Seems like the pharmaceutical industry has competition with alternative health, and now the pharmaceutical companies are demanding governments to ban alternative medicine.
Here is a video explaining it http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/408.html
So what do you guys think about governments banning alternative medicine?
Best Answer: Herbs and herbal treatments don't cause as great a percentage of death and serious injury as conventional medicine in the western world, however there certainly is room for improvement and the system is potentially dangerous. Proper regulation giving guarentees of the quality and safety of the product would certainly be very welcome and give quodos and legitimacy to the profession.
It is indeed a multibillion dollar industry.
In the UK there is a move toward proper regulation so that only registered herbalists do consultations and administer the herbs (currently anyone can buy them in a health food store and ask advice on how to take them from a 16 year old shop assistant on the minimum wage).In New Zealand big pharma have lobied the government and is in the process of stoping any altmed therapists or therapies advertising what they can treat unless there are substantial randomised controlled trials confirming the efficacy of the therapy or claims.In short this means that herbalists can still sell creams and lotions which people can use to treat _________ but they are not allowed to put on the label what it can be used to treat.A patient can still have a chat with the herbalist, homeopath, whatever and ask them what remedy would be good and can buy it on their advice but the practitioner would not be allowed to advertise it as being suitable for that.I'm not sure how this would affect the practice I work in as we have very little advertising and most of our business is from word of mouth. If we had a website (which we don't) we may just have to register it on a domain not using an NZ address.If this ever goes live it would be interesting to see some test cases going through the courts.
Many conventional medicines haven't had the extensive testing that some of them have and of any drug administered if it was given to a big enough group of people it is likely that a number of them would not find the drug effective for their symptoms. So by the same rational would pharma be allowed to advertise a drug as being an effective treatment for _____ if it didn't work for some of the poeple that used it?
Loading ...
7 Comments
I think they will try to pull the “herbs are dangerous” bit.
The fact is, people are just downright ignorant and closed minded when it comes to alternative health and they won’t even give it a try.
The histrionics from the Alties about “banning alternative medicine” are misinformed and over the top.
At present there is no regulation at all in this multi BILLION dollar industry. There are no standards as to who can call themselves a “healer” or an “herbalist”. There are no standards as to quality control or efficacy or safety. There is no licensing or regulatory agency to turn to if you have a bad outcome, which happens more than Alties like to admit. People working in health food and herbal shops are usually the most misinformed of all, they are just there to earn a wage or commission. (Every now and then I visit some local shops and ask for help…the advice I get is usually wrong and often frequently dangerous)
http://whatstheharm.net/
If I was taking an herbal treatment, I would like to know that it has been proven safe and effective, and that there were quality control standards so that I knew exactly what I was getting. There have been numerous cases of herbs…particularly those used in TCM and Ayurvedic medicines being contaminated with lead, cadmium and other toxic heavy metals.
No government is “banning” sCAM, but I strongly support governments setting standards, monitoring, and prosecuting those who harm people with so called “safe and natural” products.
Let’s see in just the last year companies selling herbal products have been caught:
Actually selling prescription only medication, labeling it as herbal and safe – possibly causing fatalities due to interactions.
Selling weight loss products containing ephedra, which is dangerous and illegal.
Selling herbal medications which actually contain large quantities of a kidney poison.
Selling dietary supplements that contain human placenta.
Selling dietary supplements contaminated with toxic metals.
And that’s just what I can find in a few minutes of searching. Some regulation perhaps? No one is watching these people to make sure they’re not breaking health and safety laws.
It is amazing how many people have been helped by natural meds and I think it would be awful if it were banned. Good nutrition and good knowledge of herbs goes along way. Do you ever hear anymore about Magic Johnson since he started his alternative approach after finding out he was HIV positive? Makes you wonder.
This is just lobbying by the large pharmaceutical companies. But the herbal companies can also lobby too.
Herbs and herbal treatments don’t cause as great a percentage of death and serious injury as conventional medicine in the western world, however there certainly is room for improvement and the system is potentially dangerous. Proper regulation giving guarentees of the quality and safety of the product would certainly be very welcome and give quodos and legitimacy to the profession.
It is indeed a multibillion dollar industry.
In the UK there is a move toward proper regulation so that only registered herbalists do consultations and administer the herbs (currently anyone can buy them in a health food store and ask advice on how to take them from a 16 year old shop assistant on the minimum wage).
In New Zealand big pharma have lobied the government and is in the process of stoping any altmed therapists or therapies advertising what they can treat unless there are substantial randomised controlled trials confirming the efficacy of the therapy or claims.
In short this means that herbalists can still sell creams and lotions which people can use to treat _________ but they are not allowed to put on the label what it can be used to treat.
A patient can still have a chat with the herbalist, homeopath, whatever and ask them what remedy would be good and can buy it on their advice but the practitioner would not be allowed to advertise it as being suitable for that.
I’m not sure how this would affect the practice I work in as we have very little advertising and most of our business is from word of mouth. If we had a website (which we don’t) we may just have to register it on a domain not using an NZ address.
If this ever goes live it would be interesting to see some test cases going through the courts.
Many conventional medicines haven’t had the extensive testing that some of them have and of any drug administered if it was given to a big enough group of people it is likely that a number of them would not find the drug effective for their symptoms. So by the same rational would pharma be allowed to advertise a drug as being an effective treatment for _____ if it didn’t work for some of the poeple that used it?
Pharmaceutical Companies can’t PATENT a natural substance, therefore they can’t make any money out of them. They have made synthetic products to imitate natural products, in order to make the dollars. You can’t beat a natural product. The government makes money from the pharmaceutical company, so therefore the government is trying to persuade people that natural therapies don’t work, meaning people then go to the doctor and spend money on synthetic prescription medication.