1000 year old cure for MRSA

dr.fuzzenstein

jimgoose wrote: »

I like the bit in Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance where complete catatonic schizoid-style personality disintegration is revealed to be a total Zen-state of Enlightenment. :pac:

Just hit it with a mallet.

jimgoose

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Just hit it with a mallet.

Now that's Quality, chief. :cool:

dr.fuzzenstein

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so why quote me and say "If you think"?

OK, so shoot me.

picturehangup

My father always swore by garlic boiled in milk to cure a cold/flu Yes.... yucky, but seemed to do the trick for him.
Never could stomach it myself.

dr.fuzzenstein

picturehangup wrote: »

My father always swore by garlic boiled in milk to cure a cold/flu Yes.... yucky, but seemed to do the trick for him.
Never could stomach it myself.

No, we can't have that!
Taking dangerous, ineffective, untested, untried and unscientific medication is an absolute no-no!
He could have killed himself with this absolutely ineffective and useless medicine because it's so potent. But it has no ingredients other than placebos. Of course the same stuff is now used to make "proper" medicine.
It doesn't matter if he actually felt better, because there is no scientific evidence for it. Ergo, he didn't and if he thought differently, it was either a placebo effect, or he felt better unscientifically, which is absolutely unacceptable.

jh79

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

No, we can't have that!
Taking dangerous, ineffective, untested, untried and unscientific medication is an absolute no-no!
He could have killed himself with this absolutely ineffective and useless medicine because it's so potent. But it has no ingredients other than placebos. Of course the same stuff is now used to make "proper" medicine.
It doesn't matter if he actually felt better, because there is no scientific evidence for it. Ergo, he didn't and if he thought differently, it was either a placebo effect, or he felt better unscientifically, which is absolutely unacceptable.

I'd recommend garlic cheese chips for a cold or curry garlic cheese chips and a glass of milk if it's really bad.

Capt'n Midnight

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Depending on how late in the process a drug has to be withdrawn the cost of failure can run to billions. That is not an issue for Intel.

http://venturebeat.com/2011/01/31/intels-billion-dollar-mistake-why-chip-flaws-are-so-hard-to-fix/

The sheer volume of shipments is the reason why this $1 billion flaw is the biggest in Intel’s history, compared to the $400 million Pentium bug in 1994.

You also claim that research can be done for a fraction of the cost through education.

Universities and non-profit organisations can do research. Big Pharma spends far more on sales and marketing and profits than research.

Of the HSE's €1.8Bn spent on drugs in 2013 , up to a billion went into sales and marketing and profits. And we are a small country.

If you were to eliminate patents on "big pharma" findings, the industry would collapse overnight. There would be no incentive to spend billions on developing a drug as someone else could just immediately copy it and sell it at a fraction of the price (already happens a lot in India and China anyway but we won't go there). You might say "Great, we smashed evil big pharma", but you won't be so cheery when you or someone you know gets a serious illness and there are no drugs left to treat you.

Or maybe if all drugs become generic we could all afford any we need. Look at the cost of AIDS drugs, also look at the lockdown afterwards.


When you consider how many technology fields have been reduced to a few big players like AMD/Intel or Airbus/Boeing (or even Coke/Pepsi) there's an argument that there are too many Big Pharma companies being propped up by obscene profits that are only possible because of patents.

New drugs are new medicines so I don't really know what you are getting at there. Do you really think removing the profit margin is a good way to incentivise research into new treatments? The companies are there to make money, not be a charity. Try cutting Intel's profit margin to zero and see how long it'll take them to collapse.

I think most people would rather research into drugs be focused on need rather than what sells best.

We don't need billions spent on patentable pain killers just because there is a easy market for them. In a rare example of going against that trend Boots let others make ibuprofen. Wouldn't it be nice if this happened with every new breakthrough ?

Wouldn't it be nice if the HSE or NHS choose the best areas to research ?

They'd easily be able to spend double what Big Pharma do on R&D on some of the savings.



But no , let's argue that shareholders are more important than peoples lives and health.

