Medical Herbalism

nesf

keiran110 wrote: »

Also, I am well aware of the requirements, expectations and results needed to ensure a quality study

Ok, I don't think that's a healthy attitude to have. I've a lot of training in statistics and research techniques and I wouldn't consider myself as being well aware of the requirements, expectations and results needed to ensure a quality study in general. Within my own sub area sure, but when reading papers from areas outside my research speciality I know I'll miss mistakes that a specialist would spot.

keiran110

nesf wrote: »

One word of caution for you, seeing that you're an undergrad and may not have had this explained properly to you yet. Just because a study shows a result doesn't necessarily mean anything. What matters in a study is not its result but its quality: i.e. sample size, study design, whether it was double blind, whether it has a control group, the journal it was published in, who did the study etc. Different journals have different standards for publishing, but conversely just because a study is published by a top rank journal doesn't mean it's automatically true! Some alternative/herbal medicine journals are crap, someone who's specialised in the rough area might be able to give you a list of the better ones. As a general rule of thumb, if a study doesn't have a control group, then treat its results with extreme scepticism and do not take them to be true. It's possible to "prove" loads of things that aren't true when you don't use a control group. Herbal and Alternative Medicine papers often use this trick, be it intentionally or unintentionally.

If you are suggesting that I do not have knowledge or information on the requirements, expectations and needed results to provide a vallid scientific paper, I find that offensive. I get the vibe from your comments that you are looking down on me and I feel as if you are insulting my intelligence. This is a discussion forum, nothing else.

As yourself, within my area, yes I am aware of the requirments etc.

I may not have a piece of paper saying I have completely a course but i do have life experience and knowledge in using herbs. Herbs work for me and always have. Thats better then any trial for me. Obviously that wouldnt hold up in a clinical setting but I'm talking for myself.
Herbs make up 90% of our medicines and majority of cultures in the world use herbs as their main source of medicine. Saying that, herbs definetly have their place in the world. I believe pharmaceutical drugs have their place also and I do use pharmaceuticals also. Herbs work for me and thats what matters matters most,individual opinion. If you feel herbs dont work for you, don't take them. If you feel herbs work for you, take them.

I didnt come here for an arguament or to try convert people, I came to discuss views. That is all

I also don't claim to be a medical practioner. That would be both dangerous and stupid.

The sad fact is however, people don't need a degree to open a medical herbal clinic. In Ireland it is perfectly legal to practice herbs and open your own clinic with no qualification. This is because herbal medicine is one of our traditions and is hugely related back to Ireland. The same cannot be said in Europe where only a GP can practice herbs. Even if you have 6 years college experience in the field. Thats why many quacks can be found in Ireland.

To sam 34
I was using historical reference. In those times it was the soul that was treated and not the brain. Historically and even to this day, most cultures in the world treat the body and "soul" (or brain) as one entity and believe you need strenght in both to be healthy. If one came to a doctor with a sprained ankle, the mind would also be treated. If one came to a doctor with depression, the body would also be treated.
I realise there is still a faint sign of that in our western medical culture. However, there is a clear division in treatment of the mental health and treatment of body. We have psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists etc for the mind and doctors specialised in various areas for the body. In our culture it was the Greeks who first made this division. It goes back to the time of Hippocrates and Aesclepius.
Aesclepian temples were where one went to treat the soul (or brain) and if one had a physical problem, one would go to Hippocratic practioners.
Yes a realise psychiatrists are doctors also. They are doctors of mental health. Before the Greeks, there was no such thing a doctor for mental health and a doctor for physical health.
This division of brain and body is not as distinct in other cultures as it is western. This is all fact. I suggest looking up western medical history, it's a good read.

To Locum Motion
I am well aware of the chemical properties and applications of capsicum. To my knowledge, the horse was not administered a product containing capsaicin but pure capsicum (topically). Correct me if I am wrong.
In Ireland, this herb for medical purposes (horse racing and personal) is not controlled, I use it myself. In China, this herb is used regularly for its medical properties. When the rider was using capsicum as medicine, the Chinese regulation stepped in instantly. In Ireland this would be overlooked and nobody would think twice about a man using chilli as medicine.
This is because in China, herbs are on the front line for treatment of illness. If herbs do not work, then they use pharmaceuticals. I agree with the Chinese on this matter.

