Herbal meds don't seem to work

[zultr]

This shouldn't be very surprising.

cnn story (http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/parenting/12/02/echinacea.children.ap/index.html)

[arcticpenguin]

Echinacea ineffective. There's another thread on this over in Science: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=31638

[Drooper]

I listened to a radio preogram the other morning on this topic. It was the regular tit for tat with a doctor in the studio explaining how thi#ese things fail trials and that any positive repsonse can be put down to other facotrs, chance or the placebo effect. The phone in participants all claimed how they know somebody who... etc. etc.

What was obnoxious though was the presenter who wound up preceedings with the final word. Her message to the listening world was: well, even if it is just a placebo effect it does something so it good. :rolleyes:


For those in Ireland it was Marian Funicane, what a dip stick.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Drooper

For those in Ireland it was Marian Funicane, what a dip stick.

Seconded. Funny she used to be relatively sensible but at some point her ass started doing all the talking and she was never the same again.

Graham

[Ipecac]

Rats. I was going to forward the article to my sister-in-law who gives my nephew and niece echinacea. Unfortunately, the last half of the article provides enough wiggle room for her to ignore the results. Sigh.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Graham


Funny she used to be relatively sensible but at some point her ass started doing all the talking and she was never the same again.


That quote just landed on my list of "Quotes that are too good not to steal"

I can think of lots of people that I could describe with that.

[SteveGrenard]

Irrespective of the claims for this one substance, the name of this thread is spurious: Herbal meds don't seem to work

Up until the early 1960s more than half of all the medications in the armentarium of mainstream medicine could trace their origin to plants and there are many such products in use today. Also: ethnobotanists and major pharamceutical companies are exploring the tropical forests of the world for new pharmaceutical molecules on a continuous basis.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Irrespective of the claims for this one substance, the name of this thread is spurious: Herbal meds don't seem to work

Up until the early 1960s more than half of all the medications in the armentarium of mainstream medicine could trace their origin to plants and there are many such products in use today. Also: ethnobotanists and major pharamceutical companies are exploring the tropical forests of the world for new pharmaceutical molecules on a continuous basis.

well, going out on a limb here, but I think the thread name is indicative of the whole concept that the unregulated products and bogus claims of the naturalopathy advocates are being put to the test and failing. It has nothing to do with the medicines that are plant derived and then synthasized, purified, and tested after active ingredients are found.

I'm sure you already knew that though and threw in this comment for the fun of it.

[SteveGrenard]

A more appropriate name for this thread would've been "echinacea doesn't seem to work. "

I didnt throw this comment out to be funny or to have fun. The term herbal connotes and denotes any substance derived frm plant matter. As somebody somewhere else said, one of your more revered skeptics in fact, (loosely quoted)
"don't fight the dictionary on this." You can't have it both ways.

It is disigenuous to include an entire class of substances, especially one as large as this one, as the title for a story concerning a single specific substance.

Here is CNN's title for the story:

Study: Herbal cold remedy no help to kids

Widely used echinacea also linked to skin rashes

I notice now that the original poster is new here so welcome to the forum and I am sorry if I was a bit harsh. My apologies.

[Rolfe]

Pay careful attention, this may be a one-off. (Except, to be quite honest, it isn't, Steve is perfectly rational when you get beyond the blind spots.)

Steve is, technically, quite right.

We all get sick and tired of people running around making spurious claims for herbal products, implying that "natural herbal" means safe, and generally ripping the public off. Not to mention the pots of money which get wasted running proper trials of these things, only to have them fail.

However. Extract of willow bark for a headache, anyone? Tincture of foxglove for heart disease? Yew tree for breast cancer?

The vegetable kingdom has a lot of highly pharmacoactive substances there. And sometimes this has been recognised by people who couldn't tell you what a cellular receptor is. Experience shows that the greatest usefulness is achieved when the active principle can be isolated and characterised, and often modified to increase activity while decreasing undesired effects. I'd rather have aspirin or digoxin or taxol than the native plant! And we must always remember that "natural and herbal" may very well mean seriously poisonous.

But if it weren't for the plants, the pharmaceutical industry would be a poor thing today.

Rolfe.

[epepke]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Irrespective of the claims for this one substance, the name of this thread is spurious: Herbal meds don't seem to work

Up until the early 1960s more than half of all the medications in the armentarium of mainstream medicine could trace their origin to plants and there are many such products in use today. Also: ethnobotanists and major pharamceutical companies are exploring the tropical forests of the world for new pharmaceutical molecules on a continuous basis.

Even nowadays, about 25% of mainstream pharmaceuticals, by family, have their origins in plant products.

The thing is, though, that almost none of the people who tout "herbal medicines" will count any of these products. At all.
In theoretical terms, they usually make up a story about how plants are just chock full of synchronistic health-making goodness that is just totally ruined by Phallic Medicine, that is, any attempt to find out what chemicals do the stuff. Practically, if it the pills don't have brown specks in them, and they don't come in brown bottles that say "Nature's Way" or some such and have labels with happy frolicking white and possibly vaguely brown people on them, then it ain't Herbal.

