# "Alternative" Therapies



## Julia (14 June 2009)

> One in six Australians visit a complementary therapist as their primary health carer but experts fear many do so without being aware of the possible risks.
> 
> University of Queensland researcher Jon Wardle is calling for the registration of complementary medicine therapists to make it safer for people to consult a naturopath.
> 
> ...



- "The Sunday Mail" 14 June 2009


I support Mr Wardle's concerns and likewise feel testing should be carried out on the extraordinary range of 'natural' products on the shelves of pharmacies and health food shops.

Whilst medically prescribed drugs have to undergo extensive clinical trials and then approval by the FDA in America and the TGA in Australia, manufacturers of various plant et al products can be sold without any testing or approval process whatsoever.

Moreover, often we hear someone on a radio talkback programme saying to a naturopath "can you suggest something for my high blood pressure.  I don't like taking drugs".  Then the naturopath makes some suggestion but rarely adds the advice that before stopping any prescribed medicine, the patient should consult their doctor.

I've heard some really dangerous advice offered by people who are let loose on the trusting general public but who - as pointed out in the item above - have at best dubious experience and qualifications.

Do you visit naturopaths and/or homeopaths?  Is this your first choice over a conventional GP?   Why?

Or do you avoid these people and trust the medical profession?


----------



## Soft Dough (14 June 2009)

I think that naturopaths should not be able to prescribe anything that has not been proven to work.

RCT at minimum, published in a reputable journal.

There are a few very good natural products,

but a vast majority are no doubt as effective as placebo.  There is also risk involved for no potential benefit.

And don't get me started on homeopathy.... aaarrrrgh.

just FYI regarding homeopathy :

Physicist Robert L. Park, former executive director of the American Physical Society, has noted that
“ 	since the least amount of a substance in a solution is one molecule, a 30C solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water. This would require a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth."


----------



## Sunder (14 June 2009)

Julia said:


> Do you visit naturopaths and/or homeopaths?  Is this your first choice over a conventional GP?   Why?
> 
> Or do you avoid these people and trust the medical profession?




Never have, and never will. There are just way too many scams and quacks out there, to pick out the tiny elements of truth. I'm not saying naturopathy doesn't work. Most drugs are derived from plants. But when someone tells you that a little electric current and soaking your feet in salt water can remove parasites from your body, they go in the discredited bin.

...  Yeah, I'd like to see the hole left in your foot as tape worm tries to bore through your legs to get out you foot.

That said, right now, my right hand is in a basin of salt water, because I've found soaking it in there for 20-30 mins a night is almost as effective as class III steroid cream, and you can only use such strong steroid cream for 4-6 weeks at a time. (Neither cures ezcema, but both seem to reduce inflamation and scaling)


----------



## Naked shorts (14 June 2009)

It is in a GP's best interests to make his patients better. He doesn't get money from selling products. The whole "natural" industry is a scam which is targeted at uneducated people who don't know any better.

http://whatstheharm.net/ 
^ this is a good site that goes into some of the details of what these "alternatives" can do to you.


----------



## Aussiest (15 June 2009)

Julia said:


> Do you visit naturopaths and/or homeopaths?  Is this your first choice over a conventional GP?   Why?
> 
> Or do you avoid these people and trust the medical profession?




I've never really "got" homeopathy, but anyway...

It would depend on the ailment. I think naturepaths are good for general wellbeing issues, such as health/energy levels, stress etc. or, even weight issues. But, if it came to cancer or likewise, i wouldn't be consulting a naturepath. I would put my trust in conventional medicine as it has been proven with some certainty time and time again what is likely to work.

Alternative therapies, traditional medicine - there are going to be good and bad practioners in each. I've heard that Doctors get kickbacks from some of the medications they prescribe. Although that is heresay, it makes you wonder.


----------



## bowman (15 June 2009)

There's an awful lot of quackery and junk science out there, that's for sure.

However western medicine tends to focus on finding cures for illnesses - many of which are a direct result of the 'modern' lifestyle. 

Prevention is often the domain of the alternative crowd and that's where you're most likely to find the better ideas on health and nutrition, but again you need to wade through the commercially driven junk to get to the good stuff, and that can be a time consuming task.


----------



## gav (15 June 2009)

Naked shorts said:


> It is in a GP's best interests to make his patients better. He doesn't get money from selling products. The whole "natural" industry is a scam which is targeted at uneducated people who don't know any better.
> 
> http://whatstheharm.net/
> ^ this is a good site that goes into some of the details of what these "alternatives" can do to you.