Capt'n Midnight

Kevin McCloud wrote: »

We will be shitting gold next.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es505329q

For a community of 1 million people, metals in biosolids were valued at up to US$13 million annually. ... the identity of the 13 most lucrative elements (Ag, Cu, Au, P, Fe, Pd, Mn, Zn, Ir, Al, Cd, Ti, Ga, and Cr) with a combined value of US $280/ton of sludge.

So lots of Silver, Copper and Gold

dr.fuzzenstein

jh79 wrote: »

I'd recommend garlic cheese chips for a cold or curry garlic cheese chips and a glass of milk if it's really bad.

I was told to take a bath and chamomile tea, but I couldn't even finish the bath.

jh79

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Of the HSE's €1.8Bn spent on drugs in 2013 , up to a billion went into sales and marketing and profits. And we are a small country.

Or maybe if all drugs become generic we could all afford any we need. th.

How in God's name would that work?

4068ac1elhodqr

A dash of vinegar is handy after knee replacement surgery. In the old days the hopsitals used to wash the floor with it.

Anything natural that's high acidic/alkaline or alcohol based seems to be good at reducing infection risks.
Read the Ruskies used to take colloidal Silver (anti-bacterial) with them on space tests as it was a handy sure-fire cure-all.

Capt'n Midnight

jh79 wrote: »

How in God's name would that work?

So you're saying that R&D into medicine couldn't be done by universities and hospitals and state funded labs ?

jh79

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So you're saying that R&D into medicine couldn't be done by universities and hospitals and state funded labs ?

Without any private investors?

Would be great for researchers alright , an endless pot of money without any of the pressure . Research for research sake is how all scientists want it done but would the public be willing to fund it? Doubt it . And wouldn't the public not expect this medicine for free seeing as they funded its discovery?

Your other statement that all drugs should be generic just makes no sense. How would that work?

Company A spends a fortune on developing a new drug and then what ? Company B can instantly start manufacturing it and undercut company A and company A says oh well and moves on to the next drug?

Capt'n Midnight

jh79 wrote: »

Without any private investors?

Would be great for researchers alright , an endless pot of money without any of the pressure . Research for research sake is how all scientists want it done but would the public be willing to fund it? Doubt it . And wouldn't the public not expect this medicine for free seeing as they funded its discovery?

It would be funded from global public health spending.

publish or perish , ain't no endless pot of money unless you are doing research for the military

Your other statement that all drugs should be generic just makes no sense. How would that work?

Company A spends a fortune on developing a new drug and then what ? Company B can instantly start manufacturing it and undercut company A and company A says oh well and moves on to the next drug?

Company A doesn't get to patent drug.

They can be paid to do R&D. They can manufacture drugs. The difference is now they'd have to get approval from the health system rather than the shareholder.

What they can't do is continue to hold public system to ransom over lifesaving drugs. What they can no longer do is expect to get paid for developing and marketing "me too" drugs.

It also means more research will get shared. Astrophysics research is openly available because there is little commercial value in it. Thalidomide is something that would never have happened had prior research been public available that showed it had really nasty contraindications.



Corporate Welfare is one thing.
But Corporate Welfare that has a direct impact on life expectancy is another. Even you have to admit that the roughly €1Bn of the HSE's drug budget that ends up being spent by Big Pharma on sales and marketing and profit would be better spent back in the Health System.

Canis Lupus

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

No, we can't have that!
Taking dangerous, ineffective, untested, untried and unscientific medication is an absolute no-no!
He could have killed himself with this absolutely ineffective and useless medicine because it's so potent. But it has no ingredients other than placebos. Of course the same stuff is now used to make "proper" medicine.
It doesn't matter if he actually felt better, because there is no scientific evidence for it. Ergo, he didn't and if he thought differently, it was either a placebo effect, or he felt better unscientifically, which is absolutely unacceptable.

I think the point you're mocking is when people with serious illness start taking garlic and milk over actual medicine. No one really cares if your dad drank it for a cold but when little Emma with cancer has a mother who insists that tying onions to her feet whilst she sleeps will cure her better than chemo is when we run into issues and this exists: EXAMPLE

jh79

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It would be funded from global public health spending.

publish or perish , ain't no endless pot of money unless you are doing research for the military

Company A doesn't get to patent drug.

They can be paid to do R&D. They can manufacture drugs. The difference is now they'd have to get approval from the health system rather than the shareholder.

