?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Buzsaw, posted 09-04-2010 4:31 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 92 of 102 (579631)
09-05-2010 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Theodoric
09-04-2010 10:51 PM


Your post adds nothing to the conversation, is not based upon any evidence or fact and does not even qualify as an anecdote. What is the reason and meaning for the waste of a post?

Main Entry: anecdote
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: interesting or amusing story
Synonyms: chestnut, episode, fairy tale, fish story, gag, incident, long and short of it, narration, narrative, old chestnut, recital, relation, reminiscence, short story, sketch, tale, tall story, tall tale, yarn

http://thesaurus.com/browse/anecdote

I thought that it added a bit of humorous historical perspective. I see now that I should have added something like;

Caution! I am not a registered comedian. The contents of this post may appear to be funny but the plagiarist makes no claim as to its actual effectiveness. While you may chuckle or smirk do not mistake this reaction for anything other than the placebo effect. Double blind studies are currently under way to determine if this post actually contained any real humour. Consult your proctologist before mixing this post with any well thought out and logical replies to the topic at hand. Danger: may contain traces of irony, sarcasm, mercury and lead. Processed in a facility that contains nuts.

ABE
Since you posted this in quotation marks, is there a source for this?

Please see edited original post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Theodoric, posted 09-04-2010 10:51 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Theodoric, posted 09-05-2010 11:00 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6551
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 93 of 102 (579641)
09-05-2010 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by ProtoTypical
09-05-2010 9:35 AM


My apology
I guess I was a little to used to Buzz's remarks and thought you were trying to make some sort of ridiculous point with the post.

I should have seen the humour and I am kind of ashamed that I did not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-05-2010 9:35 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 94 of 102 (579643)
09-05-2010 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by nator
09-05-2010 8:38 AM


Re: Why the "Free Market" can't deliver health care
Are you suggesting that we go back to snake-oil days, when any shyster with a lot of enthusiastic selling techniques can put whatever they want in a bottle and sell it?

Honestly, are you trying to misunderstand me? May I suggest you go back and read my first response in this thread.Message 3

Furthermore, I am pretty sure we are still in the 'snake-oil days'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by nator, posted 09-05-2010 8:38 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by nator, posted 09-06-2010 7:31 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 102 (579679)
09-05-2010 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Buzsaw
09-04-2010 10:43 PM


Re: One man's herb
Where does regulation end and freedom begin, in your thinking?

Freedom for whom?


"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer
This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 09-04-2010 10:43 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 96 of 102 (579820)
09-06-2010 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by ProtoTypical
09-05-2010 11:03 AM


Re: Why the "Free Market" can't deliver health care
Well, you're being contradictory. You say that everything that is sold should be subject to oversight and regulation, but then you say there shouldn't be regulation, just information. You haven't explained how we are likely to get the information without the reguilations that require companies to provide us with it.

The only snake oil that is allowed to be sold these days falls under the "nutritional supplement" loophole, like homeopathic rememdies, as well as the herbal remedies and supplements.

Actual pharmaceuticals are very highly regulated. Not perfectly, but very highly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-05-2010 11:03 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-08-2010 8:25 AM nator has responded

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 97 of 102 (580220)
09-08-2010 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by nator
09-06-2010 7:31 AM


Re: Why the "Free Market" can't deliver health care
Well, you're being contradictory. You say that everything that is sold should be subject to oversight and regulation, but then you say there shouldn't be regulation, just information.

This is what I said

Information should be increased and regulation decreased.

And I must have said 4 or 5 times that I am not calling for NO regulation. After reading a bunch more about it I see that the situation in the US is indeed AFU. I didnt realize that someone can put lawn clippings in a bottle and call it something else. I would have thought that the truth in advertising laws could be applied.

The only snake oil that is allowed to be sold these days falls under the "nutritional supplement"...

What about cough medication, Pseudoephedrine, Celebrex, Avandia or Advair?