This bugs me no end, because it used to be possible to go to aging hippie granola-head stores and buy actual plant products, which I used to make root beer. But now, I ask for yellow dock or wintergreen bark or sarsaparilla and they want me to buy some damned bottle of gelcaps.

[Suezoled]

Yes, technically Steve is right. But threads are misinterprated often by posters, and I still think Steve put up his comment to be cantankerous.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Yes, technically Steve is right. But threads are misinterprated often by posters, and I still think Steve put up his comment to be cantankerous.

Hey if people didn't put up comments to be cantankerous then we'd have hardly any posts!

[Zero]

There are 'herbal remedies'(meaning the stuff they sell in health food stores) that do work...and those products have legitimate scientific research to back up the claims. Most of teh rest have been tested, been shown to have no effect, and are still being marketed. One of the dodges that the true believes use is to claim that negative results are 'inconclusive', and that until more testing is done they can assume the products work.

[zultr]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Yes, technically Steve is right. But threads are misinterprated often by posters, and I still think Steve put up his comment to be cantankerous.

Absolutely not. It's obvious that I meant to be disingenuous.

Holy crap.

[Hand Bent Spoon]

It can be dangerous to be too dissmissive of herbs. I've seen people refer to all herbs as being inert like sawdust. As if they were homeopathic.

But herbs can have real effects on the body. Marijuana, coffee, death cap mushrooms, etc. When it comes to skepticism of herbs, we just need to be careful about assuming they are completely harmless/effectless.

[zultr]

I wanted to post a link to an article. Perhaps I was in a rush and didn't title the thread appropriately. Perhaps I should have written "Herbal meds that don't seem to work." Perhaps I just wrote something to catch the eye and just assumed people would check the link and figure out what it was about for themselves. Perhaps I don't really care.

I work with the pharmaceutical industry and I'm well aware of the medical efficacy of certain plants and herbs. I guess I didn't realize that the thread title would be included in my final grade.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by zultr
This shouldn't be very surprising.

cnn story (http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/parenting/12/02/echinacea.children.ap/index.html)

What a stupifying conclusion. The CNN reports of just one study of one herb on one condition and the poster cites it as proof that all herbal substances do not work. I have a friend who smokes herbal substances for her particular medical condition and she says that particular herb works just fine. As to cold remedies, the real quarkery is in all of the "medically approved" chemical substances for colds purchased over the counter. Fact is, there is proveably far more quarkery to be found in Modern Medicine than anywhere else.

-- Rouser

[Zero]

Originally posted by Rouser2


What a stupifying conclusion. The CNN reports of just one study of one herb on one condition and the poster cites it as proof that all herbal substances do not work. I have a friend who smokes herbal substances for her particular medical condition and she says that particular herb works just fine. As to cold remedies, the real quarkery is in all of the "medically approved" chemical substances for colds purchased over the counter. Fact is, there is proveably far more quarkery to be found in Modern Medicine than anywhere else.

-- Rouser In reality, almost all the studies have shown taht almost all 'herbal remedies' are either 1) stuff modern science already knows about, in a less effective form, or 2) sour owl poop. People will say certain things work for them, but that's the the placebo effect; scientific studies don't confirm the anecdotal evidence.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Zero
In reality, almost all the studies have shown taht almost all 'herbal remedies' are either 1) stuff modern science already knows about, in a less effective form, or 2) sour owl poop. People will say certain things work for them, but that's the the placebo effect; scientific studies don't confirm the anecdotal evidence.

LOL. We have come full circle. We are zeroed out on this now. Go back and read some of the posts that oppose your statement.

[Zero]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


LOL. We have come full circle. We are zeroed out on this now. Go back and read some of the posts that oppose your statement. Anyone who opposes me is wrong. I noticed that your earlier post doesn't refute my post in the least, and in fact seems to agree with what I said...unless I am missing something?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2


Fact is, there is proveably far more quarkery to be found in Modern Medicine than anywhere else.

-- Rouser

I'd like to see you prove that, kook. Quarkery or quackery, take your pick.

[Ratman_tf]

Herbal 'medicines' are appealing because they're 'all-natural'. Well, uranium or mercury are 'all-natural' and I don't see many people gobbling that stuff down.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>I'd like to see you prove that, kook. Quarkery or quackery, take your pick.

Well, you still refuse to define quackery so why don't you tell us what you are raving about?


-- Rouser

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Well, you still refuse to define quackery so why don't you tell us what you are raving about?


-- Rouser

Raving? At least you appear to have a sense of humor. So you don't know what quackery is? You made the claim - back it up!

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox


Raving? At least you appear to have a sense of humor. So you don't know what quackery is? You made the claim - back it up!