What they can't do is continue to hold public system to ransom over lifesaving drugs. What they can no longer do is expect to get paid for developing and marketing "me too" drugs.

It also means more research will get shared. Astrophysics research is openly available because there is little commercial value in it. Thalidomide is something that would never have happened had prior research been public available that showed it had really nasty contraindications.

Corporate Welfare is one thing.
But Corporate Welfare that has a direct impact on life expectancy is another. Even you have to admit that the roughly €1Bn of the HSE's drug budget that ends up being spent by Big Pharma on sales and marketing and profit would be better spent back in the Health System.

Logistically very ambitious also if the Irish public service is anything to go by I doubt it would be very efficient and cost effective. How would the unions deal with publish or perish? It's increments for all as it is, jobs for life and massive pensions and no accountability.

So company A gets all their research costs refunded and then manufactures at a price point that is cost neutral or at a defined margin? Without patents are company A protected from rival companies manufacturing the same ? It doesn't make any sense. Where is the incentive for doing research and how are the costs for failed research recouped?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303293604579256263038269796

Me too drugs have advantages too.

Big pharma should be allowed to make a profit just like any other private company. You have to reward people for their hard work. there has to be incentives to develop these drugs.

Big pharma must reckon that marketing is necessary so if that was to stop then prices would increase to counter the fall in sales.

What prior research are you referring to regarding thalidomide?

dr.fuzzenstein

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I think the point you're mocking is when people with serious illness start taking garlic and milk over actual medicine. No one really cares if your dad drank it for a cold but when little Emma with cancer has a mother who insists that tying onions to her feet whilst she sleeps will cure her better than chemo is when we run into issues and this exists: EXAMPLE

I can give you another example:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/doctor-who-treated-tragic-teen-for-cancer-has-left-the-country-26457589.html
Sadly he was subsequently found not guilty, so the man who sold a snake oil cure to desperate cancer patients walked free with a big grin on his face. It is a sad indictment of the legal system, which seems stacked in favour of the scumbags.
That case makes me furious beyond belief. I cannot imagine what I would say or do to that "gentleman" if I where to meet him face to face.
He wormed his way out, but I hope at least he's not treating any more patients.
No practitioner that isn't a thieving, lying con man will tell you to take homeopathy instead of getting proper treatment. They will also be trained in spotting serious conditions and will be the first to tell you to seek medical help.
What is the problem here? The lack of regulation. My own practitioner is calling for stricter regulation on the complementary health sector. Right now my dog could open a health center and provide a cure by licking you to death. Any monkey with a pack of needles and doing a weekend course can be an acupuncturist. Herbal is a bit more difficult, but here we are up against lack of enforcement (an oh so typical Irish problem), so enough quacks there.
Note, as usual I say complimentary medicine not alternative. The two can live side by side, just look at the entire far east, Australia and New Zealand. There people have realised that if you have the sniffles, you do not need antibiotics. The rosy vision from the 50's and 60's that everything will be cured by a pill in the future has sadly failed. Our over-reliance on sleeping pills, beta-blockers, pep-pills, anti-depressants, antibiotics, steroids, cortisone and a thousand other things has not improved our health. We seem to think that the doctor will have the right pill for absolutely everything, but that's not the case. It's simply selling you pills you don't need to maximize profits. Even the idea of putting you on medication for high blood pressure for your entire life is silly. How long will you take them? 40, 50, 60 years? longer?
Some people will genuinely need them, but the other 99% should be told to lose weight and excercise. yes, that old chestnut.

jh79

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I can give you another example:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/doctor-who-treated-tragic-teen-for-cancer-has-left-the-country-26457589.html
Sadly he was subsequently found not guilty, so the man who sold a snake oil cure to desperate cancer patients walked free with a big grin on his face. It is a sad indictment of the legal system, which seems stacked in favour of the scumbags.
That case makes me furious beyond belief. I cannot imagine what I would say or do to that "gentleman" if I where to meet him face to face.
He wormed his way out, but I hope at least he's not treating any more patients.
No practitioner that isn't a thieving, lying con man will tell you to take homeopathy instead of getting proper treatment. They will also be trained in spotting serious conditions and will be the first to tell you to seek medical help.
What is the problem here? The lack of regulation. My own practitioner is calling for stricter regulation on the complementary health sector. Right now my dog could open a health center and provide a cure by licking you to death. Any monkey with a pack of needles and doing a weekend course can be an acupuncturist. Herbal is a bit more difficult, but here we are up against lack of enforcement (an oh so typical Irish problem), so enough quacks there.
Note, as usual I say complimentary medicine not alternative. The two can live side by side, just look at the entire far east, Australia and New Zealand. There people have realised that if you have the sniffles, you do not need antibiotics.