Herbal Studies:
To find non bias scientific studies on herbs, i suggest to check out these main groups.

German Commision E
ESCOP

nesf

keiran110 wrote: »

If you are suggesting that I do not have knowledge or information on the requirements, expectations and needed results to provide a vallid scientific paper, I find that offensive. I get the vibe from your comments that you are looking down on me and I feel as if you are insulting my intelligence. This is a discussion forum, nothing else.

It's not a question of intelligence, it's one of experience and as an aspiring scientist you shouldn't feel offended by my post but acknowledge the necessity of it. That herbs work for you should mean nothing when you are judging the quality of a paper. I'm not posting to offend you, I'm posting to teach you a few things that from your posts you seem to be unaware of, or not paying enough attention to.

I'm not a medical professional and I don't have any qualification in medicine or a related area, so I am most certainly not looking down at you for lacking a piece of paper that I myself don't have. And to be doubly clear, having said piece of paper means nothing to me since I've met many doctors and pharmacists who couldn't judge the quality of a paper if their life depended on it! And that same goes for most other academic and science professions that I've had contact with.

keiran110

It was just the vibei was getting from your comments so please excuse that. This is a discussion forum on views, not a fight.

I achknowledge the neccesity of quality studies.

If you read my post you will see that I said that just because herbs work for me does not mean this is conclusive evidence. Herbs working for me is evidence enough for myself that they work.

If somebody goes into a health food shop or chemist and buys some milk thistle, saw palmetto or any other herb and find that it works wonders, that is proof to them that herbs work. They don't need to read 20 scientific papers to try convince them. The fact that the herb worked and improved their health is good enough for them.
It is personal. Aspirin works great when i get a headache. Have i ever read a scienfific paper on it?? no!
If a herb works for you and improves your health, take it. At the end of the day, it's all about trying to be as healthy as possible and to optimise your life. If a herb is doing nothing for you, don't take it. Simple as that.
Like i said previously, I'm not a medical practioner yet but I do believe i have the mindset of one and definetly have the drive to help people and improve people's health. Herbs work for me and improve my health, I want to share that with the population someday.

Putting that to one side....

That is using everyday examples and the lay person with no scientific backround.
In science, there are a lot of papers which are biased, incomplete, inaccurate or just plain wrong. This goes for herbal or pharmaceutical.
Though I may not understand the quality and requirments for studies on pharmaceutical drugs, i do understand what is expected for studies on herbal drugs. Pharmaceuticals is not my area and I'm not pretending it is.
There was a case a few years back in Belgium where inaccurate studies deemed a herb as effective and safe. Throughout the following few weeks, over a hundred people died. Don't ask me the name of the herb, I don't know it off hand, google it or something.
Anyway, like I said, geniune valid scientific proof is of the upmost importance in the herbal community. Also, it is of the upmost importance in the larger scientific community.
I suggest reading ESCOP and German Commision E for studies.

As a note, it may be a surprise to some that the majority of the modules in the training to be a herbalist is in various aspects of chemistry: enzymology, general biochemistry, pharmacognasy, pharmacy, phytochemistry etc. Herbalists and modern medical practioners arn't too far away from each other at all!
The head of the board of Medical Herbalists is in fact a GP and a Herblist.

sam34

keiran110 wrote: »

I do not consider myself a medical practitioner, but i hope some day i will.

do you intend to complete a medical degree or do you think that you will be a medical practitioner when you will have your medical herbalism degree?

keiran110 wrote: »

To sam 34
I was using historical reference. In those times it was the soul that was treated and not the brain. Historically and even to this day, most cultures in the world treat the body and "soul" (or brain) as one entity and believe you need strenght in both to be healthy. If one came to a doctor with a sprained ankle, the mind would also be treated. If one came to a doctor with depression, the body would also be treated.
I realise there is still a faint sign of that in our western medical culture. However, there is a clear division in treatment of the mental health and treatment of body. We have psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists etc for the mind and doctors specialised in various areas for the body. In our culture it was the Greeks who first made this division. It goes back to the time of Hippocrates and Aesclepius.
Aesclepian temples were where one went to treat the soul (or brain) and if one had a physical problem, one would go to Hippocratic practioners.
Yes a realise psychiatrists are doctors also. They are doctors of mental health. Before the Greeks, there was no such thing a doctor for mental health and a doctor for physical health.
This division of brain and body is not as distinct in other cultures as it is western. This is all fact. I suggest looking up western medical history, it's a good read.

