EU crackdown on herbal 'remedies'

Hookah

PrincessLola wrote: »

"Sponsored by iherb" Hmm what is iherb? It isn't by any chance a website selling herbal products? Oh it is? oopps!:rolleyes:

Also:

Rolls eyes indeed.

They cite various studies carried out. I doubt the FDA carried out a study on Finnish soldiers somehow.

donutface

meditraitor wrote: »

Agree 100% on the €50 yoyo thing, but the government are going to do away with that as far as I know, something to do with primary care and all that nonesense.

As for herbal remedies, I doubt GPs will ever start prescribing them unless there is regulation and clinical trials to back them up, litigation and all that.

If consultations become cheap / prescriptions affordable then I've got a lot less to complain about regarding all of this.

Dave!

Pet wrote: »

Why should company A fork out to push herb x through a trial, if companies C though M (who also sell formulations of the herb) will benefit from its licensing, with none of the financial drawbacks? The clinical trial model just doesn't really work for herbal medicines, in most cases -- aside from the odd few coming out of Germany or Russia, which generally test well-known things like St John's Wort or Echinacea, anyway, rather than newer, more interesting phytochemicals.

Secondly, nobody selling these products is making hard-and-fast claims about efficacy. Nobody is being prescribed these herbs or whatever by doctors or medical practitioners, and the state is not paying for them. And yeah, most of the evidence is anecdotal - but it's based on ethnomedicine, hundreds of years of use, etc, which is good enough for quite a lot of people. A ghetto clinical trial, if you will. Before anyone starts blarping on about evidence-based medicine -- this is exactly why this stuff is alternative and will remain thus and never be prescribed by doctors. You can take that appraisal as positive or negative, depending on your belief system, but realise that wanting to ban herbal medicine for that reason is a pretty stupid and self-righteous thing to do. I don't like alcohol, and consider it a massively harmful drug -- physically, psychologically and socially -- but I'm not going to extol the virtues of a prohibition. Let people make their own decisions.

[I do agree, though, that standardisation would be nice -- to know how much of the active compounds [if known] are present. That shouldn't be too expensive though, to run a bit from each batch through mass spec/HPLC.]

Some good points there, I agree with alot of it

Just saw this Irish Times article by a herbal medicine guy who supports the new directive. A few quotes with specific information on the change:

This directive means that manufacturers marketing herbal medicines must register each product as a THMP (referred to here as “herbal medicines”). Registration requires a successful application to each country’s licensing authority, which here is the Irish Medicines Board (IMB). I should point out that I am a member of an independent subcommittee that advises the IMB on herbal medicines.

The new legislation is designed to protect the health and interests of consumers across Europe, following the dramatic increase in herbal remedy usage in recent years.

Registration requires manufacturers to show evidence that the product has established traditional use for a specific condition. This means the herbal product has been used for 30 years, at least 15 of which have been within Europe.

In addition, manufacturers must prove that the product is safe when used as intended and is produced to appropriate quality standards. If approved, the registered product and packaging will provide relevant information on its approved uses and dosage, and will carry a specific product registration number.

Customers can have confidence that registered products meet the same high standards as other licensed medicines. However, traditional usage is not the same as demonstrating effectiveness.

...

The legislation takes into account recent research on some herbs that shows how best to use them, the medicines and herbs they interact with and, in some cases, the recommended dosage. Yet because herbal medicines have not been registered, manufacturers could not put that information on labels.

The new legislation allows herbal medicine manufacturers to make claims about the conditions they treat and how best to use them. This information should help to inform and guide customers in their use of traditional herbal medicines.

Although it is commonly felt that herbal remedies are safe because they are natural, this is not necessarily the case. Herbs that act like drugs must be used carefully. Some herbs are not suitable for human consumption, while others should only be used below specific doses.

Sounds like a good move in general. The "established traditional use" part should appease alot of alt med people.

maninasia

Edit- just read the directive above, makes sense but it depends on costs involved if it is practical or not.

Johro

dlofnep wrote: »

I have to say, I'm dependant on alot of herbs as I've a long-term illness. Modern medicine cannot cure what I have. They tried and failed for 5 years. Wasters. Most medicine is ****e, and only makes you worse. Doctors are quick to pump antibiotics into people which weakens their immune system.

