|
|
Post by mnjrutherford on May 6, 2011 4:20:26 GMT -5
All things considered, I got dealt a pretty good hand, gene-wise, and I rely on the truth that only the good die young. LOL There ya go! Takes me back to the passing of a friends grandmother. The woman was in her late 80s. Obese, horrid health, couldn't even get between her bed and her "stand me up/sit me down" chair each day without 2 people spending 30 minutes shuffling her back and forth. At her funereal my friend sobbed, "Only the good die young!" While I was pained by her sorrow I just couldn't imagine how grateful the old woman must have felt as her life slipped away in the quite of sleep. |
|
|
|
Post by robertb on May 6, 2011 4:54:33 GMT -5
I find I'm torn both ways here. On the one hand, being an unashamed European, I want to be sure people are buying safe medication, and that means the trade has to be regulated. If people want to roll their own, and poison themselves, that's OK, but if they do it to other people, even if no money changes hands, they should be liable.
On the other hand, I want traditional remedies to remain available, with safeguards. Valerian, for instance, is dangerous stuff, but people should be able to obtain tablets at a reasonable price, since it's not addictive like minor tranquillisers. Compromises were found for bee medication when it looked as though EU regulations were going to make them unobtainable except via vets, who have no training in insect health at all. I hope they can find a way round this one!
|
|
|
|
Post by steev on May 6, 2011 22:13:27 GMT -5
I quite agree. I don't know why I should be either required to use or prohibited from using whatever, but I really want to see some rigorous testing of anything being marketed as medicinal, and stringent monitoring of the contents of potions.
I don't care whether it's St John's warts, or bear balls, or Dammitall; I just think whatever it is should be known, its benefits proven, and its downside clearly noted. If its primary effects are really due to its being spiked with arsenic or lead, there should be no secrecy about that. There's too much "proprietary information" in the whole doctor thing, both medical and witch.
The only real conflict I have is that I do believe in the value of placeboes, since I do believe that much of what ails people can be effectively treated with rest and tlc, although personally I really want not to be fussed over, while nature lets me get the better of whatever is kicking my butt. Lots of liquids and some mental floss often works.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Lofthouse on May 6, 2011 22:19:23 GMT -5
I quite agree. I don't know why I should be either required to use or prohibited from using whatever, but I really want to see some rigorous testing of anything being marketed as medicinal, and stringent monitoring of the contents of potions. The question is, who should be in charge of the monitoring? I'd rather have a free market organization like "Better Homes and Gardens" or "Consumer Reports" monitoring my pills. |
|
|
|
Post by spacecase0 on May 7, 2011 1:49:23 GMT -5
bad laws need to be ignored first thing,
next, whatever made the law needs to be removed from power.
|
|
|
|
Post by steev on May 9, 2011 21:04:45 GMT -5
I'd tend to trust Consumer Reports for content and quantification stuff, but effectiveness is a more thorny problem, tending to need long, large-scale studies. I certainly don't trust big pharma to do that very disinterestedly. I'd be content to let pretty much anything be on the market, provided one could be fully informed of its components, its potential, and especially its downside. As for getting some herb from a neighbor, that's a whole different kettle of fish, and I don't have a clue whether one could regulate that, if indeed it were desireable to try.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Lofthouse on May 9, 2011 22:46:03 GMT -5
I'd tend to trust Consumer Reports for content and quantification stuff, but effectiveness is a more thorny problem, tending to need long, large-scale studies. The entire population of Homo sapiens has been doing those studies for 50,000 years (except maybe for the last few decades in some cultures). And before modern humans were around our primate kin have been doing those studies for tens of millions of years. Even my horse knows to eat the bark of a willow tree for pain relief. I don't think I have any particular talents regarding herbs, but I can often tell by eating something whether or not it helps me. Ephedra decongests me immediately. Taking too much makes it distasteful. Vitamin D is really good for me in the winter. It doesn't do anything in the summer. Potatoes are a magic food for me. Beef is just annoying. Beta carotene rich foods really help my skin. Multi-vitamins are a waste to me. B's are a waste. Turmeric begs me to eat it. I think one problem with herbs it is that we have separated the plant from the effect. We put it in a time-release capsule which then proceeds to confuse the body regarding cause and effect. When I use ephedra I chew on a stem. When I am suitably decongested I stop. The dose is thus calibrated to what my particular body needs on one particular day. |
|
|
|
Post by steev on May 10, 2011 10:49:54 GMT -5
Sounds like data-based practice to me. I agree on the problem of highly concentrated drugs, which is why I avoid them, generally.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnjrutherford on May 10, 2011 12:13:30 GMT -5