maybe im missing your point, but i dont see why you are making a song and dance about different doctors treating the brain and the body.

psychiatrists and neurologists treat disorders of the brain. however, it's not like every other doctor treats every other part of the body.

cardiologists and cardiac surgeons treat the heart.

endocrinologists treat the thyroid, pancreas etc

gastroenterologists and surgeons treat the stomach, colon etc

etc etc etc etc etc

the brain is simply another part of teh body that has specialists devoted to treating it.
i dont see what the big deal is.

and, as there are in psychiatry, there are allied health professionals in other areas of medicine also, eg physios, OTs, SALTs etc.

nesf

keiran110 wrote: »

If you read my post you will see that I said that just because herbs work for me does not mean this is conclusive evidence. Herbs working for me is evidence enough for myself that they work.

Ah but it isn't at all! Just because you took something and then felt better does not mean that it actually worked! You can't draw any conclusions of efficacy of any treatment based of anecdotal evidence. It's an intuition trap that one has to work very hard to get out of, we are all born with the tendency to make mistakes in inductive reasoning: i.e. x happened and then y happened therefore x caused y, which is actually a completely fallacious way of reasoning unless you study a very very large amount of x's and y's.

locum-motion

keiran110 wrote: »

To Locum Motion
I am well aware of the chemical properties and applications of capsicum. To my knowledge, the horse was not administered a product containing capsaicin but pure capsicum (topically). Correct me if I am wrong.

You are wrong. The horse was found to have Capsaicin in its bloodstream. The source cannot be determined by the presence of the substance in the blood. It was claimed by O'Connor that he had used a product (whose name escapes me at present) containing Capsaicin to relieve muscle pain in the horses back.

keiran110 wrote: »

In Ireland, this herb for medical purposes (horse racing and personal) is not controlled, I use it myself. In China, this herb is used regularly for its medical properties. When the rider was using capsicum as medicine, the Chinese regulation stepped in instantly. In Ireland this would be overlooked and nobody would think twice about a man using chilli as medicine.
This is because in China, herbs are on the front line for treatment of illness. If herbs do not work, then they use pharmaceuticals. I agree with the Chinese on this matter.

The reason Cian O'Connor withdrew was because if he had competed he would have received a ban from the Olympic authorities. It was nothing whatsoever to do with any differing approach to herbal vs pharmaceutical medicines by Chinese and Olympic and/or Western authorities; to suggest that it was is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
Please do not take FACT and twist it around to fit your view of things, especially if you wish to be taken seriously by other posters on this board. As Lucinda Creighton TD said recently, "Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. They're not entitled to their own facts."

locum-motion

nesf wrote: »

we are all born with the tendency to make mistakes in inductive reasoning: i.e. x happened and then y happened therefore x caused y, which is actually a completely fallacious way of reasoning unless you study a very very large amount of x's and y's.

That is known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc".
The translation is "after which, therefore because of which", and it is a common logical fallacy.

nesf

locum-motion wrote: »

That is known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

And that was a very good episode of the West Wing too.

The hardest part to get through to people is that trusting your gut or your intuition is a bad way of doing any kind of evidence based reasoning. Intuitively we use post hoc ergo propter hoc because for a lot of things it works: "I touch a very hot saucepan and then get burned, ergo touching very hot things will burn me". The thing is you see with very young children that they need to learn to analyse, at first they don't think of the very hot part and believe that all saucepans, regardless of temperature, will burn them.

As adults, we're still hardwired to learn this way because for a lot of situations it's not a bad rule of thumb. The issue is that this is the case only when we're dealing with binary situations that have an obvious cause, such as burns. Touching things that won't burn you won't burn you, it isn't the case that random things that aren't hot will burn you. With illness it's different because even if you do nothing you can get better. In fact, for most illnesses you will get better at some point. So trying to draw any simple causality here is likely to be false. Indeed even something like cancer can suffer from this, patients for some reason that isn't well understood have a small chance of going into spontaneous remission. This is where most of the alternative therapies for cancer have their grounding.

locum-motion

keiran110 wrote: »

Like i said previously, I'm not a medical practioner yet...

