Not to be used to treat or cure

[Donn]

I was at the dispensary at our local chemist, waiting for a script to be filled, when I saw a box of medicine for control of stomach problems. It looked "natural" and I picked it up to look it over.
On the back, under a list of all the things it could help one with - IBS amongst them (can't recall it all) - was an asterix and the words:
"Not to be used to diagnose, treat or cure."

I thought, damn this single sentence makes this entire product a lie. It's like having a can of "paint" in a hardware store that emblazons "paint, paint, paint" all over the label but has a small line beneath saying "This product will not adhere to any surfaces."

I pointed it out to the chemist and he told me:
1. It's a legal thing.
2. It takes at least 10 years for a medicine to get properly tested and trialed and made "official" therefore many meds don't bother - they go for the "health supplement" route instead. BUT they work just fine!
3. He simply fills a demand for products that his clients want.
4. All the products like it all have to undergo a certain amount of quality control - like packaging, and high standards of cleanliness at the factories etc.

He also got a little pissy and snippy. Who was I to question the cr*p he keeps on his shelves?

I was tired and at the head of a queue and thought, I'll leave it at that. As I left the store (with my REAL medicine) I looked at all the woo-gumf they sell. I also wondered about how much stuff I use (like vitamins etc) is on the same list?

Dunno if there's a point to all this, just relating an event!

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Donn
2. It takes at least 10 years for a medicine to get properly tested and trialed and made "official" therefore many meds don't bother - they go for the "health supplement" route instead. BUT they work just fine!Ask your chemist how he could possibly know that "they work just fine" if they've never been "properly tested".

[Jas]

I'm appalled at the number of pharmacists who promote crap.

Case in point: In our neighborhood, a large drugstore chain moved in. This was vigorously opposed by the community as there was a small, family owned drugstore that had been there since the sixties. Wonderful place, they knew your name when you walked in, and were quite nice people in general. City Hall ended up siding with the large drugstore chain, who built an awful steel and glass monstrosity directly across the street. There was a neighborhood boycott which ensued.

The nice neighborhood drugstore, on the other hand, in order to compete, became this 'alternative' health drugstore. Along with selling 'proper' medications, their shelves were crammed with homeopathic remedies, shark's cartilage, greens+, books on how diet can cure autism, etc. I stopped going altogether.

They've since gone out of business, but I can't help but think they would have done better if they hadn't tossed out all their ethics and subscribed to all sorts of 'woo' nonsense. Granted, I think they were kind of between a rock and a hard place. But there are an awful lot of pharmacists out there who actively promote 'alternative' medicine, without any evidence for its effectiveness.

[Donn]

If you ask me, all doctors and chemists should be obliged to visit the jref and quackwatch sites at least once a month - in order to keep their licences!!

It astounds me how the information on these sites (and others) does not penetrate through to the people on the front-lines.
How can so many doctors (you should see the magazines in the waiting rooms...) and chemists turn a blind eye?

[El Greco]

The disclaimer "Not to be used to diagnose, treat or cure" is there for a reason. The fact that a lot of crappy products also use it doesn't make it any less useful. Food has a lot of effects on people, some of which are beneficial. Take oily fish for example, with their omega-3 content. We know from epidemiologic studies that consumption of oily fish helps with some diseases. However we can't put labels on sardines "it lowers your cholesterol" because 1) the omega-3 content is not standardized and 2) it is a food. Even in products where the content is standardized (like cod liver oil) we still need studies before we can use it as a drug. But meanwhile we can't ignore the epidemiologic data: Salmon oil eg, has been prescribed by MDs as anti-cholesterol treatment for ages and the aforementioned disclaimer was right there on all salmon oil products. Once studies have been conducted, the exact same product may be licensed as a drug with indications, side-effects etc.

The same thing happens now with plant sterols. We know they lower cholesterol and lots of studies have been conducted yet the disclaimer has to be there because this is a food and not a drug.