Oh, but it is you who substitutes epithets for thinking. It is you who endorses so-called "quack lists" in place of ratiional discussion. Suffice to say, that aside for the very good work Modern Medicine seems to do in a few areas such as trauma and birth defects, as far as diseases go, much of what passes for treatment is either useless or more harmful than the disease itself. As far as "proof," is concerned there is hardly a drug or a procedure one can think of that doesn't have a very limited life span which basically consists of I. Intial acceptance II. Doubt and controversy and III. Abandonment. But as to "proof", you tell me at the very simplist level just what "Medically Approved" cold remediies, for example, "work". Of course, you can't name even one. So there is an example of your "proof" for one very common malady. But perhaps you have proof of some other more successful treatment for some other disease which does not fit the "quack" category.

-- Rouser

[epepke]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
Herbal 'medicines' are appealing because they're 'all-natural'. Well, uranium or mercury are 'all-natural' and I don't see many people gobbling that stuff down.

In Mexico, though, people still feed powdered lead to infants with colic.

(Edited to put an "e" in "lead." I don't think they grind up LEDs.)

[thaiboxerken]

Fact is, there is proveably far more quarkery to be found in Modern Medicine than anywhere else.

I doubt it. Care to provide the statistical evidence? Care to prove your proveable fact?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2

But as to "proof", you tell me at the very simplist level just what "Medically Approved" cold remediies, for example, "work". Of course, you can't name even one. So there is an example of your "proof" for one very common malady. -- Rouser

Sure I can. Virtually any OTC drug for cold symptoms works as claimed. You see, none claim to cure the common cold, they only claim to reduce and ameliorate the symptoms. And they do work.

Next...

[Aussie Thinker]

Rouser2 writes

Oh, but it is you who substitutes epithets for thinking. It is you who endorses so-called "quack lists" in place of ratiional discussion. Suffice to say, that aside for the very good work Modern Medicine seems to do in a few areas such as trauma and birth defects, as far as diseases go, much of what passes for treatment is either useless or more harmful than the disease itself.

This has to be the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.

Western Man lives to be 80 years old now not 40
He no longer dies from Smallpox, Diphtheria, Pneumonia, Tuberculosis, Bubonic Plague, Malaria, Polio etc etc… things that used to take out 40 % of the population
He now survives Heart disease and many cancers

NONE of these things relate to trauma and birth defects !

As far as "proof," is concerned there is hardly a drug or a procedure one can think of that doesn't have a very limited life span which basically consists of I. Intial acceptance II. Doubt and controversy and III. Abandonment.

You seem to think because chemists, doctors and scientists IMPROVE their medicines the old ones were “unsafe” or “useless”. That is just lunacy. The OLD ones saved millions of lives. Sometimes it is good old evolution working against us that “shelves” drugs also.. resistance and mutation etc.

But as to "proof", you tell me at the very simplist level just what "Medically Approved" cold remediies, for example, "work".

I don’t KNOW any medically approved cold remedies !! I know plenty of method of cold relief approved by medical authorities.. but none have yet claimed a cure.

Of course, you can't name even one. So there is an example of your "proof" for one very common malady. But perhaps you have proof of some other more successful treatment for some other disease which does not fit the "quack" category.

Experimental medicine is fine.. “herbal” quackery is a joke !

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
Well, uranium or mercury are 'all-natural' and I don't see many people gobbling that stuff down. Maybe not, but some years ago there was a promotion of "organic germanium". I remember seeing advertisements in chemists' shops at the time, and thinking, surely that can't mean what I think it means.

Apparently it did! Germanium as in semiconductor, organic as in compounded with carbon. Somebody decided to market it as a health food because the name sounded cuddly. A few people went into kidney failure before it was stopped.

Rolfe.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox


Sure I can. Virtually any OTC drug for cold symptoms works as claimed. You see, none claim to cure the common cold, they only claim to reduce and ameliorate the symptoms. And they do work.

Next...


They do? Name one.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker [/i]
Rouser2 writes



>>This has to be the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.

>>Western Man lives to be 80 years old now not 40
He no longer dies from Smallpox, Diphtheria, Pneumonia, Tuberculosis, Bubonic Plague, Malaria, Polio etc etc… things that used to take out 40 % of the population
He now survives Heart disease and many cancers

Western man lives longer but the attribution to the drugs and vaccines of Modern Medicine is unproven, but your own lack of any attribution of longer life spans to such things as higher living standards, improved sanitation, drinking water, food intake, etc., etc., is noteworthy.


>>You seem to think because chemists, doctors and scientists IMPROVE their medicines the old ones were “unsafe” or “useless”. That is just lunacy. The OLD ones saved millions of lives. Sometimes it is good old evolution working against us that “shelves” drugs also.. resistance and mutation etc.

I'm sure that must be true in some cases. Can you name just one shelved drug that has previously "save" millions of lives???

>>I don’t KNOW any medically approved cold remedies !! I know plenty of method of cold relief approved by medical authorities.. but none have yet claimed a cure.

I don't even know of any that give relief. Do you?


>>Experimental medicine is fine.. “herbal” quackery is a joke !

Does that include aspirin???


-- Rouser

[Ed]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Aussie Thinker [/i]
Rouser2 writes




>>You seem to think because chemists, doctors and scientists IMPROVE their medicines the old ones were “unsafe” or “useless”. That is just lunacy. The OLD ones saved millions of lives. Sometimes it is good old evolution working against us that “shelves” drugs also.. resistance and mutation etc.