Yes. Our trusty GP's only answers are antibiotics and steroids like cortisone (anti-inflammatories). They fight symptoms, but not causes, and they do weaken your immune system.
Add to that painkillers and sedatives, and there's your lot.

Johro

meditraitor wrote: »

I dont think doctors for the most part are happy to prescribe drugs if there is an proven alternative.

Last year for example I had a full medical (pre health insurance jobby) and they found my colesteral was a tad high, straight away he told me what I needed to do, stop eating pigs (rashers, sausages, puddin nyom), cut out the smokes, and do a bit of excercise.
If he did what Phizer told him to do I would have been put on Lipitor for a year or so but there ye go,

now what was my point again,

It's true that some doctors are happy to steer people away from prescription drugs if at all possible, we're lucky enough with our GP, he'd be more likely to tell people to 'drink plenty of fluids, go to bed and sweat it out' rather than dole out flu tablets and the like, but a lot of people who visit the doc do so to get the drugs and the perceived quick and easy fix and are then disappointed. :rolleyes:
I guess it's like all those obese people in the UK waiting for a gastric bypass operation. Thousands upon thousands, apparently.
It's quicker than doing the work.

Johro

thetonynator wrote: »

Most medicines were herbal to start with. The ones that worked became MEDICINE, the ones that didn't became Herbal Remedies.

:rolleyes:

No. The ones that worked were chemically synthesised and became 'medicine'.
Where scientists go wrong is in the notion that that they can take a plant which, in part or its entirety, is a working medicine, then try to isolate what they perceive to be the active ingredient, then once they found 'it', synthesise it.
Mostly to make it cheaper and easier to produce.
They miss the fact that herbs often don't have one active component, it's a combination of components in cells in a living organism that produces the medicinal property.

Pet

"Sponsored by iherb" Hmm what is iherb? It isn't by any chance a website selling herbal products? Oh it is? oopps!

Ohhh, dude, if you're gonna take issue with that...I mean, really.

Do you realise just how much pharmaceutical companies spend on marketing? Not only to consumers, but to doctors and other medical practitioners. Ever seen those branded mugs and pens lying around your GP's office? Only the tip of the iceberg. They also sponsor continuing medical education seminars, employ drug reps to convince doctors to prescribe their products (in some cases, fraudulently), ghostwrite research papers, sponsor the training and education of student doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists...

And I'm not trying to scaremonger or be a conspiracy theorist, here. Yes, pharmaceutical companies are out for profit, not the goodness of their hearts, but there are systems in place to make sure the profiteering doesn't get out of control, and they (usually) work pretty well. But if you're gonna use the "I'm going to ignore that milk thistle information because there's clearly vested interests at work!" line of logic, you'd damn well better keep it in mind when cashing in your next prescription: look at the branded pad it's written on, and the branded pen that was used to write it.

Johro

Pet wrote: »

Do you realise just how much pharmaceutical companies spend on marketing? Not only to consumers, but to doctors and other medical practitioners. Ever seen those branded mugs and pens lying around your GP's office? Only the tip of the iceberg. They also sponsor continuing medical education seminars, employ drug reps to convince doctors to prescribe their products (in many cases, fraudulently), ghostwrite research papers, sponsor the training and education of student doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists...

And I'm not trying to scaremonger or be a conspiracy theorist, here. Yes, pharmaceutical companies are out for profit, not the goodness of their hearts, but there are systems in place to make sure the profiteering doesn't get out of control, and they (usually) work pretty well. But if you're gonna use the "I'm going to ignore that milk thistle information because there's clearly vested interests at work!" line of logic, you'd damn well better keep it in mind when cashing in your next prescription: look at the branded pad it's written on, and the branded pen that was used to write it.

Ooooooooh I was going to but you said it much better.
Cheers.

Johro

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Milk thistle in conjunction with Kemo therapy produces a slight effect on liver function. Not enough to be of major statistical importance and needs to be done with a larger group. Plausibility of it being of a slight benefit.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20014183

I'm not even going to be bothered trying for Chlorella since the health phrases "all natural" and "detoxification" piss me off to the tenth degree They are 100% bull****.

Enjoy your placebo effect.

Enjoy your ignorant slumber.

PrincessLola

Pet wrote: »

Ohhh, dude, if you're gonna take issue with that...I mean, really.