These drugs may be beneficial in some cases but certainly do alot of harm in others. Avandia for example

"Used to treat diabetes, studies have shown a clear link of increased risk of congestive hear failure to the drug. According to a study by the New England Journal of Medicine, “Avandia increases heart attack risk by 43%” "

http://attorneypages.com/hot/avandia-study.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by nator, posted 09-06-2010 7:31 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Apothecus, posted 09-08-2010 11:27 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply
 Message 100 by nator, posted 09-08-2010 11:23 PM ProtoTypical has responded
 Message 102 by Omnivorous, posted 09-10-2010 5:37 PM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 665 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 98 of 102 (580258)
09-08-2010 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
09-03-2010 8:54 AM


Re: Regulating Weeds.
Hey Buz, sorry for the delayed reply...

Buz writes:

First, as I understand them, naturopatic remedies are not an herbal perse and a relative minimal aspect of alternatives.

Sorry, I should have been less vague. I meant only those substances approximating chemical action when taken internally, or those claimed by mfrs. to approximate chemical action when taken internally.

The pharms are in the pocket of the FDA and the polititions.

I'm not getting what you mean by this: do you mean the reverse? That FDA and polititians are in the pharms' pockets? If that's the case (as I assume) I'd disagree--otherwise, nothing would ever be recalled or withdrawn. We see this all the time.

What good is the testing of pharms when every horror all the way to death is allowed, whereas, one or two deaths are attributed to comphrey when some dummie or two overdosed on the root? The pharms are in the pocket of the FDA and the polititions. It's more about $$ and power than safety.

I think someone else here brought up the point that the herbal markets are largely already controlled by big pharma, but your deliberate downplaying of "one or two deaths" from a certain herb is very telling, Buz. Your bias makes you blind to the fact that "one or two deaths" (this is the understatement of the decade) should be considered very serious. Moreover, "one or two" deaths due to any cause which could be at least partially remedied by regulation should be reason enough to do so, wouldn't you agree? Or are "one or two" deaths OK by you? Has it not reached the threshold for regulation yet?

Since you're fond of red herrings, how's this for one example: what would happen if the beef industry weren't regulated in the US?

Still at 75, Buzgirl and I haven't seen a doc in about 40 years, her for childbirth and me once when pharms almost did me in.

I'm not saying herbals or living natural should be banned, Buz. You should both be proud of your health, and I, for one, am glad pharms didn't "do you in" 40 years ago. But you should know I've talked to many anti-Buzzes at work and at play who've almost been "done in" by herbals, and have nothing but accolades for their meds controlling everything from arrhythmia to modern-day leprosy. Yours is one viewpoint.

Most naturals have disclaimer warnings on them with advice to check doc and not to take with pharms etc. Nearly all such remedies advocated in the media also include warnings to check doc first if on other meds etc. That's by law that they can't claim them as cures.

You mean that little tiny writing on the side that is referenced by the little tiny asterisk after the big bolded claim of effectiveness on the front of the bottle? The one no one really notices, or, if they have their reading glasses with them, really cares about? The one that sometimes gets covered up when the other end of the label wraps around the bottle too far? Yes, you're correct, Buz. That warning is there, and I emphasize this whenever I'm asked (after the obligatory, professional *shrug*) if this "goes with the yellow pills that I take."

The problem is that not everyone is as astute as you are with these chemicals. And they are chemicals, regardless of what you'd like to claim (baselessly, I'd add).

Bottom line is that RARE, RARE, RARELY do we hear of a serious illness, side effect or death from the naturals,

No offense, Buz, but why would you hear about anything other than only the most serious (aka deaths) consequences of supplement usage? Who do you think hears about the additive side effects of herbals with Rx meds, decrease in effectiveness of Rx meds due to herbals, or decline in general health due to the fact that a patient, unbeknownst to their healthcare providers, decided to discontinue their heart meds in lieu of hawthorne, of all things?! I'll give you a hint: that person rhymes with "smarmacist".

when, in fact hundreds of thousands die (I SAY DIE) from the pharms yearly. (I SAY YEARLY.), not to mention the millions who have heart attacks and all kinds of serious side effects from the PRESCRIBED drugs.

Buz, you seem to see this as an "us vs. them" thing, here. No reasonable people, including myself, will say that the pharmaceutical industry (incl. the testing and regulation of medications) is perfect--far from it. Many improvements can be made to ensure the safety and effectiveness of drug therapy. Would you have it any other way?