Kieran,
This is serious.
As you say, you are not a medical practitioner at the moment. But I have to add the following...
Nor will you ever be unless you obtain the requisite medical degrees (I believe MB, ChB are the usual ones), do the appropriate post-graduate, pre-registration work and study, and obtain registration with the Medical Council.
Your quote above implies that you think you will be a medical practitioner after you've finished your degree. You will not be. A 'medical practitioner' is what is generally known as a doctor. Your qualification will not make you a doctor. There are laws against people using titles to which they're not entitled. A man went to jail yesterday for pretending to be a doctor. Now, I'm not suggesting that you're pretending to be a doctor, I know you're not. But, for your own sake, DON'T use legally restricted titles to describe what you are now or will become in the future.
I suggest you use the term 'healthcare professional'. And even that could be controversial.

As noted before, I am a pharmacist. All will agree that I am a healthcare professional. But as I said before, I wouldn't use a sentence like the one you used for fear of giving the impression that I'm a doctor.
BTW, there are other titles that I am allowed use to describe myself: Pharmaceutist, Pharmaceutical Chemist, Chemist & Druggist, and Apothecary are 4 of them.

locum-motion

nesf wrote: »

And that was a very good episode of the West Wing too.

Josh: "After hoc...therefore something hoc?"

locum-motion

Some suggested reading here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055628849

keiran110

sam34 wrote: »

do you intend to complete a medical degree or do you think that you will be a medical practitioner when you will have your medical herbalism degree?



maybe im missing your point, but i dont see why you are making a song and dance about different doctors treating the brain and the body.

psychiatrists and neurologists treat disorders of the brain. however, it's not like every other doctor treats every other part of the body.

cardiologists and cardiac surgeons treat the heart.

endocrinologists treat the thyroid, pancreas etc

gastroenterologists and surgeons treat the stomach, colon etc

etc etc etc etc etc

the brain is simply another part of teh body that has specialists devoted to treating it.
i dont see what the big deal is.

and, as there are in psychiatry, there are allied health professionals in other areas of medicine also, eg physios, OTs, SALTs etc.

Sorry, it seems that i simply cannot get my point across. I am not going to try explain myself a third time.
I suggest reading up on the history of modern medicine. This will hopefully explain the facts more clearly and consisely than i can.

Best of luck.

nesf wrote: »

Ah but it isn't at all! Just because you took something and then felt better does not mean that it actually worked! You can't draw any conclusions of efficacy of any treatment based of anecdotal evidence. It's an intuition trap that one has to work very hard to get out of, we are all born with the tendency to make mistakes in inductive reasoning: i.e. x happened and then y happened therefore x caused y, which is actually a completely fallacious way of reasoning unless you study a very very large amount of x's and y's.

"felt better" is one thing. But when a herb completly rids a condition and its symthoms is another thing. This is what herbs have done for me. This is what has given me the drive to pursue this career as medicine

locum-motion wrote: »

You are wrong. The horse was found to have Capsaicin in its bloodstream. The source cannot be determined by the presence of the substance in the blood. It was claimed by O'Connor that he had used a product (whose name escapes me at present) containing Capsaicin to relieve muscle pain in the horses back.

Taken from pure capsicum as far as i have read.

locum-motion wrote: »

Kieran,
This is serious.
As you say, you are not a medical practitioner at the moment. But I have to add the following...
Nor will you ever be unless you obtain the requisite medical degrees (I believe MB, ChB are the usual ones), do the appropriate post-graduate, pre-registration work and study, and obtain registration with the Medical Council.
Your quote above implies that you think you will be a medical practitioner after you've finished your degree. You will not be. A 'medical practitioner' is what is generally known as a doctor. Your qualification will not make you a doctor. There are laws against people using titles to which they're not entitled. A man went to jail yesterday for pretending to be a doctor. Now, I'm not suggesting that you're pretending to be a doctor, I know you're not. But, for your own sake, DON'T use legally restricted titles to describe what you are now or will become in the future.
I suggest you use the term 'healthcare professional'. And even that could be controversial.

As noted before, I am a pharmacist. All will agree that I am a healthcare professional. But as I said before, I wouldn't use a sentence like the one you used for fear of giving the impression that I'm a doctor.
BTW, there are other titles that I am allowed use to describe myself: Pharmaceutist, Pharmaceutical Chemist, Chemist & Druggist, and Apothecary are 4 of them.