Do you realise just how much pharmaceutical companies spend on marketing? Not only to consumers, but to doctors and other medical practitioners. Ever seen those branded mugs and pens lying around your GP's office? Only the tip of the iceberg. They also sponsor continuing medical education seminars, employ drug reps to convince doctors to prescribe their products (in some cases, fraudulently), ghostwrite research papers, sponsor the training and education of student doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists...

And I'm not trying to scaremonger or be a conspiracy theorist, here. Yes, pharmaceutical companies are out for profit, not the goodness of their hearts, but there are systems in place to make sure the profiteering doesn't get out of control, and they (usually) work pretty well. But if you're gonna use the "I'm going to ignore that milk thistle information because there's clearly vested interests at work!" line of logic, you'd damn well better keep it in mind when cashing in your next prescription: look at the branded pad it's written on, and the branded pen that was used to write it.

I'm not denying they are out for profit, but it costs millions to research and develop drugs so they have to make money somehow. I just find it funny that people will insist on 'alternate' crap for things like colds and back problems but once something actually life threatning occurs like a stroke or cancer they're happy to use good 'ol western medicine. Why? because modern medicine actually works.

Johro

PrincessLola wrote: »

I'm not denying they are out for profit, but it costs millions to research and develop drugs so they have to make money somehow. I just find it funny that people will insist on 'alternate' crap for things like colds and back problems but once something actually life threatning occurs like a stroke or cancer they're happy to use good 'ol western medicine. Why? because modern medicine actually works.

1. Simply not true.
2. It doesn't. Modern medicine cuts out the bad bit, blasts you with radio-active rays and hopes for the best.
Obviously, 'herbal medicine' doesn't do surgery.
If I break my leg in six places I'll have to go to hospital.
But I'll take alternative remedies to help me heal.
Btw we all 'have to make money somehow'. We don't all make billions pushing synthetic, overpriced drugs though.

work

Guys, If you have an illness you should try and get better. Your doctor may suggest a cream or change your diet or allergy testing etc. They should try and diagnose the disease (if present) and treat with proven remedies.
Idiots taking "herbal" products for non diagnosed and often imagined diseases get what they deserve i.e. as a minimum poorer.
Surely the rigerours of science should be applied equally to all remedies and practitioners.
A GP needs many years training and he probably knows how the "drugs" he pedals physiologically work and they will have a history of testing and efficacy.
A herbalist, like an estee Lauder rep, usually has "little" training, will suggest remedies without diagnosis using products with little if any history of efficacy other than "here say". All I ask is that all "therapists" have the same laws applied to them.

This applies to Doctors, herbalists and people selling you creams to stay younger (a cream is ogten the best way to administed a medication).

Johro

sock puppet wrote: »

Yet even the biggest of these lies pretty far down the Global Fortune 500. Revenues can't be that enormous.

They seem to be spread fairly evenly amongst the banks and insurance companies. Great em.. company. Full on do gooders.:D

sunshiner

http://www.anh-europe.org/files/110216-ANH-endangered-herb-list-Feb2011.pdf

here is a list of the ban includes

Johro

Johro wrote: »

Yes. Our trusty GP's only answers are antibiotics and steroids like cortisone (anti-inflammatories). They fight symptoms, but not causes, and they do weaken your immune system.
Add to that painkillers and sedatives, and there's your lot.

You keep mentioning how medicines weaken the immune system. What is your proposed mechanism by which they do this? Which leucocytes are affected? Which type of immunity is affected? Adaptive or innate? Are there any specific cytokines which you feel may have a role in this?

Johro

work wrote: »

Idiots taking "herbal" products for non diagnosed and often imagined diseases get what they deserve i.e. as a minimum poorer.

:rolleyes:
Why the '' '' marks for herbal?
Also there's idiots and than there's 'idiots'.
GP practices don't get visitors with 'imagined' illnesses?
And why do you assume only people with undiagnosed illnesses use herbal or other alternative remedies?
Seems idiotic to me.

Pet

I just find it funny that people will insist on 'alternate' crap for things like colds and back problems but once something actually life threatning occurs like a stroke or cancer they're happy to use good 'ol western medicine. Why? because modern medicine actually works.