I'm sure that must be true in some cases. Can you name just one shelved drug that has previously "save" millions of lives???


-- Rouser

Penicillin. Probably flu vaccine since each year's supply is "shelved" as a matter of course. I think that the point was self evident and dosen't really require a lot of research to prove it out.

[geni]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Does that include aspirin???
[/B]

The stuff you will in in aspirin is not the stuff you will find in plants. It was modified slightly.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by epepke


In Mexico, though, people still feed powdered lead to infants with colic.

(Edited to put an "e" in "lead." I don't think they grind up LEDs.)

Ew. Does that acutally do anything besides give them lead poisioning?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Maybe not, but some years ago there was a promotion of "organic germanium". I remember seeing advertisements in chemists' shops at the time, and thinking, surely that can't mean what I think it means.

Apparently it did! Germanium as in semiconductor, organic as in compounded with carbon. Somebody decided to market it as a health food because the name sounded cuddly. A few people went into kidney failure before it was stopped.

Rolfe.

'Zactly. The whole problem with herbal or homeopathic 'cures' is that people are putting things in their bodies without even a basic understanding of what the substance is or what it really does.

[Zero]

I just love the pathology of the opinion that tested, proven medicine doesn't work, but sucking on a random piece of tree bark does...what sort of childhood trauma is responsible for this?;)

Seriously, though...is there some sort of psychological disorder that makes people reject everything that has evidence to back it up, and embrace things that are pretty obviously wrong to everyone in the know? Is it an extension of some sort of teenaged rebellion?

Herbal 'remedies', by and large, don't do anything but line the pockets of the people selling them. That sure makes somebody feel better.:o

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2



They do? Name one.

-- Rouser

Pseudoephedrine for nasal congestion.

[Aussie Thinker]

The coroner here in Melbourne has just sent a case to the public prosecutor.

A couple STOPPED giving their epileptic toddler her medicine and resorted to “homeopathic” medicine and even a psychic… the child of course died !

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,8174448%255E2862,00.html

The world is full of dangerous loons.

[SteveGrenard]

So can we now conclude that Herbal meds don't seem to work except for those that do, er, seem to work:

http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/aa061403a.htm

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/10_03/chlorogen.shtml

and the following:

"Plants have been used in traditional medicine since time immemorial (Cox 1995), and even today, twenty-five per cent of all prescriptions issued in the USA contain compounds derived from them (Roberts, 1988). Our most popular analgesic, aspirin, was originally derived from species of Salix and Spiraea (Katzung, 1995) and some of the most valuable anti-cancer agents (paclitaxel and vinblastine) are derived solely from plant sources (Roberts 1988, Pezzuto 1996). In 1983, the secondary plant product market was estimated to be worth around a thousand million dollars per year (Curtin 1983), and the price of vinblastine was $1000 per gram (Curtin 1983), so there are potentially great rewards in producing these substances. The potential of genetic engineering to improve the yield of these substances from both whole plants and tissue cultures is great. However, as will be seen, there are serious obstacles to making such production economically viable." from Steve's Place (not me) More can be found at:

http://www.steve.gb.com/science/gmdrugs.html



PS: Homeopathic products are not necessarily herbal remedies ..........
in fact, unless water is plant matter and this escaped us, one can hardly see the analogy.

[thaiboxerken]

I think the big complaint here is not if herbal meds work or not.. it's the fact that we really don't know for sure which herbal meds work and which ones don't. This is because herbal meds don't need to face the same scientific scrutiny as medicine does.. for some strange reason (money).

[Paladin]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
So can we now conclude that Herbal meds don't seem to work except for those that do, er, seem to work:

http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/aa061403a.htm

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/10_03/chlorogen.shtml

and the following:

"Plants have been used in traditional medicine since time immemorial (Cox 1995), and even today, twenty-five per cent of all prescriptions issued in the USA contain compounds derived from them (Roberts, 1988). Our most popular analgesic, aspirin, was originally derived from species of Salix and Spiraea (Katzung, 1995) and some of the most valuable anti-cancer agents (paclitaxel and vinblastine) are derived solely from plant sources (Roberts 1988, Pezzuto 1996). In 1983, the secondary plant product market was estimated to be worth around a thousand million dollars per year (Curtin 1983), and the price of vinblastine was $1000 per gram (Curtin 1983), so there are potentially great rewards in producing these substances. The potential of genetic engineering to improve the yield of these substances from both whole plants and tissue cultures is great. However, as will be seen, there are serious obstacles to making such production economically viable." from Steve's Place (not me) More can be found at:

http://www.steve.gb.com/science/gmdrugs.html



PS: Homeopathic products are not necessarily herbal remedies ..........
in fact, unless water is plant matter and this escaped us, one can hardly see the analogy.
I don't think we can seriously equate compounds extracted from herbs with the herbs themselves. The former can be purified and given in controlled doses, while the latter cannot always be relied upon for purity or consistent dosage. Aspirin, for example, may have been derived from plant sources, but that doesn't make the plant source safe and efficacious. Nobody would call aspirin an herbal remedy, although willow bark would qualify as one. Likewise, the plant sources of paclitaxel and vincristine might be called herbal remedies, but paclitaxel and vincristine are in no way herbal remedies. It would be like saying that because high-octane gasoline works so well, crude oil is just as good in your gas tank.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Zero [/i]

>>Herbal 'remedies', by and large, don't do anything but line the pockets of the people selling them. That sure makes somebody feel better.