It is your opinion and nothing more that leads you to believe that the phrase "medical practitioner" implies "doctor". Furthermore, I never said my qualification will lead me to be a doctor or a practitioner.
I started this tread for opinions and views. It is causing nothing but arguements, controversy and the feeling of insult to myself. Therefore I am withdrawing from posting on this thread from this post on.

It was good to hear what people had to say before it turned into attacking rather than opinion.

I will leave this thread on this note. I believe all people who swear by pharmaceuticals need to read in depth[/B the history of modern medicine to get a clear view on where it all arose from. Also, scientists up until around the 1920's were not just scientists, but also philosophers. From this thread, I have come to the conclusion that in my opinion people need to "think outside the box" when it comes to medicine and stop being so clinical. Excuse the pun.
Also, In my opinion from this thread, it seems that people who use herbs as medicine have great time for pharmaceuticals but people who swear by pharmaceuticals have absolutly no time for herbs. Strange.
It was good to hears your opinions.

Take care,
Ciaran

tallaght01

so presumably you won't be posting any papers then?

thanks anyway

locum-motion

keiran110 wrote: »

Taken from capsicum as far as i have read.

*Exasperated sigh*

Did you say

keiran110 wrote:

To my knowledge, the horse was not administered a product containing capsaicin but pure capsicum (topically)

?

Yes you did. But you have no possible source for your "knowledge" of what exactly the horse was given, unless...your name isn't Cian O'Connor, is it?

Did I deny that Capsaicin comes from Capsicum?

No, I didn't. So it makes absolutely no sense for you to try to top off your argument with "Taken from capsicum as far as i have read". It doesn't prove your earlier point, which was that the horse had been administered pure capsicum. It's another example of logical fallacy (like the post hoc.. above)

YFlyer

keiran110 wrote: »

Sorry, it seems that i simply cannot get my point across. I am not going to try explain myself a third time.
I suggest reading up on the history of modern medicine. This will hopefully explain the facts more clearly and consisely than i can.

Best of luck.



"felt better" is one thing. But when a herb completly rids a condition and its symthoms is another thing. This is what herbs have done for me. This is what has given me the drive to pursue this career as medicine




Taken from pure capsicum as far as i have read.



It is your opinion and nothing more that leads you to believe that the phrase "medical practitioner" implies "doctor". Furthermore, I never said my qualification will lead me to be a doctor or a practitioner.
I started this tread for opinions and views. It is causing nothing but arguements, controversy and the feeling of insult to myself. Therefore I am withdrawing from posting on this thread from this post on.

It was good to hear what people had to say before it turned into attacking rather than opinion.

I will leave this thread on this note. I believe all people who swear by pharmaceuticals need to read in depth[/B the history of modern medicine to get a clear view on where it all arose from. Also, scientists up until around the 1920's were not just scientists, but also philosophers. From this thread, I have come to the conclusion that in my opinion people need to "think outside the box" when it comes to medicine and stop being so clinical. Excuse the pun.
Also, In my opinion from this thread, it seems that people who use herbs as medicine have great time for pharmaceuticals but people who swear by pharmaceuticals have absolutly no time for herbs. Strange.
It was good to hears your opinions.

Take care,
Ciaran

Hi Ciaran remember that preventative and natural health care medicine is the way to go. Even Barack Obama was hinting about it with his speech tonight.

nesf

keiran110 wrote: »

"felt better" is one thing. But when a herb completly rids a condition and its symthoms is another thing. This is what herbs have done for me. This is what has given me the drive to pursue this career as medicine.

You miss my point entirely. That the condition and symptoms went away doesn't mean that the herbs worked and you should, as someone studying in this area, be able to appreciate that. It could have been cancer that you recovered from after taking a herbal remedy yet it still wouldn't have necessarily meant that the herbs had anything to do with that.

locum-motion

keiran110 wrote: »

It is your opinion and nothing more that leads you to believe that the phrase "medical practitioner" implies "doctor". Furthermore, I never said my qualification will lead me to be a doctor or a practitioner.

Ciaran,
Since you've given up, maybe you won't read this, but here goes anyway.
Have a look at http://medicalcouncil.ie
There you will see any number of references to the term "medical practitioner", to The Medical Practitioners Act, 2007 and the responsibility of the Medical Council for the registration of medical practitioners. So, no, it is not my opinion and nothing more that leads me to believe it implies "doctor". It is the law of the land.