Exactly - people use this alternative "crap" for minor ailments, mostly - thus freeing up GP slots, prescription costs and saving taxpayers' money. What's the problem, again? Did I miss the memo that said you can choose only one or the other?

Guys, If you have an illness you should try and get better. Your doctor may suggest a cream or change your diet or allergy testing etc. They should try and diagnose the disease (if present) and treat with proven remedies.
Idiots taking "herbal" products for non diagnosed and often imagined diseases get what they deserve i.e. as a minimum poorer.
Surely the rigerours of science should be applied equally to all remedies and practitioners.
A GP needs many years training and he probably knows how the "drugs" he pedals physiologically work and they will have a history of testing and efficacy.
A herbalist, like an estee Lauder rep, usually has "little" training, will suggest remedies without diagnosis using products with little if any history of efficacy other than "here say". All I ask is that all "therapists" have the same laws applied to them.

This applies to Doctors, herbalists and people selling you creams to stay younger (a cream is ogten the best way to administed a medication).

Did you even read the last three pages of this thread? Because if you did, you'd find rebuttals to all of your points there.

Saermegil

I would be very interested about how many people here would be willing to change their mind or position on these issues - many seem to be stubborn to the extreme, and holding unchanging positions!

Splendour

work wrote: »

Guys, If you have an illness you should try and get better. Your doctor may suggest a cream or change your diet or allergy testing etc. They should try and diagnose the disease (if present) and treat with proven remedies.
Idiots taking "herbal" products for non diagnosed and often imagined diseases get what they deserve i.e. as a minimum poorer.

And what if you've been suffering for years and your Doctor can't find a cure? What would you do Work?

Seems to me since St. John's Wort has been made prescription only there are a lot more people joining the 'idiots' who recognised it's healing properties a long time ago.

Johro

Deleted User wrote: »

You keep mentioning how medicines weaken the immune system. What is your proposed mechanism by which they do this? Which leucocytes are affected? Which type of immunity is affected? Adaptive or innate? Are there any specific cytokines which you feel may have a role in this?

Aw come on, what's this, the 'science bit'?
That reply is just designed to discredit me and my opinion on the matter, it's not an argument.
I don't have to be a doctor to know that continued use of antibiotics weakens the immune system, it's a widely reported fact in the medical world.
My own GP would agree.
Nowhere did I say that medicine weakens the immune system.
I don't need to discuss leucocytes, cytokines, adaptive or innate immunity, don't try to blind me with science. It's just common sense that an approach which simply kills bacteria, good and bad, will lose its efficacy and will ultimately result in a person becoming more susceptible to infections.
In some cases, the use of antibiotics would be fine, I'm simply talking about the medical profession's over-reliance on such treatments, and the fact they don't have much more to offer.
The vast majority of people get their symptoms treated with antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, sedatives and painkillers. It's just fact.

Johro

Saermegil wrote: »

I would be very interested about how many people here would be willing to change their mind or position on these issues - many seem to be stubborn to the extreme, and holding unchanging positions!

I don't know of any reason why people can't take advantage of whatever is good about either conventional or alternative medicine. You do what works for you.
I have some, but not huge issues with conventional medicine.
I have issues with the big pharmaceuticals and the power they wield.

PrincessLola

Johro wrote: »

1. Simply not true.
2. It doesn't. Modern medicine cuts out the bad bit, blasts you with radio-active rays and hopes for the best.

I actually laughed out loud reading that. 'blasts you with radio-active rays'? That is such an ignorant statement and only sereves to demonstrate how little you understand medicine.

Obviously, 'herbal medicine' doesn't do surgery.
If I break my leg in six places I'll have to go to hospital.
But I'll take alternative remedies to help me heal.
Btw we all 'have to make money somehow'. We don't all make billions pushing synthetic, overpriced drugs though.

Of course you'd go to hospital. Hospitals work. They don't have 100% sucess rate but they try their best with epirically tested methods and are far better then magic herbal crap.
Would you treat a stroke with alternative medicine? Or would you go to the hospital?

So is herbal medicine some quaint back garden industry? Or do they *gasp* make huge profits too? And quite dishonestly also.