The same can be said for over the counter and prescription drugs, only most herbs are far less harmful.

-- Rouser

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Rouser2



The same can be said for over the counter and prescription drugs, only most herbs are far less harmful.

-- Rouser

Stats please.

[Paladin]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Zero [/i]

>>Herbal 'remedies', by and large, don't do anything but line the pockets of the people selling them. That sure makes somebody feel better.

The same can be said for over the counter and prescription drugs, only most herbs are far less harmful.

-- Rouser
While it's true that pharmaceutical companies are in business to make money, it's also true that herbal companies are in business to make money. The difference is that the pharmaceutical companies are legally bound to conduct thorough studies to prove efficacy and safety for the drugs they sell; while many such drugs are potentially harmful, in order to be sold it must be shown that their benefit outweighs risk. Herbal remedies are held to no similar standard of efficacy, safety, or good manufacturing processes. In some cases, such as ephedra, the herb may in fact be harmful -- but many people believe the herbal companies when they claim that herbs are inherently safe. I'd rather opt for medication that has been subjected to stringent examination for safety and efficacy, rather than an herbal remedy whose pharmacokinetics are supported by little more than old wives' tales.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Zero [/i]

>>Herbal 'remedies', by and large, don't do anything but line the pockets of the people selling them. That sure makes somebody feel better.


The same can be said for over the counter and prescription drugs, only most herbs are far less harmful.

-- Rouser

Another fictional and ludicrous statement by Rouser. All OTC and prescription drugs in the U.S. have, unlike herbal treatments, multiple well-controlled, double-blind clinical trials documenting efficacy and safety.

PS Guess I stumped you with pseudoephedrine.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Rouser2



The same can be said for over the counter and prescription drugs, only most herbs are far less harmful.

-- Rouser Ummm...herbs often have less side effects because they don't do anything at all. I'm not saying that all drugs are perfect, but unlike you I don't have a near-religious belief in certain remedies. To claim that herbs are some sort of magical cure-all is nonsense, matched only by your claims that the majority of real medicine is somehow bad for you.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>Guess I stumped you with pseudoephedrine.

Funny, years ago I took the stuff in Contac and Nyquil and such. Never did a thing for me.

-- Rouser

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Funny, years ago I took the stuff in Contac and Nyquil and such. Never did a thing for me.

-- Rouser

Funny, that's called anecdotal evidence, with an N of 1, another nonsensical argument. There are many clinical trials in the literature demonstrating a statistically significant AND clinically significant reduction in nasal congestion with this drug. A simple fact - it works.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>. All OTC and prescription drugs in the U.S. have, unlike herbal treatments, multiple well-controlled, double-blind clinical trials documenting efficacy and safety.

How reassuring. Is that why there are only over one hundred thousand deaths from prescription drugs in the US each and every year???

-- Rouser

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>. All OTC and prescription drugs in the U.S. have, unlike herbal treatments, multiple well-controlled, double-blind clinical trials documenting efficacy and safety.

How reassuring. Is that why there are only over one hundred thousand deaths from prescription drugs in the US each and every year???

-- Rouser

Stats please.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Rouser2
How reassuring. Is that why there are only over one hundred thousand deaths from prescription drugs in the US each and every year???

-- Rouser

As opposed to:

a) how many deaths would there be without prescrption drugs
b) how many deaths would there be if homeopat(et)ic "remedies" replaced prescription drugs

if the answer to a) is one more than the deaths then that's just fine. There's a heap of evidence to back up the safety and effecacy of drugs.

of course an answer to b) cannot be produced becuase there have been no large scale, properly conducted, drug trials for homeopat(et)ic "remedies"

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>. All OTC and prescription drugs in the U.S. have, unlike herbal treatments, multiple well-controlled, double-blind clinical trials documenting efficacy and safety.

How reassuring. Is that why there are only over one hundred thousand deaths from prescription drugs in the US each and every year???

-- Rouser

First you're confusing OTC with prescription drugs. Next you're running on the presumption that prescription drug complications, which are reported to make the drug safer, is any indication in comparison to herbal users, who are not obligated and (it appears) not inclined to report on their findings and their complications. If someone were to take an aspirin, one could ask:
what is its chemical structure?
What is its active ingredient?
What percent is inert ingredient?
How much is in a capsule?
What are the contraindications?
How long does it last?
How many can I take in a reasonable amount of time?
What do I do if I consume too many?

One simply cannot do that with, say, Feverfew, Goldenrod, or Thistle seed extract.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
How reassuring. Is that why there are only over one hundred thousand deaths from prescription drugs in the US each and every year???

