quote:
Herbals have been around for thousands of years, pharmaceuticals haven't. Herbals have been proven through use.
The thing is, no, they haven't been proven through use.
Nothing is proven to be safe and effective through "use", just like testimonials and sales numbers don't prove things safe and effective.
Things can only really be demonstrated to be safe and effective through scientific double blind studies, so that we can control for the placebo effect and bias.
Of course, "use" and testimonials and reports of folk use, etc., can give us some very good clues towards the identification of useful natural compounds for medical use, but it is only a starting point to full understanding.
Some compounds that people have taken for centuries are quite toxic or don't work at all, and the
only reason we know this is because we tested them the exact same way we test any other drug.
quote:
Castor oil has been used for thousands of years. It has a track record.
Theraputic Touch was hailed by many professional nurses to be a great healing method, and was supported by many enthusiastic, heartfelt testimonials. Insurance companies paid for this treatment, and many hospitals offered it.
TT practitioners claimed that they could, by moving their hands back and forth several inches above the body and limbs of a person, feel and direct "human energies" to help someone heal from an illness.
A child's science fair project uncovered the truth in a well-designed double blind study; none of the TT practitioners claiming to be able to detect this "human energy field" were, in fact, able to demonstrate it under controlled conditions.
All of them were completely confident of success.
The point is, lots and lots of things have "track records", but until they undergo real, double blind, scientific testing, we have no idea if something real is going on, or if human bias or the placebo effect is occuring.
It is no mistake, PD, that when scientific testing of drugs (all kinds, including "natural" ones) and treatments became commonplace in medicine, we started to figure out which ones worked, which ones didn't,
despite what everybody thought beforehand.
That's what the scientific method is designed to do; cut through all of our wishful thinking, confirmation bias, experimenter bias, self-deception, selective thinking, communal relinforcement, ad hoc hypothesis, post hoc reasoning, and other biases and fallacies that humans are very prone to.
What you are advocating is for herbal drugs to be given some special status by which they can avoid critical, rational scrutiny just because they've been around a while and people believe they work.
Well, people believed for a long time that echinacia worked, too, but when the bright light of rational inquiry shone upon it and made it undergo the same testing methodology that other drugs undergo, we found out that it isn't effective after all, despite everybody's belief and hope that it was.
quote:
Many pharmaceuticals are based on what is believed to be the active ingredient in an herbal remedy.
No, I think that they actually have
demonstrated it through testing, and that "belief" has nothing to do with it.
quote:
They look into it because the remedy works. Once they have the active ingredient singled out they synthesize it. If you synthesize something, you have to test it to make sure it does what you think it will do or if it works as good as the original.
In many such cases, the synthetic works much better than the original does, since dosages can be precisely controlled (often impossible in "natural" form), and many side effects can be reduced or eliminated because the other "natural" compounds were the things causing the side effects.
quote:
If someone decides to study castor oil and synthesize what they believe to be the active ingredient, then they have to test it to make sure it works like the original. The synthetic would not have a track record.
Yes, you're right, but you are skipping over the key issue.
There is no evidence to suggest that castor oil applied topically has any effect at all for what people prescribe it for.
quote:
The manufacturer of willow bark extract does have to test for safety. I've shown that with links to the FDA rules.
I'm sorry, can you please show me where in this "requirement" that the manufacturers are actually required to test anything?
From the FDA's website:
FDA regulates dietary supplements under a different set of regulations than those covering "conventional" foods and drug products (prescription and Over-the-Counter). Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), the dietary supplement manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that a dietary supplement is safe before it is marketed. FDA is responsible for taking action against any unsafe dietary supplement product after it reaches the market. Generally, manufacturers do not need to register their products with FDA nor get FDA approval before producing or selling dietary supplements.* Manufacturers must make sure that product label information is truthful and not misleading.
FDA's post-marketing responsibilities include monitoring safety, e.g. voluntary dietary supplement adverse event reporting, and product information, such as labeling, claims, package inserts, and accompanying literature. The Federal Trade Commission regulates dietary supplement advertising.
All this means is that down the road they will be held responsible if they kill or injure someone. There is nothing stopping anybody from putting a dangerous product on the market. The FDA has to demonstrate it dangerous only after complaints come in, and even if the manufacturers know at any time that "adverse events" have happened, the reporting of them is purely voluntary!
That has got to be the weakest, lamest medical legislation ever.
quote:
Willow bark has a track record. If it didn't they wouldn't have made the effort to sythesize the active ingredient.
The active ingredient in willow bark, salicylic acid, also had the bad side effect of causing severe stomach pain and bleeding. The synthetic form of aspirin, acetylsalicylic acid, is a great improvement over the more "natural" willow bark, since it doesn't burn holes in one's stomch lining.
But you still haven't answered the question;
Why should we test willow bark extract any differently for safety and efficacy than synthetic acetylsalicylic acid?
Why should the
method be different for herbal drugs compared to synthetics?
Are you saying that testimonials and long traditional usage are just as trustworthy as double blind scientific trials?
If so, why?
(BTW, there is no mystery regarding how aspirin works, contrary to what you claimed earlier in this thread.
This site explains the precise biochemistry well.)
quote:
The FDA (which I have shown before) has come up with guidelines for testing and manufacturing. I've also shown that they are required to show documentation of what their labels say.
The guidelines are a joke, PD. The lobbyists wrote them, more or less.
That's the point I've been trying to make all along.
quote:
As consumer's we are at the mercy of manufacturers whether drugs, supplements, or food.
No, we are not at their mercy.
There are varying levels of regulation and protection.
With synthetic drugs and those who prescribe them to us, we have quite a high level of regulation and protection.
With foods, we have a lesser, though still rather effective level of regulation and protection.
With herbal drugs and those who prescribe them, we have pretty much no protection or regulation.
quote:
We don't really know for sure what is in any of our drugs, supplements, or food.
Huh? Sure we do.
quote:
The castor oil manufacturers say there is no ricin in the oil. Found any mention of deaths from castor oil packs?
No. Found any mention of double blind studies of castor oil packs that are effective for toxemia or epilepsy?
quote:
No nutrition can be gained from fats or oils through the skin? Do you know that for sure?
I don't know anything "for sure", but if you have any evidence that people can derive nutrition by anything laid on the skin, please provide it. I would be most interested to learn this amazing new fact of physiology.
The skin, you see, is not part of the gastrointestinal tract the last time I checked.
If this was the case, though, wouldn't all those people who slather vegetable oil-based lotions or cocoa butter on their skin get really fat?
quote:
IMO, allopathy and naturopathy need to be partners. They both have their place.
The truth is, PD, that the
stated practices and philosophy of Naturopathy is largely pseudoscientific.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2