Kurtosis

Johro wrote: »

Aw come on, what's this, the 'science bit'?
That reply is just designed to discredit me and my opinion on the matter, it's not an argument.
I don't have to be a doctor to know that continued use of antibiotics weakens the immune system, it's a widely reported fact in the medical world.
My own GP would agree.
Nowhere did I say that medicine weakens the immune system.
I don't need to discuss leucocytes, cytokines, adaptive or innate immunity, don't try to blind me with science. It's just common sense that an approach which simply kills bacteria, good and bad, will lose its efficacy and will ultimately result in a person becoming more susceptible to infections.
In some cases, the use of antibiotics would be fine, I'm simply talking about the medical profession's over-reliance on such treatments, and the fact they don't have much more to offer.
The vast majority of people get their symptoms treated with antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, sedatives and painkillers. It's just fact.

The effect you are discussing is antibiotic resistance, this is a characteristic of bacteria, not the immune system. And it's not simply a case of common sense that antibiotic resistance happens, there are various complex mechanisms through which this occurs and a lot of work and effort goes into reducing the emergence of antibiotic resistance.

JuliusCaesar

I thought this was interesting - especially for those who insist that natural remedies must be better than anything else!


Short extract from the article:

While a few plants can be used to cure disease, most are only effective as placebos, according to an expert

‘PLANTS HAVE been trying to kill us, not cure us,” says Dr Henry Oakeley, the garden fellow at London’s Royal College of Physicians.

Not a comment you might expect from a man who oversees a garden of 600 plants used in medicine for 3,000 years, a man you’d expect to extol medicine’s indebtedness to the plant kingdom.

In Dublin to open a medicinal garden at Trinity College to mark 300 years of botany at the college, he’s well aware that his “very anti-herbal medicine” stance and will jar with some.

“I [nearly] got lynched when I gave this lecture at a herbal medicine conference,” says the former physician and psychiatrist, who is passionate about botany.But if plants are, for the most part, as medicinally useless as he believes, how does he explain their centrality to the beliefs and practices of medical practitioners for centuries?

“Because they believed in the tooth fairy,” he says matter of factly. “They had no concept of illness or of chemistry or biochemistry. They believed all plants had been put on the earth by the creator for mankind’s use. So if the plant had a particular shape, it indicated that the creator had put it on the planet for a particular use.”

Citing as an example the use of blue liverwort, Hepatica nobilis , once cultivated as a liver tonic because its three-lobed leaf form mirrored the shape of the liver, he says, “It was absolute rubbish. They had no idea how the body worked.”

In the 1880s, at the height of its popularity, those taking it to cure feelings of “liverishness” were stuck down by jaundice because the plant was in fact toxic to the liver.

“The basic concept that most people have missed is that [many] plants are poisonous,” he says. “We just have to find a way of using the poisons in plants to our advantage.”

While early doctors may have had little concept of how things worked in the body, the effects of plants on the brain were more observable.

“Opium for example: if you take a little you feel happy, a bit more and you are disinhibited, more and you start to fall asleep and feel no pain. So it was used as a painkiller from very early on,” he says.

Johro

PrincessLola wrote: »

I actually laughed out loud reading that. 'blasts you with radio-active rays'? That is such an ignorant statement and only sereves to demonstrate how little you understand medicine.



Of course you'd go to hospital. Hospitals work. They don't have 100% sucess rate but they try their best with epirically tested methods and are far better then magic herbal crap.
Would you treat a stroke with alternative medicine? Or would you go to the hospital?

So is herbal medicine some quaint back garden industry? Or do they *gasp* make huge profits too? And quite dishonestly also.

The 'blast you with radio-active rays' bit was meant to be flippant. Basically true though.
'Magic herbal crap'?
Now who's ignorant. And hospitals not having a 100% success rate is putting it mildly. I'm not saying alternative medicine is the bees knees for whatever ails ya, neither is conventional medicine.
I don't claim to understand medicine. You do.

Johro

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Short extract from the article:‘PLANTS HAVE been trying to kill us, not cure us,” says Dr Henry Oakeley, the garden fellow at London’s Royal College of Physicians.

Okay... That's enough for me.

Johro

penguin88 wrote: »

The effect you are discussing is antibiotic resistance, this is a characteristic of bacteria, not the immune system. And it's not simply a case of common sense that antibiotic resistance happens, there are various complex mechanisms through which this occurs and a lot of work and effort goes into reducing the emergence of antibiotic resistance.

