The Pharmaceutical Industry

[classicman]

Not to tail post here, but has the term "natural remedies" really been defined here?
It can mean many different things. Just saying.

[Clodfobble]

That's the point. Some people hear those words and can't help but run screaming for the hills, desperate to wash off the dirty hippie cooties.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

...
I could continue to name them, but my point is you already use and "believe in" a huge number of "natural remedies."
...
What's more, untested does not equal disproven.

I'm all for the ones that have been tested and proven. Untested doesn't mean disproven, but it does mean unproven. And if you scroll back, you'll find that my initial post on this thread was in response to "untested home remedies".

Unfortunately, the FDA doesn't regulate them, so there are still some problems. There is no differentiation on the shelves between the ones that are tested and proven, the ones that are untested, and the ones that have been tested and proven useless. So unless you've got the NIH site up on your smartphone as you go down that aisle, you can't tell.

It is all well and good to hold ourselves to a scientific ideal of broad-scale, blind testing for the effectiveness of every single remedy everyone has ever thought of. But the reality is neither the medical or the pharmaceutical companies can meet that ideal, the vast majority of the time. Economic realities taint everything.

The economic reality is that the herbal supplement industry has deliberately avoided being treated as food or drug, despite being sold as something for people to ingest, in order to avoid the requirement that their products be tested. Happily, in 2007 the FDA was given the authority to check that the products at least contain the ingredients on the label. So that's a plus. I'm not sure how homeopathy fits into that, though, as they don't contain any of the ingredient.

Originally Posted by classicman

Not to tail post here, but has the term "natural remedies" really been defined here?
It can mean many different things. Just saying.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

That's the point.

It's my point too. There's no differentiation on the "natural remedies" shelves between tested and untested remedies, or even between effective and ineffective tested products.

The normal state of the alternative medicine industry is equivalent to when the FDA system fails.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The normal state of the alternative medicine industry is equivalent to when the FDA system fails.

It's also a question of severity. When an herbal supplement fails, the result is: nothing. When a drug fails, we discover it because people are suffering severe side effects and even death. Oh, and sometimes they suffer those when the drug is working too.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

There is no differentiation on the shelves between the ones that are tested and proven, the ones that are untested, and the ones that have been tested and proven useless.

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."

[DanaC]

Well. That's not entirely the case. There are some herbal remedies which can have a very serious impact on health if not taken carefully and under medical supervision. I can't remember the name of it now, but I know there's one that can cause quite serious liver and kidney problems, if they used where an underlying problem already exists (I think this is mainly a problem with undiagnosed existing conditions).

[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."

[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.

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

And now that they've checked, what will happen to the "alternative medicines" that failed the test? I'm guessing that ginger for chemo is not a significant percentage of their business.

When Lily advertises a drug for something that studies have found it has no effect on, it is a scandal, and rightly so. It should be an even bigger scandal for the "alternative medicine" industry, for whom that is the business model. Lily could have put Zyprexa in the herbal remedy aisle with a few testimonials and they wouldn't have needed to do any testing in the first place.

Actually a lot of alternative remedies work great. Ginger DOES help nausea. I don't know if it works for chemo, but in general, it works. Pot does work for chemo though. It's really stupid that it's illegal.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by DeepOne

ex- preparation H is not best used for a headache

But apparently it works great on puffy eyes. At least that's what models say.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Because the worst practices of the medical industry, the unfortunate examples that make up the bulk of these anti-pharmaceutical news articles, are the standard practice of the alternatives. Advertising and profit are corrupting forces on the industry. But that's all there is in the alternative industry - they are the pharmaceutical industry without the clinical trials.

The fact that some clinical trials are botched is not a good reason to skip them altogether.

Chinese and Ayurvedic Medicine have been tested and proved for over 5000 years.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Well. That's not entirely the case. There are some herbal remedies which can have a very serious impact on health if not taken carefully and under medical supervision. I can't remember the name of it now, but I know there's one that can cause quite serious liver and kidney problems, if they used where an underlying problem already exists (I think this is mainly a problem with undiagnosed existing conditions).

Are you talking about ephedra, maybe? I know a few people died from it when they didn't follow directions. Like, one guy took 20-something pills within a 24 hour period, and you aren't supposed to exceed 6 or 8 in a 24 hour period. Another guy took a bunch and then went to football (or maybe it was baseball) practice in the hot sun and died.

I think sometimes people do stupid shit, and they pay the price. Should a natural plant substance be banned because some people are idiots? I think not. But there should be a severe warning on the label.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Chinese and Ayurvedic Medicine have been tested and proved for over 5000 years.

Yes. And Chinese medicine offered for the relief of eczema can have a negative impact on kidneys. Also....define proved? The jury is still very much out on acupuncture...and really, I think the less said about ground up tiger penis and rhino horn the better.