-- Rouser

For the second time, you are correct, believe it or not. There are over 100,000 adverse reactions to prescription drugs resulting in death in the U.S. every year. The reason is that prescription drugs, unlike homeopathic "remedies" and many other alternative "treatments", have significant physiological activity in the human body. All drugs are approved on a benefit vs risk assessment, as all have risks.

So yes, the risk is 100,000 die every year, the benefit is tens of millions of lives are saved every year. Not a bad tradeoff.

[DrMatt]

Poison Ivy is a natural herb.

Natural and herbal do not make for safe, much less effective.

Willow bark, an early source of salyciates (from which aspirin evolved), is also a natural herb. Where willow bark is effective, aspirin is more effective--and it's easier to find out how much you've just taken.

Herbal substances are difficult to dose--there's no guarantee that every generation of a plant will have the same concentration of the active ingredient.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by BTox


For the second time, you are correct, believe it or not. There are over 100,000 adverse reactions to prescription drugs resulting in death in the U.S. every year. The reason is that prescription drugs, unlike homeopathic "remedies" and many other alternative "treatments", have significant physiological activity in the human body. All drugs are approved on a benefit vs risk assessment, as all have risks.

So yes, the risk is 100,000 die every year, the benefit is tens of millions of lives are saved every year. Not a bad tradeoff.

link? stats? references to look up myself, even?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Suezoled


link? stats? references to look up myself, even?

What are you looking for - the 100,000 deaths stats?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by BTox


What are you looking for - the 100,000 deaths stats?

Well, it's easier to look up 100,000 deaths than finding the other time Rouser2 was right. :p

so yes, please... those stat deaths or something I can look up myself?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Suezoled


so yes, please... those stat deaths or something I can look up myself?

This is from the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Scroll down a bit to the section titled: ADRs - Prevalence and Incidence.

fda cder adverse reactions (http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/drugReactions/default.htm)

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by BTox


This is from the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Scroll down a bit to the section titled: ADRs - Prevalence and Incidence.

fda cder adverse reactions (http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/drugReactions/default.htm)

thanks so very muchly!

[Rouser2]

[]Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>So yes, the risk is 100,000 die every year, the benefit is tens of millions of lives are saved every year. Not a bad tradeoff.


A completely unproven, and unproveable pronouncement. But here you prevously stated that prescription drugs were safe, effective, all double-blind tested and really cool.

-- Rouser

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[]Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>So yes, the risk is 100,000 die every year, the benefit is tens of millions of lives are saved every year. Not a bad tradeoff.


A completely unproven, and unproveable pronouncement. But here you prevously stated that prescription drugs were safe, effective, all double-blind tested and really cool.

-- Rouser

Not true. Read it again:
Another fictional and ludicrous statement by Rouser. All OTC and prescription drugs in the U.S. have, unlike herbal treatments, multiple well-controlled, double-blind clinical trials documenting efficacy and safety.

Unforseen circumstances occur. Foreseen circumstances are taken into consideration. FDA approved drugs are safer than unregulated herbals because of known risks and learned consequences. If you're looking for a 0 (none) or 1 (all) statement, you won't get it. If you're looking for concession that just because FDA drugs aren't 0 or 1, so it proves your case, your arguement is fallacious.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
A completely unproven, and unproveable pronouncement. But here you prevously stated that prescription drugs were safe, effective, all double-blind tested and really cool.

-- Rouser

Not at all, it's a medical fact. You don't seem to be able to understand the concept of risk vs benefit. There is no such thing as a therapeutic drug with no adverse reactions. In order for a drug to gain approval from FDA, it must be demonstrated that the benefits (i.e. lives improved, lives saved) significantly outweigh the risks (i.e. severe adverse reactions, including deaths). A very simple concept, really.

[SteveGrenard]

BoTox: Not at all, it's a medical fact. You don't seem to be able to understand the concept of risk vs benefit. There is no such thing as a therapeutic drug with no adverse reactions. In order for a drug to gain approval from FDA, it must be demonstrated that the benefits (i.e. lives improved, lives saved) significantly outweigh the risks (i.e. severe adverse reactions, including deaths). A very simple concept, really.


Reply: I absoiutely agree with you. And if you read the text underlying the numbers you would see that 100K may've died, and millions more have serious adverse reactions due to a variety of causes including medical errors, sound-alike drug name (Rx errors), dosing errors (a decimal pt in the wrong place can kill and has killed) and side effects and unanticipated negative reactions in some but not all. And your argument that there is a benefit versus risk is correct as well. What's it worth for a thousand to die when the availability of a drug saves a million or more. Of course we cannot be sure of the exact number for the risk versus benefit ratio but we surmise that there is one.

Putting aside the fact that by strict definition more than 25% of all mainstream drugs and many new ones are of plant origin, and therefore, technically herbal, are we makiing the same argument for herbal drugs only not calling them that? Are we also going to ignore the evidence provided by ethnobotanists and anthropologists that traditional medicines use innumerable effective herbs, that pharmaceutical companies are combing the rain forests looking for indigenous plants unknown to the "west" and that they are examining the molecular structure of known herbals as well as new finds?