What do you define as complimentary medicine? Would you agree that if they claim a medicinal effect then clinical trials must be available that back such a statement up?

With acupuncture was it not found that it didn't matter where you stuck the needles so probably a weekend course would suffice?

jh79

If the other "99%" who are ill due to lifestyle choices refuse to change what then?

dr.fuzzenstein

jh79 wrote: »

If the other "99%" who are ill due to lifestyle choices refuse to change what then?

It's a free country. If someone's lifestyle choice is to be obese and unhealthy and propped up by pills, they can do so. No-one can force them.
But it is my opinion that if I am to subsidize their constant medical treatments and increased healthcare costs which they will need later in life due to their lifestyle choices, they should cough up a bit more dough.
Prevention is the best cure, we should nudge people towards not needing medical treatments in the first place and reward good choices and not reward bad ones. A healthier population would save millions, if not billions for the health sector.
But of course you will automatically disagree without even thinking.

jh79

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It's a free country. If someone's lifestyle choice is to be obese and unhealthy and propped up by pills, they can do so. No-one can force them.
But it is my opinion that if I am to subsidize their constant medical treatments and increased healthcare costs which they will need later in life due to their lifestyle choices, they should cough up a bit more dough.
Prevention is the best cure, we should nudge people towards not needing medical treatments in the first place and reward good choices and not reward bad ones. A healthier population would save millions, if not billions for the health sector.
But of course you will automatically disagree without even thinking.

So if i agree with you i am thinking but disagree with you i'm not thinking?? Surely disagreeing with some one requires more thought as an alternative opinion has to be put forward.

jh79

Why is it immoral for Big Pharma to produce treatments for lifestyle based illnesses but it's not immoral for CAM practitioners to pretend to treat illnesses or to sell products that have no proven medicinal effects for the very same illnesses?

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So you're saying that R&D into medicine couldn't be done by universities and hospitals and state funded labs ?

Your grasp of the money and man power needed to get a drug to market is shakey at best. Pharma companies don't employ people they don't need, all the research staff they have are fulfilling some function. In 2010 the pharma industry employed roughly 24000 people here, (http://www.een-ireland.ie/eei/assets/documents/uploaded/general/Pharmaceuticals%20Fact%20sheet.pdf). Therefore, to keep the drug pipeline going all of these jobs would need to be transferred to Irish hospitals and universities. Even being generous and saying that half of the 24000 are in sales and marketing, that leaves 12,000 people to be employed out of the public purse.

A quick set of sums based on this figure. I am doing a PhD in drug discovery. I get paid just above minimum wage, I presume experienced pharma people will want more money than that. So say they want 25k a year each (which is crap). Add 10K a year for chemicals (again, crap) giving a total of 35K per person. 35K by 12,000 people makes 420 million a year. That's before a single clinical trial, FDA application etc. A publicly funded drug discovery pipeline would not work. Ever.

dr.fuzzenstein

jh79 wrote: »

So if i agree with you i am thinking but disagree with you i'm not thinking?? Surely disagreeing with some one requires more thought as an alternative opinion has to be put forward.

Simply disagreeing for the sake of it isn't good enough.

dr.fuzzenstein

jh79 wrote: »

Why is it immoral for Big Pharma to produce treatments for lifestyle based illnesses but it's not immoral for CAM practitioners to pretend to treat illnesses or to sell products that have no proven medicinal effects for the very same illnesses?