You are right, you never said you were claiming to be a doctor. But three times you used phrases that implied that you thought you would be a medical practitioner after you'd graduated.

keiran110 wrote:

I'd be very interested to hear people's views (especially other medical pracitioners).

keiran110 wrote:

I do not consider myself a medical practitioner, but i hope some day i will

keiran110 wrote:

Like i said previously, I'm not a medical practioner yet

All I and others did was point out that you are not allowed, nor will you be allowed following graduation, to use that title. It was said to you in the form of a piece of advice, not as any criticism of you. You chose to ignore that advice on each occasion that it was given to you.

Furthermore, having re-read the whole thread, I don't see any personal attack on you. All I see are people discussing your posts, logically and reasonably. It is your responses to those discussion that show less and less logic as they progress. Did you expect that a forum dedicated to Biology and Medicine would be populated by people who would just roll over and say "Oh, so that's alright then, I'll just forget all my training and work experience because Ciaran says that herbs are great"?
From the outset, you have been asked repeatedly to provide evidence, and to argue the validity of that evidence. You have chosen not to. But yet you repeatedly point out what a great scientist you are.
I'm sorry, Ciaran, you haven't presented any evidence of scientific thinking to me. Make your claims, show your evidence, and back up that evidence with logical argument. Then you will earn the respect on this forum that you feel you deserve.

Oh, and by the way, I am aware that I presented no evidence of what I asserted as fact in connection to Cian O'Connor's horse. The only evidence I can actually point out right now is my own memory of the extensive reading I did on the subject at the time. After all, I am interested in the Olympics, in show-jumping and, professionally, in drugs. Let me know if you think that's insufficient evidence.

Skapoot

nesf wrote: »

You miss my point entirely. That the condition and symptoms went away doesn't mean that the herbs worked and you should, as someone studying in this area, be able to appreciate that. It could have been cancer that you recovered from after taking a herbal remedy yet it still wouldn't have necessarily meant that the herbs had anything to do with that.

Have you ever tried any Herbal Remedies?


Herbal Medecine is the regulation of correct diet and nutrition to ensure a healthier body and mind.(a diet including Herbal Remedies)

GP medecine is to fight disease once it has already started. I'm all for Herbal Medecine.

Also - Keiran110 said that he hopes to be a Medical Practicioner one day. The response to that was "Oh, you better watch out there, dont be calling yourself that

....Did you not read his posts correctly? He didnt call himself that. He said after his Masters he would be one, and that yes, according to Irish Law he could set up his own practice after finishing his degree.

Patronising him is an insult. Warning him not to get too up himself too soon is an insult.

tallaght01

So, will you be discussing any papers in relation to herbs? Or is this just another morally outraged herbalist?

Skapoot

tallaght01 wrote: »

So, will you be discussing any papers in relation to herbs? Or is this just another morally outraged herbalist?

If that was directed to me, Im not a Herbalist at all. I wont be discussing papers"


"morally outraged herbalist". Why do you feel the need to be patronising.

locum-motion

Skapoot wrote: »

Also - Keiran110 said that he hopes to be a Medical Practicioner one day. The response to that was "Oh, you better watch out there, dont be calling yourself that

....Did you not read his posts correctly? He didnt call himself that. He said after his Masters he would be one, and that yes, according to Irish Law he could set up his own practice after finishing his degree.

Did you not read my posts correctly? I never said he couldn't set himself up in practice (as a medical herbalist). I said he can't (and will not be able to) call himself a medical practitioner.

ps: Attention Medical Practitioners: Why are you leaving it up to the pharmacist to defend your professional title?

tallaght01

Skapoot wrote: »

If that was directed to me, Im not a Herbalist at all. I wont be discussing papers"


"morally outraged herbalist". Why do you feel the need to be patronising.

Well, you just rocked into a scientific discussion forum, and announced "herbz rock" and seemed to expect everyone to be cool with that.

locum-motion wrote: »

ps: Attention Medical Practitioners: Why are you leaving it up to the pharmacist to defend your professional title?

Honestly, every man and his dog nowadays calls themselves a "consultant" or "practitioner" of some sort. Most of us are amused by it more than anything else nowadays.