And those bacteria are not part of your immune response? Does your body not favour these infection fighting bacteria? And is it not widely accepted in the field of medicine that antibiotics are becoming less efficient, at the very least?
http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/antibiotics.htm

Kurtosis

Johro wrote: »

And those bacteria are not part of your immune response? Does your body not favour these infection fighting bacteria? And is it not widely accepted in the field of medicine that antibiotics are becoming less efficient?

What do you mean by "those bacteria"? I'm sorry, I don't really get what you are referring to in your post here. If you are referring to commensal or "natural" bacteria in the body, they do not fight infection. They can prevent infections occurring by competition with bacterial pathogens, but can also cause infections themselves. This is getting off topic though.

To address your last questions, the antibiotics are not changing, it is a change in bacterial population and their susceptibilities that are making antibiotic therapy less effective. My question for you: can antibiotic resistance only occur in relation to "pharmaceutical" antibiotics or are antibacterial herbal substances also become less effective?

Johro

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I thought this was interesting - especially for those who insist that natural remedies must be better than anything else!


Short extract from the article:Blah blah blabbity blah...

Yet conventional medicine's roots (:rolleyes:) are in herbalism. Today's prescription drugs are derived from plants, or based on the plants constituents.

Johro

penguin88 wrote: »

What do you mean by "those bacteria"? I'm sorry, I don't really get what you are referring to in your post here. If you are referring to commensal or "natural" bacteria in the body, they do not fight infection. They can prevent infections occurring by competition with bacterial pathogens, but can also cause infections themselves. This is getting off topic though.

To address your last questions, the antibiotics are not changing, it is a change in bacterial population and their susceptibilities that are making antibiotic therapy less effective. My question for you: can antibiotic resistance only occur in relation to "pharmaceutical" antibiotics or are antibacterial herbal substances also become less effective?

Honestly? I don't know. Antibacterial herbal substances are, for example, common onion and garlic. Sage. There are too many herbs, plants, fruit and vegetables with antibiotic properties to mention. I'd imagine the best treatment would be a healthy and varied diet, and antibiotics should be a last resort, pharmaceutical or otherwise. My point is that it is too easily prescribed.

Johro

Here's the thing, loads of people get common cold/flu-like symptoms and head straight for their GP or chemist to get either a dose of antibiotics or some sort of cold/flu remedy, often without much relief, or very short lived relief.
Me, I hate when I can't sleep coz my nose is all blocked and my sinuses are sore, but I do what my granny used to do, which is cut an onion in half, dice it and put it on a saucer on the bedside table. It works. I guarantee it'll clear your sinuses. Yes your bedroom will smell of onion but you'll be able to get a good nights sleep. It's also antibacterial. Now if there is some herbal thing that does the same, and people want to try it, shouldn't it be as readily available as your lemsips or uniflu's or whatever?

Kurtosis

Johro wrote: »

Honestly? I don't know. Antibacterial herbal substances are, for example, common onion and garlic. Sage. There are too many herbs, plants, fruit and vegetables with antibiotic properties to mention. I'd imagine the best treatment would be a healthy and varied diet, and antibiotics should be a last resort, pharmaceutical or otherwise. My point is that it is too easily prescribed.

Well considering bacterial resistance emerges on the basis of natural selection, the selecting agent (i.e. the factor that means the less adapted individuals die and the better adapted survive and proliferate), in this case an antibiotic agent, will result in widespread resistance if used often enough, regardless of whether it's a penicillin or allicin from garlic.

While I agree that antibiotics are prescribed too often when they are not appropriate, I disagree that they should only be a last resort. If someone has a bacterial infection, an antibiotic should be given. Hardly going to send someone with TB or bacterial endocarditis home and tell them to try bedrest, lots of fluids, fresh herbs and vitamin C before they can have an antibiotic.

Johro

penguin88 wrote: »

Well considering bacterial resistance emerges on the basis of natural selection, the selecting agent (i.e. the factor that means the less adapted individuals die and the better adapted survive and proliferate), in this case an antibiotic agent, will result in widespread resistance if used often enough, regardless of whether it's a penicillin or allicin from garlic.

While I agree that antibiotics are prescribed too often when they are not appropriate, I disagree that they should only be a last resort. If someone has a bacterial infection, an antibiotic should be given. Hardly going to send someone with TB or bacterial endocarditis home and tell them to try bedrest, lots of fluids, fresh herbs and vitamin C before they can have an antibiotic.