It's not immoral, they can produce whatever they want.
The problem is a defunct and dysfunctional 1960's technicolor dream of pharmaceutical drugs being the answer to everyone's dream, there will be no more illness as long as we keep popping pills, regardless of lifestyle.
That means we have more and more fatties with diabetes, heart disease and cancer and we have to spend billions in propping up a health service that is simply firefighting and trying to keep these people alive.
You seem to subscribe full tilt to the above, live as you want, keep popping pills and everything will work out great. This idea has been so ridiculously and comprehensively proven wrong, it's not even funny anymore. People should be encourage to take responsibility for their own actions. i look after myself and are fortunate enough not to have any major ailments, it's part luck but a lot of it comes from the right lifestyle. If you make the wrong choices, you should pay for it.
But if you're still clinging to the chemical dream and will not listen to any counter argument, then I am done discussing this with you, because you are either arguing for the sake of it or you really are that deluded.

jh79

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It's not immoral, they can produce whatever they want.
The problem is a defunct and dysfunctional 1960's technicolor dream of pharmaceutical drugs being the answer to everyone's dream, there will be no more illness as long as we keep popping pills, regardless of lifestyle.
That means we have more and more fatties with diabetes, heart disease and cancer and we have to spend billions in propping up a health service that is simply firefighting and trying to keep these people alive.
You seem to subscribe full tilt to the above, live as you want, keep popping pills and everything will work out great. This idea has been so ridiculously and comprehensively proven wrong, it's not even funny anymore. People should be encourage to take responsibility for their own actions. i look after myself and are fortunate enough not to have any major ailments, it's part luck but a lot of it comes from the right lifestyle. If you make the wrong choices, you should pay for it.
But if you're still clinging to the chemical dream and will not listen to any counter argument, then I am done discussing this with you, because you are either arguing for the sake of it or you really are that deluded.

Can you point out where I subscribe to the pill popping mantra? Your just deflecting because of your weak argument.

You'd actually have a point if lifestyle wasn't highlighted as a risk factor by everybody!

So you have no problem with the Pharma industry per se (It's not immoral, they can produce whatever they want.).

So it is doctors then? You believe they are encouraging unhealthy lifestyles?? Who exactly are you complaining about ? It is all a bit muddled.

Your ideal situation is already in practice in the US. Seems to benefit Big Pharma most by all accounts.

dr.fuzzenstein

jh79 wrote: »

Can you point out where I subscribe to the pill popping mantra? Your just deflecting because of your weak argument.

You'd actually have a point if lifestyle wasn't highlighted as a risk factor by everybody!

So you have no problem with the Pharma industry per se (It's not immoral, they can produce whatever they want.).

So it is doctors then? You believe they are encouraging unhealthy lifestyles?? Who exactly are you complaining about ? It is all a bit muddled.

Your ideal situation is already in practice in the US. Seems to benefit Big Pharma most by all accounts.

"Big Pharma" is what it is. Since they are corporate ventures it would be foolish to wade in and try to make them into something they are not, i.e. an altruistic organization that produces medicines for the betterment of mankind. That has to happen outside an organisation that lives for profit and nothing else. It would be like handing over the campaign for responsible drinking to Diageo.
Doctors should™ tell people to eat healthy, exercise and not drink and smoke. I'm sure a lot of them do and a lot of them are happy writing you a prescription.
The government has the biggest hand to play in this, they are running the heath service, and who pays for it? The taxpayer. The biggest drive for change has to come from there.
Ask yourself, why is "Big Pharma" so big? Certainly not because people look after themselves and don't demand pills for everything.
The big technicolor dream has turned very sour.
All you do is harp on and on about not agreeing with me.
So, the floor is yours, the spotlight is on, the mic is open and we are all dying to hear what your great idea is? is it more than ignoring my arguments and splitting hairs? Any good points or ideas? Let's hear them!

jh79

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

"Big Pharma" is what it is. Since they are corporate ventures it would be foolish to wade in and try to make them into something they are not, i.e. an altruistic organization that produces medicines for the betterment of mankind. That has to happen outside an organisation that lives for profit and nothing else. It would be like handing over the campaign for responsible drinking to Diageo.
Doctors should™ tell people to eat healthy, exercise and not drink and smoke. I'm sure a lot of them do and a lot of them are happy writing you a prescription.
The government has the biggest hand to play in this, they are running the heath service, and who pays for it? The taxpayer. The biggest drive for change has to come from there.
Ask yourself, why is "Big Pharma" so big? Certainly not because people look after themselves and don't demand pills for everything.
The big technicolor dream has turned very sour.
All you do is harp on and on about not agreeing with me.
So, the floor is yours, the spotlight is on, the mic is open and we are all dying to hear what your great idea is? is it more than ignoring my arguments and splitting hairs? Any good points or ideas? Let's hear them!