GradMed

Skapoot wrote: »

Also - Keiran110 said that he hopes to be a Medical Practicioner one day. The response to that was "Oh, you better watch out there, dont be calling yourself that
....Did you not read his posts correctly? He didnt call himself that. He said after his Masters he would be one, and that yes, according to Irish Law he could set up his own practice after finishing his degree.

The quote below is from the first post in the thread. The use of "other medical pracitioners" implies that the poster is a doctor.

I was just wondering what people's are on using herbs as medicine. I'd be very interested to hear people's views (especially other medical pracitioners).

Keiran also would not need a degree to open a herbal clinic as he writes, bolding mine.

The sad fact is however, people don't need a degree to open a medical herbal clinic. In Ireland it is perfectly legal to practice herbs and open your own clinic with no qualification. This is because herbal medicine is one of our traditions and is hugely related back to Ireland. The same cannot be said in Europe where only a GP can practice herbs. Even if you have 6 years college experience in the field. Thats why many quacks can be found in Ireland.

He also writes

I may not have a piece of paper saying I have completely a course but i do have life experience and knowledge in using herbs. Herbs work for me and always have. Thats better then any trial for me. Obviously that wouldnt hold up in a clinical setting but I'm talking for myself.

I mean no insult towards Keiran but I am curious as to how he could consider himself any different to a quack if he chooses to base his actions towards people seeking herbal remedies on his own personal experience of what works for him instead of basing it non anecdotal evidence.

Skapoot wrote: »

GP medecine is to fight disease once it has already started. I'm all for Herbal Medecine

While a doctor may frequently treat a patient’s disease a very important aspect of modern medicine is preventative medicine, doctors do not simply view a snapshot of patient in time. I’m only a first year med student but from speaking to the doctors involved in my course and the patients that kindly offered their time and spoke to us of their illnesses and how their lives have been affected; the overwhelming impression I’m given is that the doctor it’s hoped I will someday be will be one that will not look at a patient and only see the presenting complaint. It’s hammered into us that a multitude of factors, medical, social and personal are important in properly addressing a patient’s concerns.
from tallaght01

So, will you be discussing any papers in relation to herbs? Or is this just another morally outraged herbalist?

Yes the remark towards you isn’t justified but I suspect it was made in part due to frustration because one, no discussion of papers has actually occurred. Kieran mentioned he would post links to papers

If examples are needed let me know. I will post tomorrow as like i said above with st.johns wort and nettle, I'm nowhere near any literature

Instead he responded with

I dont have literature for trials with me at the moment. However, i do have some herbal trivia!

And

To find non bias scientific studies on herbs, i suggest to check out these main groups.

German Commision E ESCOP

and two, Kieran then left the thread preventing him from using evidence to support his statements. This is most unfortunate as a debate frequently benefits both parties.

p.s I need to learn to type fasterand also not do this when I'm supposed to be working.

nesf

Skapoot wrote: »

Have you ever tried any Herbal Remedies?

Yes. I even hold the opinion that some herbal remedies work.

boardswalker

Lustral is an anti-depressant that is on sale in Ireland and can be prescribed to teenagers.

On 10 Dec 2003 the UK the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a statement that “There is no, or insufficient, evidence from clinical trials that benefits outweigh the risks of side effects for sertraline (Lustral), citalopram (Cipramil), escitalopram (Cipralex) and fluvoxamine (Faverin).” Also “Like Seroxat and Efexor, none of these drugs has ever been licensed for use in those under 18.“ The British Government banned the prescription of Lustral for Teenagers.

The Irish Medicines Board issued the following statement "The IMB is fully aware of the review undertaken by the British expert group and wishes to re-emphasise that SSRIs are not recommended for use in the treatment of MDD in children in Ireland, as the risks of treatment with certain SSRIs are considered to outweigh the benefits of treatment in this condition," said Dr Joan Gilvarry, Director of Human Medicines, IMB.

Although SSRIs are not licensed for children in Ireland, doctors can prescribe them for patients under their care if it is deemed appropriate.

How come the same drug can be prescribed in one jurisdiction but not in neighbouring jurisdiction - even thought they are working off the same scientific evidence and data ? What does this say about scientific studies and quality data?

nesf

boardswalker wrote: »

Lustral is an anti-depressant that is on sale in Ireland and can be prescribed to teenagers.