Granted. You're right there.

Kurtosis

Johro wrote: »

Now if there is some herbal thing that does the same, and people want to try it, shouldn't it be as readily available as your lemsips or uniflu's or whatever?

Of course. Is it too much to expect that such a product, like lemsip or uniflu, should also demonstrate that it is safe and is of sufficient quality (contains what it claims to contain)?

maninasia

Deleted User wrote: »

You keep mentioning how medicines weaken the immune system. What is your proposed mechanism by which they do this? Which leucocytes are affected? Which type of immunity is affected? Adaptive or innate? Are there any specific cytokines which you feel may have a role in this?

Steroids are well known to cause damage over time. Most drugs negatively affect the liver. Many common drugs also have risk serious side effects for at least a small portion of the population. I wouldn't mock too much.

maninasia

maninasia wrote: »

Steroids are well known to cause damage over time. Most drugs negatively affect the liver. Many common drugs also have risk serious side effects for at least a small portion of the population. I wouldn't mock too much.

Every drug has side effects. It's one of the first things they teach you in pharmacology. However, if the benefits of using a drug outweigh the risk then any rational person would take the drug. Let's take gentamicin (an antibiotic) as an example. Gentamicin is very ototoxic and can cause deafness, however, if a child has meningitis caused by an organism that is sensitive to gentamicin any rational person would use it. Deafness is a better outcome than death.

When you use potent pharmacological agents that operate by more than just placebo effect side effects are inevitable, but at least medicine is upfront about this. As oppossed to herbal medicines, which, if they contain any active ingredient at all, will also inevitably cause side effects at high doses, but because the type and quantity of pharmacalogically active agent in them is completley undefined you don't know what you're getting.

maninasia

I was just pointing out that the drugs we use today have an accepted risk built in and the risk is often higher than many people know. I agree that herbals should be regulated but not to the point that become inaccessible or too expensive. Who gains in that case?

RussellTuring

maninasia wrote: »

I was just pointing out that the drugs we use today have an accepted risk built in and the risk is often higher than many people know.

If they ignore their doctor and don't read the list of known possible side effects.

I agree that herbals should be regulated but not to the point that become inaccessible or too expensive. Who gains in that case?

The consumer. The products are expected to pass some fairly minimum standards. If they can't pass these, they shouldn't be on the market anyway.

maninasia

Your last answer ignores what I wrote completely - 'inaccessible' and 'too expensive' being the keywords.

RussellTuring

maninasia wrote: »

Your last answer ignores what I wrote completely - 'inaccessible' and 'too expensive' being the keywords.

And what you wrote completely ignores the fact that products should do what they claim to. if the smaller companies can't afford to do business, the multinationals aren't just going to stand by while the market loses it's suppliers. If there's profit to be made, they'll do it. Anyway, if these products are so natural, they can't be that expensive to process.

YFlyer

RussellTuring wrote: »

If there's profit to be made,

Thats if they get access to the process.

ScumLord

maninasia wrote: »

Steroids are well known to cause damage over time. Most drugs negatively affect the liver. Many common drugs also have risk serious side effects for at least a small portion of the population. I wouldn't mock too much.

I would have thought most everything damaged the liver. Everything damages your body in some form. You can not live forever.

RussellTuring

YFlyer wrote: »

Thats if they get access to the process.

Can you expand on this?

YFlyer

RussellTuring wrote: »

Can you expand on this?

The procedure to prepare different rasayana. Rasayana comes from the Ayurveda tradition.

Run_to_da_hills

So according to this new EU law you could now get arrested if you were caught rubbing a dock leaf over a nettle sting.

YFlyer

Or nettle leaves over........

RussellTuring

YFlyer wrote: »

The procedure to prepare different rasayana. Rasayana comes from the Ayurveda tradition.

Now you've completely lost me.

YFlyer

The pharmaceutical companies will not have to knowledge to make the ayurveda herbal remedies (or rasayanas).

RussellTuring

YFlyer wrote: »

The pharmaceutical companies will not have to knowledge to make the ayurveda herbal remedies (or rasayanas).

I'm just taking a wild stab in the dark here, but are you talking about something to do with "ancient wisdom" or that?