So my question is why are we jumping up and down everytime somebody dies after taking an off the shelf herbal but not after they take an OTC aspirin? Is it okay for ephedra to kill if its made by a big name pharmaceutical company but not if its in some small packager's diet product?

[BTox]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
So my question is why are we jumping up and down everytime somebody dies after taking an off the shelf herbal but not after they take an OTC aspirin? Is it okay for ephedra to kill if its made by a big name pharmaceutical company but not if its in some small packager's diet product?

Good point. The issue for me is that herbal products in the U.S. are sold as dietary supplements, there are no warnings on possible adverse reactions as with OTC and scrip drugs. Also, they are not required to adhere to standardized quality control and purity of the "active". I believe that some herbal products have legitimate health benefits, but should be held to same standards as all other drugs.

[thaiboxerken]

I think the issue is not whether herbal meds work or not. The real issue is that herbal meds DON'T have to work in order to be sold to the public, herbal meds can be harmful, and still be sold to the public.. and herbal meds don't have to supply warnings about the side-effects or adverse reactions that may happen.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox


Not at all, it's a medical fact. You don't seem to be able to understand the concept of risk vs benefit. There is no such thing as a therapeutic drug with no adverse reactions. In order for a drug to gain approval from FDA, it must be demonstrated that the benefits (i.e. lives improved, lives saved) significantly outweigh the risks (i.e. severe adverse reactions, including deaths). A very simple concept, really.

Funny how over 100,000 adverse reaction deaths a year don't count for much with the FDA. That, of course, is the visable, seen, proveable consequence of FDA "approved" drugs. The alleged benefits of playing Russian Roulette with these drugs for the alleged diseases they treat and allegedly cure -- that is truly unseen, and is entirely speculative.

-- Rouser

[hgc]

Originally posted by Rouser2


Funny how over 100,000 adverse reaction deaths a year don't count for much with the FDA. That, of course, is the visable, seen, proveable consequence of FDA "approved" drugs. The alleged benefits of playing Russian Roulette with these drugs for the alleged diseases they treat and allegedly cure -- that is truly unseen, and is entirely speculative.

-- Rouser You aren't listening, are you? Admit it.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard [/i]


>>. What's it worth for a thousand to die when the availability of a drug saves a million or more.


Yeah, well I'd just like to know just what drug that would be.


>> Of course we cannot be sure of the exact number for the risk versus benefit ratio but we surmise that there is one.

Surmise? Yes. Modern Medicine does a whole lot of that.

-- Rouser

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2


Funny how over 100,000 adverse reaction deaths a year don't count for much with the FDA. That, of course, is the visable, seen, proveable consequence of FDA "approved" drugs. The alleged benefits of playing Russian Roulette with these drugs for the alleged diseases they treat and allegedly cure -- that is truly unseen, and is entirely speculative.

-- Rouser

This topic blows right over your head, I see. So let's see, you believe the FDA and epidemiological studies that demonstrate the 100,000 adverse reactions that lead to death, but you do not believe the same FDA, clinical trials and epidemiological studies that prove the benefits.

"Alleged diseases" - that one is priceless!

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by SteveGrenard [/i]


>>. What's it worth for a thousand to die when the availability of a drug saves a million or more.


Yeah, well I'd just like to know just what drug that would be.

Rouser

Vaccines, antibiotics, statins, just to name three classes.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by BTox


Vaccines, antibiotics, statins, just to name three classes.

OOhhhh! I'll play woo-woo on this one and give a stupid, woo-woo answer.

You don't know that those millions of vaccinated people wouldn't have gotten whatever disease they were vaccinated for if there weren't a vaccination. There, I just figured I'd predict the next stupid, woo-woo comment before it came out.

You don't know that the antibiotics actually help infections, the human body can deal with infections without added antibiotics. Am I on a roll?

It doesn't take much to be a woo-woo, just a suspension of logic, reality and intelligence.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by BTox


This is from the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Scroll down a bit to the section titled: ADRs - Prevalence and Incidence.

fda cder adverse reactions (http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/drugReactions/default.htm)

And here's some fun on how that number grew! (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/ksofdeaths.htm)

[kookbreaker]

There's some strong reaction to that "100,000" figure..even if it is only 40,000-96,000 (does that range look kinda strange to you?



Fremont-Smith K. JAMA, November 25, 1998-Vol 280, No. 20,
1741-4:

"The authors' conclusion that fatal ADRs in the United States number
approximately 106,000 annually is erroneous as applied to the present.
This number of deaths was calculated by multiplying the total number
of hospitalizations in 1994 by an incidence rate of fatal ADRs of
0.32%, based on data from all studies published since 1965. Thus,
three quarters of these data are 20 to 30 years old. The studies
published in the last 10 years report a total of only 5 ADR deaths
among 11376 hospitalized patients studied, ie, an overall incidence
of 0.04%. Using the authors' estimation of the correct total number
of hospitalizations, deaths in the United States attributable to ADRs
is approximately 13,000. According to the data cited by Lazarou et
al, ADRs are not a leading cause of death today."

