Should the laws be tougher on the sale of Herbal "medicines", vitamins & supplements?

williamgrogan

Shoud the laws be far tougher on the sale of herbal "medicines", vitamin's & supplements?

Should the sellers of these products which claim various benefits not have to prove that they work?

Should the sellers of products that claim medicinal effects not have to prove them to the same extent as the suppliers of mainstream medicine do?

In general could they be described as a con?

Doctors tell us that if you eat a reasonable balanced diet that you do not need these products, bar a few obvious exceptions (Calcium, Folic Acid for women who may get pregnant).

************************

As Ephedra Ban Nears, a Race to Sell the Last Supplies
By DAN HURLEY

Published: April 11, 2004


When the Food and Drug Administration announced in December that it would ban the sale of products containing the diet supplement ephedra as of April 12, Mark B. McClellan, then the agency's commissioner, urged consumers to "stop buying and using ephedra products right away."

But in the three months since that announcement, four people have died from taking ephedra, according to the F.D.A. That brings the nationwide total to 164 since 1994, 29 of them last year. And interviews with retailers of diet supplements suggest that they have been rushing to sell off their remaining stock before the ban takes effect tomorrow. ...............

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/national/11EPHE.html?th

MeatProduct

Interesting topic and one I'm very interested in. I've worked in a pharmaceutical company and my father has worked in one for 25 years. You would not believe the crap that they put into their drugs and the long-term damage it does to the human body, but they get approved anyway. In most major interferon products there are always side-effects that are listed. Never a good thing.

In my experience herbal medicines are much more suitable for human consumption than artificially created medicines. Herbs come from nature. Humans come from nature. Herbs have been used by humanity for thousands of years, they have a good track record when compared to medical products which have not been around long enough to have a track record.

Over-doses of a great many medical products can cause death, that's not good. Only few herbs can cause death when taken in excess.
If one is to be skeptical of anything here it should be the new entry, the unproven entry: western medicines. That should be questioned before the age-old, reliable herbal remedies. It is very sad that herbs are trying to be played-down. Of course it makes sense when one considers the reason, money. If I can get cured by herbs instead of paying €50 a month to my doctor for a prescription for the rest of my life then western medicine is not going to be happy. Answer? Down-play herbal medicines of course.

If one is to be skeptical, be skeptical to the new-comer, the child.

Nick

MeatProduct

Here's some interesting statistics comparing causes of deaths in the US. Rather concerning that western medications caused 106,000 deaths in a year. This is a big case for having tighter laws on western medication I would have thought.

Medical Causes of Death

7,000 Deaths Per Year Medication Errors in Hospitals
12,000 Deaths Per Year Unnecessary Surgery
20,000 Deaths Per Year Medical Errors in Hospitals (excluding Medication Errors)
106,000 Deaths Per Year Non-error, Adverse Reactions to Medications aka Drug Adverse Events

Accidental Causes of Death*
151,109 Deaths Per Year All external causes of mortality (1999)
97,860 Deaths Per Year Deaths Due to Unintentional (Accidental) Injuries (1999)
46,423 Deaths Per Year Transport Accidents resulting in Death (Automobile, Boat, Airplane, Train, Bicycle, etc.) (1999)

Vietnam War 1964 - 1975
47,410 Deaths over 11 Years Deaths in Battle of American Soldiers
10,788 Deaths over 11 Years Non-Battle Deaths of American Soldiers (Theater)
32,000 Deaths over 11 Years Other Deaths in Service (non-Theater) est.

Taken from here

EDIT: Cases of adverse reactions to herbs are much lower. I have never experienced a bad reaction nor has anyone I know. I do know a good deal of people who have had bad reactions to western medicines however.

williamgrogan

You would not believe the crap that they put into their drugs

Can you give us some examples?

..the long-term damage it does to the human body, but they get approved anyway.

Examples? + it may be that the side effects must be weighed against the benefits, e.g. Chemotherapy makes your hair fall out but might cure your cancer.

Modern medicines that have bad side effects are only allowed if they have benefits that far outweigh the downsides. Only total con artists try and claim that Herbal Medicine cures cancer. Herbal Medicines claim to cure “tiredness”, “lack of energy”, “imbalances in the body”, “lack of sleep” and other vague and even non existent conditions. Mainstream Medicine cures Cancer, life threatening disease, infection etc. Different ball park.