But the same arguments you use against pharmaceuticals can be equally made against herbals. To that end, it really becomes a question of scale. So many fewer people use herbals than pharmaceuticals that of course you'd expect to see many, many more deaths than those due to herbals. The difference here is that the literature which accompanies pharmaceuticals (which are regulated) are literally covered in big, bold, black info boxes if that medication has even a sub-1% chance of causing anything harmful or untoward. I'd call that very visible full disclosure, and it's something that's woefully, reprehensibly lacking in the supplement market (small print disclaimers aside ).

I guess it just all comes down to values. Why should even just one death not gain the attention of those intent on regulation, Buz? Your objections seem misguided.

Have a good one.


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 09-03-2010 8:54 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 665 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 99 of 102 (580260)
09-08-2010 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by ProtoTypical
09-08-2010 8:25 AM


Re: Why the "Free Market" can't deliver health care
Avandia for example

And Avandia will be withdrawn from the market, as it should be. Call it knee-jerk and reactionary, but regardless of whether they should have entered the market or not, pharmaceutical regulation works, albeit imperfectly.


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-08-2010 8:25 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

    
nator
Member (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 100 of 102 (580409)
09-08-2010 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by ProtoTypical
09-08-2010 8:25 AM


Re: Why the "Free Market" can't deliver health care
What about cough medication, Pseudoephedrine, Celebrex, Avandia or Advair?

What about the smallpox vaccine?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-08-2010 8:25 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-09-2010 12:07 AM nator has not yet responded

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 101 of 102 (580421)
09-09-2010 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by nator
09-08-2010 11:23 PM


Re: Why the "Free Market" can't deliver health care
What about the smallpox vaccine?

Ah...no that would not qualify as snake oil.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by nator, posted 09-08-2010 11:23 PM nator has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1222 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 102 of 102 (580690)
09-10-2010 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by ProtoTypical
09-08-2010 8:25 AM


Good Drugs, Bad Doctors
Hey, I'll stand up for Celebrex.

Celebrex and the other Cox-2 inhibitors are incredibly effective drugs against pain and inflammation from osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and sports and other traumatic injuries.

Used properly, for limited periods of time, they can suppress the cycle of ever greater inflammatory pain, providing both relief and an opportunity to heal better and faster. In many cases, where surgery is not an option, they are the only alternative to narcotic pain control.

The problem was that the sales divisions pushed the Cox-2s for every minor ache or sprain, especially among the aging and ever pill-hungry boomers. I saw this first-hand while working in a private medical group: a dozen physicians and dozens of staffers were treated by drug reps to lunches at least three days each week, often from expensive caterers.

Doctors were paid thousands to make advocacy presentations to other doctors at swank restaurtants, sometimes during three-day junkets to resorts.

After some wimpy legal reform, happy hours with an endless buffet of expensive liquor and appetizers were followed by a form attesting to the educational value of the night, and we would all solemnly sign it. Drup reps handed out expensive gimmes and bags of drug sample packs to staff and physicians for their personal and family use.

When a new, powerful medication hits the market, it's happy-days-are-here-again all round.

Between corporate greed and our hunger for cures and pain relief, it's difficult to maintain cautious treatment protocols. An astonishing number of physicans have confessed to passing out antibiotics for the common cold and other viral illnesses just to get patients off their backs.

I regret the even more powerful and scandalized Vioxx was pulled from the U.S. market. Used intermittently and sparingly, Vioxx let me devote two years to an attempt to treat a traumatic spine injury with physical rehab and traction rather than surgery.

When surgery became unavoidable, small doses of Vioxx helped me enter rehab sooner and recover faster. and reduced my need for narcotics. I was fortunate to be at low risk for the possible negative side-effects of a Cox-2 inhibitor--fairly young, active, nonsmoker and in good cardiovascular condition--and to have careful, judicious physicians.

Most modern drugs carry long lists of risk advisories, as they should. None of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have been fully vetted for safety; some researchers suspect all will carry some cardiovascular risk. Even aspirin can be dangerous at the wrong dose, in the wrong patient, or over too long a time.

Pharmaceuticals are the most abused drugs. Big pharma pushes their use to the boundaries of good sense and beyond; patients demand pills they don't understand from physicians who rarely have the time to explain. I suspect many drugs now abandoned altogether, like Vioxx, are valuable tools lost to good physicians because they were misused in this way by bad ones.


Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

Real things always push back.
-William James


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-08-2010 8:25 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019