On 10 Dec 2003 the UK the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a statement that “There is no, or insufficient, evidence from clinical trials that benefits outweigh the risks of side effects for sertraline (Lustral), citalopram (Cipramil), escitalopram (Cipralex) and fluvoxamine (Faverin).” Also “Like Seroxat and Efexor, none of these drugs has ever been licensed for use in those under 18.“ The British Government banned the prescription of Lustral for Teenagers.

The Irish Medicines Board issued the following statement "The IMB is fully aware of the review undertaken by the British expert group and wishes to re-emphasise that SSRIs are not recommended for use in the treatment of MDD in children in Ireland, as the risks of treatment with certain SSRIs are considered to outweigh the benefits of treatment in this condition," said Dr Joan Gilvarry, Director of Human Medicines, IMB.

Although SSRIs are not licensed for children in Ireland, doctors can prescribe them for patients under their care if it is deemed appropriate.

How come the same drug can be prescribed in one jurisdiction but not in neighbouring jurisdiction - even thought they are working off the same scientific evidence and data ? What does this say about scientific studies and quality data?

What has this got to do with this thread?

tallaght01

nesf wrote: »

What has this got to do with this thread?

Exactly. But by all means, feel free to start one about risk:benefit analyses. Bear in mind the IMB isn't the trial, though.

Try and have a look at some of the data yourself. I know I say this all the time and very few people listen to me. But it's worth a try :P

locum-motion

boardswalker wrote: »

Lustral is an anti-depressant that is on sale in Ireland and can be prescribed to teenagers.

On 10 Dec 2003 the UK the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a statement that “There is no, or insufficient, evidence from clinical trials that benefits outweigh the risks of side effects for sertraline (Lustral), citalopram (Cipramil), escitalopram (Cipralex) and fluvoxamine (Faverin).” Also “Like Seroxat and Efexor, none of these drugs has ever been licensed for use in those under 18.“ The British Government banned the prescription of Lustral for Teenagers.

The Irish Medicines Board issued the following statement "The IMB is fully aware of the review undertaken by the British expert group and wishes to re-emphasise that SSRIs are not recommended for use in the treatment of MDD in children in Ireland, as the risks of treatment with certain SSRIs are considered to outweigh the benefits of treatment in this condition," said Dr Joan Gilvarry, Director of Human Medicines, IMB.

Although SSRIs are not licensed for children in Ireland, doctors can prescribe them for patients under their care if it is deemed appropriate.

How come the same drug can be prescribed in one jurisdiction but not in neighbouring jurisdiction - even thought they are working off the same scientific evidence and data ? What does this say about scientific studies and quality data?

Not sure of the relevance of your post to this particular thread, but anyway:
Your paragraph beginning "Although SSRIs..." applies equally to the UK. In both cases, a doctor is allowed prescribe whatever s/he deems appropriate, even if it is outside the terms of the product's licence. When that happens, it is the pharmacist's duty to ensure that the prescriber is aware of the drug's unlicenced/off-licence status, and wishes to proceed nevertheless. If, under these circumstances, something then goes wrong, the liability for the error (if any liability exists) lies with the prescriber, not with the manufacturer of the drug which would usually be the case.
And re: your final question:
No one has said here that "scientific studies and quality data" is/are perfect. In fact, every opinion expressed on that subject has been about looking for and being aware of the flaws. That querying attitude is a part of science, usually referred to as "peer review". But, imperfect as it is, it is better than anecdotal evidence which invites conclusions based on logical fallacy.

Thanks for reading,
L-M. (MRPharmS (GB), MPSI (Ireland))

ps. In the interest of strict accuracy, I should point out that I am actually a former MRPharmS, not current. Not struck off or anything, just don't see the point of paying them several hundred quid a year when I'm working over here.

nesf

locum-motion wrote: »

In both cases, a doctor is allowed prescribe whatever s/he deems appropriate, even if it is outside the terms of the product's licence. When that happens, it is the pharmacist's duty to ensure that the prescriber is aware of the drug's unlicenced/off-licence status, and wishes to proceed nevertheless. If, under these circumstances, something then goes wrong, the liability for the error (if any liability exists) lies with the prescriber, not with the manufacturer of the drug which would usually be the case.

A side point but is this required? I've been prescribed quite a few drugs off-licence and never had a pharmacist say anything to me about it..