In my experience herbal medicines are much more suitable for human consumption

They are untested so that one does take a risk. Many are just useless and contain no active ingredient so are safe by default. Homeopathy is an obvious example as all you are ingesting is water or sugar.

than artificially created medicines.

I suppose you are going to tell us that Herbal medicines grow on trees?

Herbal medicines and their ingredients are also manufactured.

This “artificial” word is a bit of a red rag … A chemical that is artificial is the same as a naturally occurring one. We are part of nature and what we produce is natural, the same as a bird’s nest is. Saying something is “artificial” is almost irrelevant. It is either good for you or it isn’t, how it’s produced is almost completely irrelevant.

Herbs come from nature. Humans come from nature. Herbs have been used by humanity for thousands of years, they have a good track record when compared to medical products which have not been around long enough to have a track record.

Shamans and witch doctors have a “good track record”, but can they cure people with magic? No. Lourdes has such a good track record that millions have flocked to it. Can the waters there cure you? No. Acupuncture has a “good track record”. Does it work? No.

A biased, superstitious, anecdotal “track record” is known to be useless in most cases.

williamgrogan

Your US statistics on death caused by medicine must be compared to the ~300,000,000 lives extended by many years (even decades), their quality greatly improved, pain reduction and even saved over the years. Herbal “medicine” would not and did not in the past save this many people.

Would you seriously be better off living say in the 17th century, before modern medicine? The male life expectancy was probably about 40 years. Many diseases resulted in deaths that are now routinely cured.

39,000 people killed by medical errors (I am very dubious about this figure) are not problems of the drugs. Would it be better to just let sick people die rather than risk killing them while saving them?

Syth

Herbs come from nature. Humans come from nature

This is called the naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy is when you assume (or believe) that what comes from nature is good and what is unnatural is bad. Medicine (of any type) is unnatural. Death is natural. The naturalistic falllacy is just that a fallacy.

Myksyk

I was interested in Meatproduct's post. I asked the six people in the house at the time how many would be dead or substantially worse off if it wasn't for modern medicine in their lives. All agreed unhesitatingly that they would either be dead or very much worse off without it. I, for instance, would probably have died aged 2 from a serious kidney problem or again at 20 something from a burst appendix or again ....etc.

Everyone could specify at least one or two instances where they would probably have died without modern medicine. The problem with modern medicine is of course that it is 1) administered by humans so there will be tragic mistakes 2) it is not a panacea for all ills, we're simply not at that stage in our society and have to accept that we can't help everybody and 3) it's tools are indeed potent, hence their efficacy, but also their side effects.

Products with little or no potency are of course unlikely to be harmful to anybody, but are also unlikely to be of any real benefit. Homeopathy is of course the safest but most useless (outside of its real placebo effects) 'medicine' in the world.

My other point relates to the idea that we can only comment on something if we have tried it. This is patently untenable. A heart surgeon does not have to go through surgery to know if it is effective, the prescribing Dr. needn't have taken antibiotics to know they may be of some use in a particular situation. Research is the tool to answer these questions. Reliance on personal testimonial is loaded with so many well established problems that I am very surprised that it has been suggested.

People appear to have great faith in the idea that if they take some putative medicinal product which is followed by their feeling better that the product itself was responsible. There are a host of other biological, social and pyschological factors (which we are often unaware of) which must be taken into account in such circumstances and which are most likely the reason for the actual or perceived improvement.

This basic causal error seems to be made with such frequency that it is the main theme of a paper I am presenting at a health conference this week.

williamgrogan

I was suspicious of the deaths by medical error stats and adverse reaction to drugs so I googled a bit. The following is a good article on the subject and it concludes that the estimates are subjective and that the authors do not state how they estimated the deaths, so those figures cannot be accepted as accurate.


http://www.acponline.org/journals/ecp/novdec00/sox.htm

dogs

On my way down to Cork the other day I noticed a sign outside someone's house saying "Cancer Cure €100" nothing else.

