The Pharmaceutical Industry

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Tested how? Do you mean used?

Or, perhaps Ayurvedic. I hadn't heard of it before, but the first thing that pops out when googling it is its frequent toxic heavy metal content.

I've never heard of Ayurvedic medicine having heavy metal consequences, but here is a link to the NIH page on Ayurvedic Medicine.
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/ayurveda/

and here is a link to the NIH page on Chinese Medicine.
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam/chinesemed.htm#

[Clodfobble]

I don't know how you classify things over there, but if it's been tested and must be taken "under medical supervision" then it's not the kind of thing HM is talking about. The FDA does have authority over the safety of dietary supplements, BTW, they just have less-restrictive guidelines than full-blown "drugs."

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

It's also a question of severity. When an herbal supplement fails, the result is: nothing.

How do you know? That hasn't been tested either. "Natural" doesn't mean "harmless". The only way to be sure something has no side effects is if it has no effects.

There is at least one differentiation: untested substances must put a disclaimer that the FDA has not tested it and it is "not intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent any disease."

"Wink wink, nudge nudge. But go ahead and use it for your disease anyway."

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I don't know how you classify things over there, but if it's been tested and must be taken "under medical supervision" then it's not the kind of thing HM is talking about. The FDA does have authority over the safety of dietary supplements, BTW, they just have less-restrictive guidelines than full-blown "drugs."

I won't speak for Dana, but she did say "can have a very serious impact on health if not taken carefully and under medical supervision", not "must be taken under medical supervision", which have different meanings, especially if we take "must" to mean by law.

I'm not sure how much authority the FDA has over dietary supplement safety. All I've seen is that they can verify that they actually contain the listed ingredients.

[Aliantha]

(I think this is mainly a problem with undiagnosed existing conditions).

...because people with a diagnosed existing condition such as heart disease or liver disease definitely wouldn't smoke or drink. Would they?

[DanaC]

lol well yeah.

[Clodfobble]

From here:

In October 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) was signed into law by President Clinton. Before this time, dietary supplements were subject to the same regulatory requirements as were other foods. This new law, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, created a new regulatory framework for the safety and labeling of dietary supplements.

...in the case of a new dietary ingredient... pre-market review for safety data and other information is required by law

A "new dietary ingredient" is one that meets the above definition for a "dietary ingredient" and was not sold in the U.S. in a dietary supplement before October 15, 1994.

Because dietary supplements are under the "umbrella" of foods, FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) is responsible for the agency's oversight of these products. FDA's efforts to monitor the marketplace for potential illegal products (that is, products that may be unsafe or make false or misleading claims) include obtaining information from inspections of dietary supplement manufacturers and distributors, the Internet, consumer and trade complaints, occaisional laboratory analyses of selected products, and adverse events associated with the use of supplements that are reported to the agency.

If you think you have suffered a serious harmful effect or illness from a product FDA regulates, including dietary supplements, the first thing you should do is contact or see your healthcare provider immediately. Then, you and your health care provider are encouraged to report this problem to FDA.

[sugarpop]

Yes, there are some flaws, especially the killing of endangered animals to provide ground up penis or horns, but a lot of the herbal stuff really works, and works well. I have been using different forms of alternative medicines for years, and so have many people I know. No one I know has ever had a bad effect. I'm not doubting you, I'm just saying. I have had acupuncture before, and it worked for me. I wish I could still afford it. it would be a hell of a lot better than having to take pain meds all the time. Ugh. The pain meds work well, but I know they are probably causing damage to my liver and my brain.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

a lot of the herbal stuff really works, and works well.

Cite the studies please, there are plenty that disagree with your opinion.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Cite the studies please, there are plenty that disagree with your opinion.

I am talking about MY OWN EXPERIENCE and the EXPERIENCES of people I KNOW. I am not talking about studies.

You know, the FDA came out and said weed had no medicinal benefits as well, but everyone knows that is a lie.

Why do you trust big pharma so much? I trust my own experiences. I know they don't all work, and some work for some people and not others, just like real medications. I will always try herbs and alternative things before I try medication.

Dana, I used to take a tincture that had St John's Wort in it, along with a few other ingredients, and it worked GREAT for me, better than any antidepressant I had ever taken. And there were no side effects. I'm not saying everyone should take it, but it certainly worked for me. I think pharmaceuticals have a much higher chance of doing harm than most herbals or homeopathics.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

a lot of the herbal stuff really works, and works well. I have been using different forms of alternative medicines for years, and so have many people I know. No one I know has ever had a bad effect.

Yeah, like those zinc nasal sprays to fight a new cold.

Oh, wait.

[DanaC]

Acupuncture didnt do a damn thing for me. Also, a lot of the success of alternative therapies seems difficult to replicate in scientific studies. How much of it is the medicine helping, and how much is people thinking themselves well because they believe the medicine will help?

[DanaC]

Well of course some work. Aspirin is a herbal remedy whch has been tested and now reproduced in labs. Ginger does help nausea, and was given to astronauts to assist with weightlessness sickness.


But 'herbal stuff' is a pretty wide brief. Thats like saying yeah but a lot of plants are really edible. It doesnt stop some of them being poisonous.

[Flint]

I think that accupuncture or something like that would be better than the kind of back surgeries people have done, if only in that it doesn't ƒuck you up WORSE than before.

[Clodfobble]

An NCCAM-funded study published in 2004 found that of 70 Ayurvedic remedies purchased over-the-counter (all manufactured in South Asia), 14 contained lead, mercury, and/or arsenic at levels that could be harmful. Also in 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 12 cases of lead poisoning occurring over a recent 3-year period were linked to the use of Ayurvedic medications.

That quote is from your first link, sugarpop.

[sugarpop]

OK. I only said I had never heard of it. That's why I posted the link I found. I have never personally used Ayurvedic, except teas. I have used some Chinese herbs though, and they worked quite well. I imagine anything coming from Asia might be suspect, because they don't have the same regulations. If they contained heavy metals, it must be from all the pollution over there, don't you think? So I guess some Chinese herbs might also be suspect. I have never had a problem personally.