Medical Herbalism

nesf

boardswalker wrote: »

i think the key point for me is that they believe them to be effective.
despite what they want everyone else to believe.

They make far too much money off fish oils, anti-oxidants and vitamin supplements to be really trying to convince others that they don't work! Despite there being a lack of evidence for many of these treatments.

Big Pharma cares about profit, and if they can make one selling people expensive herbal remedies (which they can) then they will.

doctor evil

boardswalker wrote: »

i think the key point for me is that they believe them to be effective.
despite what they want everyone else to believe.

In the right quantities.

boardswalker

doctor evil wrote: »

In the right quantities.

Doesn't that apply to anything - even water?
Why does it need to be highlighted for CAM remedies but not pharmaceuticals?

boardswalker

nesf wrote: »

They make far too much money off fish oils, anti-oxidants and vitamin supplements to be really trying to convince others that they don't work! Despite there being a lack of evidence for many of these treatments.

Big Pharma cares about profit, and if they can make one selling people expensive herbal remedies (which they can) then they will.

Big pharma strives to maximise profits - they like monopolies because they make far more profits when they have zero or no competition. Eliminate/discredit your competition and you can make more profits. Simple economics.

boardswalker

Another interesting story from the New York Times about that well known Philanthropic organisation, Pfizer

Full Story here http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/business/03health.html?scp=2&sq=pfizer&st=cse

I'm going to highlight "the learning points."

"Pfizer Pays $2.3 Billion to Settle Marketing Case


By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: September 2, 2009

WASHINGTON — The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer agreed to pay $2.3 billion to settle civil and criminal allegations that it had illegally marketed its painkiller Bextra, which has been withdrawn.

....

It was the largest health care fraud settlement and the largest criminal fine of any kind ever.

....


It was Pfizer’s fourth settlement over illegal marketing activities since 2002.

“Among the factors we considered in calibrating this severe punishment was Pfizer’s recidivism,” said Michael K. Loucks, acting United States attorney for the Massachusetts district.

Amy W. Schulman, Pfizer’s general counsel, said that Pfizer had reformed — again.

....

The government charged that executives and sales representatives throughout Pfizer’s ranks planned and executed schemes to illegally market not only Bextra but also Geodon, an antipsychotic; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, which treats nerve pain. While the government said the fine was a record sum, the $2.3 billion fine amounts to less than three weeks of Pfizer’s sales.

Much of the activities cited Wednesday occurred while Pfizer was in the midst of resolving allegations that it illegally marketed Neurontin, an epilepsy drug for which the company in 2004 paid a $430 million fine and signed a corporate integrity agreement — a companywide promise to behave.

.....

“The whole culture of Pfizer is driven by sales, and if you didn’t sell drugs illegally, you were not seen as a team player,” said Mr. Kopchinski, whose personal share of the Pfizer settlement is expected to exceed $50 million. Mr. Kopchinski left Pfizer in 2003.

....

Under the agreement with the Justice Department, Pfizer will pay a $1.3 billion criminal penalty related to Bextra and $1 billion in civil fines related to other medicines. In addition, a Pfizer subsidiary, Pharmacia and Upjohn, will plead guilty to violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for its promotion of Bextra. The company has agreed to sign another corporate integrity agreement that requires senior company executives to annually certify legal compliance and mandates that Pfizer post on its Web site many of its payments to doctors.

....

Almost every major drug maker has been accused in recent years of giving kickbacks to doctors or shortchanging federal programs. Prosecutors said that they had become so alarmed by the growing criminality in the industry that they had begun increasing fines into the billions of dollars and would more vigorously prosecute doctors as well.

.....

Bextra was approved in 2001 by the Food and Drug Administration to treat arthritis and menstrual cramps. The drug was not approved for the treatment of acute pain, nor was it shown to be any more powerful than ibuprofen. But Pfizer instructed its sales representatives to tell doctors that the drug could be used to treat acute and surgical pain and at doses well above those approved, even though the drug’s dangers — which included kidney, skin and heart risks — increased with the dose, the government charged. The drug was withdrawn in 2005 because of its risks to the heart and skin.

Mr. Loucks, the prosecutor, accused Pfizer of aggressive marketing tactics.

“Among other things, Pfizer did the following: Pfizer invited doctors to consultant meetings, many in resort locations. Attendees expenses were paid; they received a fee just for being there,” he said. Such weekend getaways for doctors are still common throughout the drug and medical device industries.

Top Republican officials rarely publicized drug marketing cases or appeared during news conferences about them. Eli Lilly agreed to pay $1.4 billion over its marketing of Zyprexa, an antipsychotic, in January, before President Obama took office. The announcement was made by prosecutors in Philadelphia."

nesf

boardswalker wrote: »

Doesn't that apply to anything - even water?
Why does it need to be highlighted for CAM remedies but not pharmaceuticals?