Same issue Kravitz GR:

"Fully 14 of the 18 studies [cited in the Lazarou paper] were
performed prior to 1981, and I question the appropriateness of
including these 14 studies in the meta-analysis... Reanalysis of data
including only studies published since 1982 reveals that the reported
mortality is only 3 cases per 5,854 admissions (ie, a mortality rate
of 0.0005 per admission), which is only one third that of the
estimate by Lazarou et al. All the reported mortality comes from a
single study by Bates et al done on medicine wards at 2 Boston,
Mass., tertiary care teaching hospitals. Extrapolating this rate to
non-teaching hospitals, community hospitals, pediatric hospitals,
chronic care hospitals, and psychiatric hospitals and then
multiplying the rate by the number of admissions each year greatly
overestimates true mortality. For example, the 335-bed community
hospital at w practice had 23,984 medical-surgical admissions in
1997. On the estimated mortality (0.0019 per admission) by
Lazarou et al, we should have seen 46 deaths due to ADRs. Even using
my adjusted figure from studies published since 1982 (0.0005 per
admission), the expected mortality would result in 15 deaths. The
number of deaths we reported is actually less than one tenth of the
estimates of Lazarou et al... The results of the meta-analysis by
Lazarou et al deserve a reality check. Lumping together voluminous
mounds of archaic data with more recent data from a sample of
hospitalized patients and then extrapolating to entire US patient
population can lead to egregious errors... The problem of serious
ADRs should not be compounded with erroneous estimates of their
mortality. The study by Larazou et al grossly overestimates the
magnitude of this problem."


The original figure seems to be another one of the "joys of metanalysis".

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
There's some strong reaction to that "100,000" figure..even if it is only 40,000-96,000 (does that range look kinda strange to you?



The original figure seems to be another one of the "joys of metanalysis".

It's kind of like the way the 50,000 deaths of second-hand smoke number came about, eh? It's amazing what one can do to a number if one tortures it enough.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>This topic blows right over your head, I see. So let's see, you believe the FDA and epidemiological studies that demonstrate the 100,000 adverse reactions that lead to death, but you do not believe the same FDA, clinical trials and epidemiological studies that prove the benefits.

Quite true. In many, many cases I do not. Death, however, is a fairly clear-cut outcome.

>>"Alleged diseases" - that one is priceless!

Why thank-you. Priceless, but at the same time, in many cases, true.

-- Rouser

[BTox]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


It doesn't take much to be a woo-woo, just a suspension of logic, reality and intelligence.

Yes, though I would modify to say there is no intelligence to suspend. ;)

[Zero]

Note that the FDA doesn't just say 'drugs kill you, use untested herbs instead'...rather, the idea that real medicine can have adverse side affects is know, studied, and reduced as much as possible. Also note that they are not claiming that most drugs are inherently unhealthy for you. Their figures seem to show that there are multiple causes, like that combining several safe drugs can cause death, and the implied idea that some people are simply very very ill, and simply taking them off all medication could kill them at least as surely as continuing the medication.

On the 'herbal' side, you have too many people saying 'it is all natural, so there are no side effects'...which is nonsense.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2


Quite true. In many, many cases I do not. Death, however, is a fairly clear-cut outcome.

Just as clear cut as a significant reduction, or almost total elimination, of deaths due to specific diseases.


QUOTE]Originally posted by Rouser2
Why thank-you. Priceless, but at the same time, in many cases, true.

-- Rouser [/QUOTE]

"True" in the sense that fairy tales are true - at least in your mind!

[epepke]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


Ew. Does that acutally do anything besides give them lead poisioning?

No.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Ohrryp
I don't think we can seriously equate compounds extracted from herbs with the herbs themselves. The former can be purified and given in controlled doses, while the latter cannot always be relied upon for purity or consistent dosage. Aspirin, for example, may have been derived from plant sources, but that doesn't make the plant source safe and efficacious. Nobody would call aspirin an herbal remedy, although willow bark would qualify as one.

Emphasis mine.

And that's the point. Nobody calls a standard pharmaceutical product an "herbal medicine." Least of all herbalists. In fact, an herbalist will quite openly tell you that extracting the active ingredients just ruins an herbal medicine, which relies on a natural combination not present in any refined medicine.

In other words, by the definition of herbalists themselves, an herbal medicine cannot be refined without ruining it. By, again, herbalists' very own definitions, acetylsalicylic acid, digitalis, etc. are not part of herbal medicine. As herbalists have set themselves up as arbiters of herbal medicine, which seems quite natural, then I don't see any justifications to fight their definitions.

You might think I'm being picky, but these people will be very clear about, for example, the idea that ginseng derives its medicinal properties in Chinese medicine from the shape of the root. If someone discovered some useful chemical in ginseng, which might happen, then surely it would be ludicrous to say that this is because Chinese shape-based medicine works.

The fact that some plants have useful chemicals in them is great and wonderful for all sorts of uses, not only for medicine but because some of them taste really good and/or have industrial uses. But it has nothing to do with herbal medicine, as herbalists have chosen to step away from chemistry.