Saying that *all* supplements collectively have no effect is as woo as saying that quack supplements work as advertised.

[Donn]

Originally posted by El Greco
The disclaimer "Not to be used to diagnose, treat or cure" is there for a reason. The fact that a lot of crappy products also use it doesn't make it any less useful. Food has a lot of effects on people, some of which are beneficial.

I'll take it as read that you know more than I do on this subject - I don't even know what "epidemiologic" means! however the packaging on this item was making all kinds of statements about what it could do for the buyer. I can't recall them all, but the impression was that if you take these pills you will no longer suffer from IBS or acid or pain in the stomach etc.
Also, it was in a chemist - not a grocer - and not for sale as food.

Salmon oil eg, has been prescribed by MDs as anti-cholesterol treatment for ages and the aforementioned disclaimer was right there on all salmon oil products. Once studies have been conducted, the exact same product may be licensed as a drug with indications, side-effects etc.
If Salmon oil is so potent and has been for ages, why has it not made it into the lists of real drugs?
Just wondering how many other "foods" should be classified as "drugs" too.

Saying that *all* supplements collectively have no effect is as woo as saying that quack supplements work as advertised.
But how to know what to trust and what not to? If the supplements that work are indistinguishable from the woo stuff, then how will a person know?

The chemist said to me, "If I suggest this (holds a bottle of meds up) to you, you will take it." He meant (I think) that he stands-by the stuff he sells in the store: Salmon oil as well as homeopathic water.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Donn
however the packaging on this item was making all kinds of statements about what it could do for the buyer. I can't recall them all, but the impression was that if you take these pills you will no longer suffer from IBS or acid or pain in the stomach etc.

That's highly unfortunate and it should stop, but alas, it will not. The whole world market is based on false advertising. For starters, all "slimming" products (including "light" foods), most cosmetics and most exercise machines should radically change or completely stop their advertising. Many of them should also stop production completely.

Originally posted by Donn
Also, it was in a chemist - not a grocer - and not for sale as food.

That's unfortunate too, but it's still how things are. Don't think that any pharmacist, chemist, doctor etc. has been trained in all stuff and has the ability to tell what works and what doesn't.


Originally posted by Donn
If Salmon oil is so potent and has been for ages, why has it not made it into the lists of real drugs?

It has

Originally posted by Donn
Just wondering how many other "foods" should be classified as "drugs" too.

It depends on what we mean by "drugs". If we are to include all substances that have a pharmacological effect on humans, then pretty much every food should be a "drug". This is not possible of course, so what we use as criteria are the potency (effective / lethal dose), the frequency of side effects, how many studies have been conducted and how conclusive they are, etc.

Originally posted by Donn
But how to know what to trust and what not to? If the supplements that work are indistinguishable from the woo stuff, then how will a person know?

When you go and buy some meat that's full of saturated fat or some potato chips full of trans fatty acids there's nobody there to stop you, right ? Yet we already know that these things are harmful, at least when taken in excess. The same with beneficial stuff: Fiber can help with constipation but you will (hopefully) never see 'regulated' cabbage. This is the way things are. Some things help you and others harm you and yet they will never be regulated.

The best thing you can do is educate yourself. If that is not possible, then consult a legitimate nutritionist. Contrary to what most people believe, doctors and pharmacists know very little about supplements and nutrition. Last time I checked there weren't any nutrition courses in most medical or pharmacy schools, at least not obligatory ones. They certainly have the background on biochemistry and physiology that enables them to study nutrition, but extremely few do. A nutritionist with a degree will 9 times out of 10 give you much better info on supplements and food than the average doctor or pharmacist will.

Originally posted by Donn
The chemist said to me, "If I suggest this (holds a bottle of meds up) to you, you will take it." He meant (I think) that he stands-by the stuff he sells in the store: Salmon oil as well as homeopathic water.

That's true, but his incompetence doesn't make all the supplements he sells worthless.

[Donn]

Gotcha. Buyer Beware, et al.