I've no idea what your argument is to even begin to suggest an alternative and I don't think you do either.

Are you promoting a US style attitude to medicine? If your sick you pay for it simple as.

If your argument , which this post seems to say, is that society needs to change then I agree with you. But that has nothing to do with Big Pharma and all doctors promote healthy lifestyles but you have to treat that person while they implement these lifestyle changes (if they choose to).

Where does CAM fit into all this?

jh79

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Your grasp of the money and man power needed to get a drug to market is shakey at best. Pharma companies don't employ people they don't need, all the research staff they have are fulfilling some function. In 2010 the pharma industry employed roughly 24000 people here, (http://www.een-ireland.ie/eei/assets/documents/uploaded/general/Pharmaceuticals%20Fact%20sheet.pdf). Therefore, to keep the drug pipeline going all of these jobs would need to be transferred to Irish hospitals and universities. Even being generous and saying that half of the 24000 are in sales and marketing, that leaves 12,000 people to be employed out of the public purse.

A quick set of sums based on this figure. I am doing a PhD in drug discovery. I get paid just above minimum wage, I presume experienced pharma people will want more money than that. So say they want 25k a year each (which is crap). Add 10K a year for chemicals (again, crap) giving a total of 35K per person. 35K by 12,000 people makes 420 million a year. That's before a single clinical trial, FDA application etc. A publicly funded drug discovery pipeline would not work. Ever.

Throw in an overall success rate of 10% from phase 1 to drug approval too.

dr.fuzzenstein

jh79 wrote: »

I've no idea what your argument is to even begin to suggest an alternative and I don't think you do either.

Are you promoting a US style attitude to medicine? If your sick you pay for it simple as.

If your argument , which this post seems to say, is that society needs to change then I agree with you. But that has nothing to do with Big Pharma and all doctors promote healthy lifestyles but you have to treat that person while they implement these lifestyle changes (if they choose to).

Where does CAM fit into all this?

It fits wherever you want it to fit.

jh79

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It fits wherever you want it to fit.

If people want to spend their hard earned cash and are foolish enough to do so on unproven CAM then so be it.

If they are inflicting such nonsense on their kids then state intervention is required.

No public money should be spent on it unless it goes trough the same process as any other medicine.

dr.fuzzenstein

jh79 wrote: »

If people want to spend their hard earned cash and are foolish enough to do so on unproven CAM then so be it.

If they are inflicting such nonsense on their kids then state intervention is required.

No public money should be spend on it unless it goes trough the same process as any other medicine.

It's in the pipeline, greater support for complementary medicine from the HSE is on the cards. I do wish for greater regulation of the sector and at the same time better support for genuine, licensed practitioners. But nothing new has happened since 2002, this is but a blink of an eye for new regulation as far as the Irish state goes. How long have they sat on their hands after the X case?
VHI already paying for it.
cancer.ie not totally against it:
http://www.cancer.ie/cancer-information/treatments/alternative#sthash.JWlCvK5D.dpbs
HSE preparing a section on it on their website. God knows for how long.
This topic seems to make you quite angry. Why get stressed over what other people do?

jh79

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It's in the pipeline, greater support for complementary medicine from the HSE is on the cards. I do wish for greater regulation of the sector and at the same time better support for genuine, licensed practitioners. But nothing new has happened since 2002, this is but a blink of an eye for new regulation as far as the Irish state goes. How long have they sat on their hands after the X case?
VHI already paying for it.
cancer.ie not totally against it:
http://www.cancer.ie/cancer-information/treatments/alternative#sthash.JWlCvK5D.dpbs
HSE preparing a section on it on their website. God knows for how long.
This topic seems to make you quite angry. Why get stressed over what other people do?

Just interested in the subject.

They don't need or warrant special treatment. Clinical trials and tox studies is all they need to do. Simple really. Who are the genuine practitioners and how would I be able to tell?

Regulation in the normal sense is something CAM practitioners do not want it would decimate the industry.