Because in pharmaceuticals we have loads of studies down to work out what are the correct quantities while this doesn't happen for most CAM remedies.

boardswalker wrote: »

Big pharma strives to maximise profits - they like monopolies because they make far more profits when they have zero or no competition. Eliminate/discredit your competition and you can make more profits. Simple economics.

Yeah but you can still make a large profit in non-monopoly markets and they're not stupid.

"Seven Seas" the purveyor of so many different "quasi-CAM" products like ginseng etc is completely owned by Merck for instance.

boardswalker

nesf wrote: »

Because in pharmaceuticals we have loads of studies down to work out what are the correct quantities while this doesn't happen for most CAM remedies.

So as this late stage, you are prepared to rely on "studies" that in many cases have been found to be unreliable, tampered with etc. Secondly, it is accepted that many drugs are prescribed in situations for which no studies have been completed and finally, many physicians don't know what the products have been approved for.

The more I look at it, the more modern medicine is an updated form of faith healing. You have to have faith in the Studies!

nesf wrote: »

Yeah but you can still make a large profit in non-monopoly markets and they're not stupid.

That's not the point. It's all about maximising profits.
The key point is you can make larger profits in monopolies. Thats why you want to eliminate/discredit the competition. You try to have all the market to yourself. So, you do all that you can to get consumers to buy your new product instead of something that has been in use for thousands of years even if that means spreading dubious allegations about the effectiveness of the old remedy. Meanwhile, you do your best to get the patent for the active ingredient because then you'll have the market to yourself for a number of years.

I know - some people think that pharma companies are not evil. Others who have dealt with them in litigation are "alarmed at the growing criminality in the industry".

And you want me to put my total faith in their studies.

nesf

boardswalker wrote: »

So as this late stage, you are prepared to rely on "studies" that in many cases have been found to be unreliable, tampered with etc.

Have we a better system? The answer is unfortunately no. But that doesn't mean we should abandon studies.

Dim

I've noticed this discussion has diverted away from the OPs question, but I just want to put a few points across.
In my opinion a Medical Herbalist can be termed an holistic practitioner.
Graduates from CITs BSc(hon) in Herbal Science will not be practitioners of any kind, that course is aimed at producing people who can produce scientific studies on herbs and work in a pharmaceutical company. However, the masters after it is designed to teach them clinical medicine and give them the 500 clinical hours training that it takes to become a medical herbalist (to be registerd by IIMH or NIMH). Its the only course of its kind in Ireland. In the UK training is done in 3-4 year BSc(Hon) degree.
University of East London
University of Westminster
Scottish School of Herbal Medicine
each link gives a discription of what the students study on that course.
In the UK the main governing bodies are NIMH (National Institute of Medical Herbalists) and CPP (The College of Practitioners of Phytotherapy)
In Ireland IIMH are the only governing body that stipulates you must have BSc, although there are other governing bodies.

At present anyone can call themselves a "Medical Herbalist". NIMH/IIMH are trying to get this title protected and regulated synopsis document

There have been many clinical trials on individual herbs but I don't think that this does any justice to Herbal Medicine. A herbal perscription normally comes as either a tea or a tincture and generally contains more than one herb. Tincture(alcohol) to extract the fat soluble constituents and tea for the water soluble constituents. The chemical constituents in plants 'work'. This is a good book with plenty of reference to clinical trials The Constituents of Medicinal Plants - Andrew Pengelly. The question of the trials is not do the plants 'work' but does Herbal Medicine? The holistic nature of Herbal Medicine makes it unsuitable for current clinical trails. If the practice itself did not work, it would be obsolete.

I'm not going to go into the nature of Herbal Medicine or start referencing clinical trials, I just wanted to show that it is a respected profession in its own right and is not in competition with Orthodox medicine. I feel there is a time and a place for both. Comparing them in my opinion is pointless, they are two very different approaches to the same thing. I also feel that if a plant or herbal perscription could be patented, that there would be a lot more research into Herbal Medicine.

Sitric

Hi,

In response to Dim, if medicine and medical herbalism are " are two very different approaches to the same thing", surely that´s exactly why they should be compared? i.e, does one work better than the other.

And if the purpose of medical herbalism is to treat medical conditions, surely 500 clinical hours is not enough to teach anyone to diagnose, well basically anything.

I have no doubt that medical herbs are pharmacologically active, but if you study herbs for 4 or 5 years, 500 clinical hours does not teach you clinical medicine/diagnosis. If that was the case, you could take any qualified pharmacist, give them 500 clinical hours and they would be a doctor.

500 hours would be equivalent to about 2.5 months of an internship (assuming people are only working 48hrs per week)