Now, perhaps someone really has found a cure for cancer and decided that it's best they administer it themselves rather than publishing it to the wider medical community. Perhaps they see it as their best approach. But I don't think it's unreasonable for me to assume that perhaps they haven't actually cured cancer and instead are happy to take €100 from people who are having to deal with cancer in their life or of someone they know.

I don't think the best soloution to this problem is legislation though. I think it'd be better if we taught people to be more objective and rational about even some of their decisions from an early age.

I thought the heavily advertised (watch daytime TV3 sometime) psychic lines were pretty funny, with €1.50+ charges per minute. But those SMS based services with similar prices, I'd have never thought those possible to survive more than a week but they're becoming increasingly prominent.

I think current legislation is fine: they can't claim to tell you the future and they have to warn you how much money they'll rip from your pockets. I dont think the best soloution is stricter laws for dumber people though.

williamgrogan

Does Dogs think that there should be any fraud laws?

There are laws that would allow prosecution of those selling worthless gold mine shares, why not worthless medicine?

The government's first priority is to protect people and that certainly includes from fraud. When chemists sell Homeopathic "medicines" you cannot accuse those duped of being dumb. It is to be expected that an ordinary member of the public would trust their chemist.

I think the reason there are no laws yet is because it takes the law & in particular the politicians a long time to catch up with new crimes.

PS

Report the sign to the police. It must be illegal to claim to cure cancer for €100.

dogs

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Does Dogs think that there should be any fraud laws?

Dogs does.

There are laws that would allow prosecution of those selling worthless gold mine shares, why not worthless medicine?

I think people should be free to make the choice if they wish to use a CAM option along with conventional treatment. Certainly if a chemist recommends unproven CAM over a more traditional treatment there is a problem, but shouldn't this be policed by the industry. If that's not good enough, introduce legislation for the medical profession by all means but I don't see why you need nanny-state laws telling you what treatment you can and can't take.

williamgrogan

Certainly if a chemist recommends unproven CAM over a more traditional treatment there is a problem, but shouldn't this be policed by the industry?

By default they are recommending CAM “medicines” as they do sell them. Presumably those buying them buy them “over” or instead of medicine. Therefore there is a problem.

You then ask should it be policed by “the industry”.

It obviously isn’t.

…….introduce legislation for the medical profession by all means

I agree.

I wouldn’t be asking for new laws if there was no problem. That’s why laws are always brought in, to stop people doing things they shouldn’t be doing.

but I don't see why you need nanny-state laws telling you what treatment you can and can't take

CAM is NOT a treatment, it’s a fraud. Surely a “treatment” indicates some prospect of cure. Water cannot cure anything other than dehydration, neither can a sugar pill.

Furthermore any herbal “treatment” that has not be proven cannot therefore by expected to cure anything. If there is no objective evidence then there is no evidence. Herbal “medicines” are not tested for danger either and on that basis alone should be illegal. Nor are they manufactured to any standard. Tests on these “medicines” show that the concentration of the “active ingredients” can vary enormously. The more I read about Herbal “Medicine” the more I realise the entire “industry” is a con.

These bottles of water and sugar pills claim that they cure things, they don’t. The people who lose their money are tax payers and are entitled to have the government protect them, even from themselves. By its nature fraud means that the gullible are being robbed. Therefore in the case of fraud you can’t say “let the buyer beware”.

I am totally opposed to the nanny-state but my opposition doesn’t stretch to allowing crime.

Are those who know that these remedies are useless also being conned?

No one likes to think they are easily conned. Is Dogs being conned?

Think about this …….. Because the sellers say things like, “Chinese medicine” or “thousands of years” or “natural” or “the whole body” or “people’s right to choice”, “we live in a democracy” or “it doesn’t do any harm”, doesn’t mean that they are any less a con artist then if they didn’t spout this rubbish. I suspect that they even take in those that don’t believe they work! What I am saying is that believing that Homeopathy doesn’t work does not mean you are not conned. Even thinking that they shouldn’t be in jail is down to the success of their con. They are so successful as con artists that they have even convinced those that are not their clients to allow them continue.

Syth

Well I think that if a product doesn't kill you, then it should be on sale. But they all should have to carry a (promenant) sticker saying something along the lines of "This product has no evidence of working". Make people feel like an idiot when they pick up the box.