The problem I have if they are regulated and forced to prove their treatments are safe and effective then it is just normal medicine.

dr.fuzzenstein

jh79 wrote: »

Just interested in the subject.

They don't need or warrant special treatment. Clinical trials and tox studies is all they need to do. Simple really. Who are the genuine practitioners and how would I be able to tell?

Regulation in the normal sense is something CAM practitioners do not want it would decimate the industry.

The problem I have if they are regulated and forced to prove their treatments are safe and effective then it is just normal medicine.

I know a few practitioners, and a lot of them had to go through years of training and pass exams. Some of them went as far as China for work experience. These practitioners absolutely want regulation, because they have invested so much time, effort and money in their qualifications.
They then set up either on their own, or rent rooms in other clinics on a part time basis.
Then along come Joe Flybynight who might have done a weekend course on holidays and sets up a big, flashy clinic overnight and lures people in with bullsh*t.
Oh yes, the above group do want regulation very much. The below, not so much.
As for testing, of course I have no influence over that. The pharma industry has lobbied for testing equal to that of it's own drugs for any herbal remedy that claims to have any beneficial qualities.
If it was up to them, peppermint tea would have to undergo the same testing as cancer medication, which is patently ridiculous. This was clearly done to muscle out competition that might affect the bottom line.
A lot of herbs are outlawed in pill form, it is however legal to obtain the raw herb and make your own pills. The good thing is that the state will never be able to outlaw milkthistle, nettles, honeysuckle and a million other herbs, as they are too common and the entire countryside would have to be sterilised in an attempt to stamp out anything the pharmaceutical industry might see as competition and affecting their profits.

PS:
How to tell, a genuine practitioner (speaking for TCM) would be registered with this crowd:
http://acupuncturefoundation.com/
Not saying anything for or against other crowds.

jh79

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I know a few practitioners, and a lot of them had to go through years of training and pass exams. Some of them went as far as China for work experience. These practitioners absolutely want regulation, because they have invested so much time, effort and money in their qualifications.
They then set up either on their own, or rent rooms in other clinics on a part time basis.
Then along come Joe Flybynight who might have done a weekend course on holidays and sets up a big, flashy clinic overnight and lures people in with bullsh*t.
Oh yes, the above group do want regulation very much. The below, not so much.
As for testing, of course I have no influence over that. The pharma industry has lobbied for testing equal to that of it's own drugs for any herbal remedy that claims to have any beneficial qualities.
If it was up to them, peppermint tea would have to undergo the same testing as cancer medication, which is patently ridiculous. This was clearly done to muscle out competition that might affect the bottom line.
A lot of herbs are outlawed in pill form, it is however legal to obtain the raw herb and make your own pills. The good thing is that the state will never be able to outlaw milkthistle, nettles, honeysuckle and a million other herbs, as they are too common and the entire countryside would have to be sterilised in an attempt to stamp out anything the pharmaceutical industry might see as competition and affecting their profits.

PS:
How to tell, a genuine practitioner (speaking for TCM) would be registered with this crowd:
http://acupuncturefoundation.com/
Not saying anything for or against other crowds.

Herbs are not competition to big pharma, most pharma drugs are / were of plant origin.

If you claim that a herb can have a medicinal effect then it has to alter cell biology in some manner and if it has the ability to alter cell biology then it has the ability to do harm.

How can a CAM practitioner claim it has a beneficial effects if it has never been tested for such an effect? They are just making it up otherwise

jh79

If a CAM practitioner claims garlic or peppermint tea based supplements cures cancer then they need to prove it through the same channels as big pharma and resist from making such claims until proven.

If they claim it has unspecified health benefits then fair enough.

How would anyone have a problem with this sort of regulation?

dr.fuzzenstein

jh79 wrote: »

If a CAM practitioner claims garlic or peppermint tea based supplements cures cancer then they need to prove it through the same channels as big pharma and resist from making such claims until proven.

If they claim it has unspecified health benefits then fair enough.

How would anyone have a problem with this sort of regulation?