I could sure use some Ephedra! I didn't even realize it was a plant. Joseph is quite correct about millenia of study having been conducted. It has also been documented by "OLDER" (i.e., theoretically wiser) cultures. Recently, within the past 5 to 10 years I've been reading about a project that is translating the documents from the area around modern India and putting them online. I know the name of the project and how to access the database but do you think I can pull it out of my brain now? HECK no! Traditional Medicine Database, I think. This isn't what I was thinking about, but this popped up when I input TMD as a search string: www.folkmed.ucla.edu/not impressive.... I'll have to check around on this... |
|
|
|
Post by Hristo on May 16, 2011 6:57:41 GMT -5
First of all this thread is not about artificial vs. natural drugs. No one said all artificial drugs does not work (btw many of them are produced of herb extracts). The thread is about whether or not you agree with this regulation which on practice will become banning, due to very high cost for licensing (quote: However, many remedies were lost as it was only open to those who could afford the licensing process which costs between £80,000 to £120,000. that is ~ $130,000 to $195,000). I really want to see some rigorous testing This sounds very good, but on reality is not possible. Why? Because it cost a lot of money. Now, who will pay for testing of something natural, therefore something which can not be patented. Let's say I pay for the testing of species X. If it get approved not only I will have the right to sell it. How many species will be tested? Not many at all! No one forces us to use herbs. But many of them really do help for lots of the mild diseases. Now it will be harder to buy them, especially for the people living in large towns. Luckily I'm still healthy, so I do not use herbs, except when I eat them as food nor drugs, except Acetil Salicil acid (which has natural origin) and very rarely, when needed some antibiotic. But I totally disagree with any steps which make us more and more dependent on corporations/government/etc. I'm kind of surprised how many of you actually agree with this!!! |
|
|
|
Post by steev on May 16, 2011 22:05:31 GMT -5
I think we are discussing many different things on many different levels as if they were all one class. I think that's what leads us to think we disagree more than we actually do.
If one wishes to use herbs, and they are just that, it's very different from using a mixture of things, the composition of which one may not know. That's the sort of thing I think needs to be known.
If one wishes to sell drugs ( phamaceuticals ), I think regulation needs to be thorough, if only because the cost of bringing a drug to market is a motive to sell it, effective, safe, or otherwise.
Two different sorts of things, yes?
The licensing of herbs appears to be taking the path of organic certification: making the initial buy-in and continuing certification expensive enough to bar small enterprise from it. I doubt that many, if any, of us approve of that.
My own practice is generally not to use either drugs or herbs for medical reasons, as I also am largely healthy. I use herbs in cooking for their flavor and have no such use for drugs.
I think, Hristo, that we are very much in agreement.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnjrutherford on May 19, 2011 4:54:31 GMT -5
Luckily I'm still healthy, so I do not use herbs, except when I eat them as food nor drugs, except Acetil Salicil acid (which has natural origin) and very rarely, when needed some antibiotic. I cook with a lot of herbs so we won't need drugs. It has proven to be a good strategy over the past couple of years. I have been experimenting with tea made of thyme, bee balm, honey, and lemon juice during this time. My small family and I have been much "healthier" over all. The only exception is allergies, pollen type. What is "Acetil Salicil" acid? Is this some sort of over the counter (OTC) antibiotic? If yes, that is not something commonly available here in the states. However, the thyme and bee balm are what I have been using for antibiotic. |
|
bertiefox
gardener
There's always tomorrow!
Posts: 236
|
Post by bertiefox on May 19, 2011 5:12:00 GMT -5
(What is "Acetil Salicil" acid? ) It's simply the natural form of aspirin, found in willow bark and things like Meadowsweet. As somebody who takes prescribed aspirin daily as something recommended for a minor heart problem, I've often wondered if an infusion of meadow sweet a couple of times a day would do just the same, and it would be kinder on the stomach.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnjrutherford on May 19, 2011 5:24:33 GMT -5
I think it probably would Berti. But to be certain you would have to devise an experiment of some sort. Not sure how you could do that for your situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by ceara on May 23, 2011 11:40:57 GMT -5
Herbal regulations are tough because the pharmaceutical industry cannot "own" natural compounds. They want control over it all so they can isolate components of plants, recreate artificially in a laboratory, trademark/patent it and make the most profit.
A good example of this is Digitalis for heart issues. Several patented/trademarked medications originate from the humble Foxglove. A liver medication from the common artichoke. Anti-scabies medication from the Pyrethrum daisy (can also be used as a plant insecticide and available in many products from Safer's brand.)
As far as the rant over vaccinations is concerned, there is nothing wrong with the base concept of vaccinations. However, with the addition of adjuvants like Mercury, vaccines become dangerous. Mercury is a poison, and is directly injected into people, which can cause severe neurological problems. I do not want Mercury injected into my body. Do you?
|
|