None. But what you're consistently missing is that I don't go to my TCM practitioner if I had cancer. I keep saying it, its great for small things, if you have the sniffles and you don't want to spend €60 for a GP and more for antibiotics that won't help anyway.
No practitioner in their right mind would claim to abandon western medicine for herbs.

jh79

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

None. But what you're consistently missing is that I don't go to my TCM practitioner if I had cancer. I keep saying it, its great for small things, if you have the sniffles and you don't want to spend €60 for a GP and more for antibiotics that won't help anyway.
No practitioner in their right mind would claim to abandon western medicine for herbs.

Fair enough so, but for minor illnesses why waste your money on CAM either?

dr.fuzzenstein

jh79 wrote: »

Fair enough so, but for minor illnesses why waste your money on CAM either?

So far I've had acupuncture for joint pain, herbs for flu and colds and as for other treatments I've been to the chiropractor and a physical therapist.
This is over years and years, so it's not like I'm in treatment every other week.
The fact is, it helps me and works for me. If there isn't a scientific study to prove that I feel better, I'm not too worried about it.
In a way I'm fortunate, since I don't get sick a lot and when I do it's nothing to worry about.
I do like western medicine, I've been to have a few checkups over the years, mostly through various jobs I've had, there's just never anything wrong with me.
If I ever have a bad accident or anything serious wrong with me, I do want a doctor and a hospital. I would still look for herbs and acupuncture afterwards.
I am a big fan of the dentist. That's a branch of western medicine no one could do without. Especially the injections and pain medication. I would never try to have a failed root canal with subsequent extraction or extraction of wisdom teeth "au naturale". I mean I don't enjoy going, but it's better than tying a string round your tooth, the other end round a door knob and slamming the door shut.
There's several approaches to skepticism. You can either believe everything without any doubt or you can reject everything that isn't proven by scientific studies. You could starve to death because there's no data available to back up the fact that we need to eat to stay alive. (another example not to be taken too literally)
I do have trust in something that's been around for thousands of years.
Put it this way. I do not go in for angel therapy, crystals, faith healers and grey alien and reptilian conspiracies. I do not believe the moon is an artificial spaceship (yes, people do think that) or that the world is run by secret organisations that are in cahoots with the aliens. I work in IT, I love science and would regard myself as a reasonably rational person.

jh79

Out of curiosity what does a herbalist charge and what claims would they make ?

Are you familiar with these guys?

https://nccih.nih.gov/health/herbsataglance.htm

Set up by I suppose genuine CAM practitioners and the US Government much to the annoyance of scientists in the US. They want to prove these things work.

They try and put a positive spin on research but it generally has back fired as the studies they have funded have given poor results. CAM practitioners are now saying unsurprisingly that traditional scientific measures can't be used to evaluate CAM!

dr.fuzzenstein

I'll check it out. Very interesting website.
As for claims, viral infections, sports injuries and interestingly enough infertility. They're the ones I know of, but of course I am not the practitioner, so I can only give limited info. I've had injuries myself and got acupuncture for them. One year my mother came to visit and fell off a stone wall in the burren. She shouldn't be climbing these things at 70+! Ankle badly swollen, severe pain, couldn't put any weight on it. Went to Shannon Doc, they had a look, diagnosed bad sprain but nothing broken. The usual (sensible and correct advise) to rest, elevate the leg and not put weight on it. We declined the offer of pain killers, since it was manageable. She got acupuncture treatment and the next day was absolutely perfect. Very little pain or swelling, she was able to walk around and we even went for another drive and even walked around a bit.
I personally had pain in the main joint of my left thumb. Weeks of pain and in the end wasn't able to hold anything in my left hand. One treatment and the pain was gone, I was literally perfect the next day. Never had a problem again.
One other thing that plagues me is a bad back. Severe pain, sciatica and stiffness. Managed by a chiropractor and acupuncture. It has actually gotten better over the years. Really I should do more exercise and stretching.
I can't say anything either way about infertility, except it's really popular, seems successful (i.e. babies being born) and it's certainly a good thing to try before one spends thousands and thousands on a fertility clinic. Now, infertility clinics are very nifty places for when nothing else works, so as usual I am not anti western.
I usually end up paying 40 bucks plus whatever the herbs are, don't always need herbs though.

I am actually not anti pain killers and antibiotics, they are a great thing when you've had a failed root canal and a thumping infection in your face and you can't see straight with the pain.