Actually, GP's *DO *get kickbacks for prescribing drugs, whether it be in the form of money, holidays, etc.  I have a friend who is a sales rep for a drug company which I will not name.  Her job is to go around to Pharmacist's, GP's and doctor's and convince them to sell her companies drugs.  They receive many incentives, and even get extra incentives for meeting a certain quota. 

My g/f is a qualified naturopath (Bach of Sci, Naturopathy) and *is* registered, however she no longer works in the industry.  The amount of clients she used to have that would come in complaining about side affects from drugs prescribed from GP's were unbelievable - GP's prescribe far too easily.  The most common was for blood pressure related medication.  NOT ONE GP recommended for the patient to commence aerobic activity, which is one of the most favorable resolutions for lowering high blood pressure.  My g/f seen more than 20 ppl for blood pressure related problems last year, only one needed to go back on medication prescribed by their GP.  Aerobic activity, and supplementing with magnesium and hawthorn berry was all she advised (as well as having their blood pressure checked regularly).  No longer are those people dependent on drugs.

However one thing that worries me is that in some areas of the USA, naturopaths are allowed prescribe hormone replacement therapies.  This is concerning because the majority of naturopaths do not have enough training in the area.  But then again, it is no different to GP's prescribing hormone and thyroid medication, when they do not have the proper training to do so either.  When getting a blood test for thyroid and/or testosterone, a GP will simply request an overall thyroid count and total testosterone count.  NEITHER OF THESE give the full picture and can lead to a wrong diagnosis.

Unfortunately a relative of mine was diagnosed with over active thyroid.  Even though multiple blood tests from different GP's came back fine, it wasn't until he seen a specialist that the problem was discovered.  By then he had lost 15KG in less than a month, and was skinny to begin with.  The specialist recommended INJECTING RADIATION to kill off part of the thyroid   But they killed off too much.  Now he has an under active thyroid and has put on over 45KG.  Unfortunately, this cannot be reversed.

I do not understand why people will use drugs or even have operations, when there are less invasive options.  If those options don't work (and they don't work in every situation), then go and take the drug or have the operation.  

I find it strange that people are complaining about the need for naturopaths to be registered, when Australia allows people like Doctor Death in QLD to practice.  And another doctor in QLD (cant recall his name) has been found guilty of many sexual assault charges, has served his time and is now allowed to practice again!  If you are seeing a naturopath and concerned about their qualifications, simply ask them to provide proof they are registered with the The Australian Naturopathic Practitioners Association, or the Australian Traditional Medicine Society.  If they can't, then there is a possibility they are not appropriately qualified, and you should go elsewhere.

My post is not intended to be against doctors or GP's, as there are good and bad, just as there are good and bad naturopaths.


----------



## Naked shorts (15 June 2009)

Gav,

I haven't had many prescriptions, but the ones I have had have been for a particular drug, not a particular brand of drug. When at the chemist I get to choose if I would like a "cheaper alternative" because I choose the brand, not the doctor.

I will however take your comments on board as I have no doubt there are some dodgy GP's out there.


----------



## Sunder (15 June 2009)

gav said:


> I do not understand why people will use drugs or even have operations, when there are less invasive options.  If those options don't work (and they don't work in every situation), then go and take the drug or have the operation.




Most of the time because they DON'T work. People want to get rid of their ailment, not be human trials. 



gav said:


> I find it strange that people are complaining about the need for naturopaths to be registered, when Australia allows people like Doctor Death in QLD to practice.  And another doctor in QLD (cant recall his name) has been found guilty of many sexual assault charges, has served his time and is now allowed to practice again!  If you are seeing a naturopath and concerned about their qualifications, simply ask them to provide proof they are registered with the The Australian Naturopathic Practitioners Association, or the Australian Traditional Medicine Society.  If they can't, then there is a possibility they are not appropriately qualified, and you should go elsewhere.
> 
> My post is not intended to be against doctors or GP's, as there are good and bad, just as there are good and bad naturopaths.




The problem is there are good and bad GPs, but the medicine is regulated and has solid research, meaning the medicine is mostly good. There are good and bad naturopaths, but the advice is untested and unregulated, meaning the advice is mostly bad. 

Imagine: If a heavily regulated and scrutinised industry can get the odd bad egg - how many bad eggs are there in a unregulated unscrutinised industry?


----------



## gav (15 June 2009)

Naked shorts said:


> Gav,
> 
> I haven't had many prescriptions, but the ones I have had have been for a particular drug, not a particular brand of drug. When at the chemist I get to choose if I would like a "cheaper alternative" because I choose the brand, not the doctor.
> 
> I will however take your comments on board as I have no doubt there are some dodgy GP's out there.




Unfortunately there are dodgy professionals in all industries.  I haven't needed to see a doctor in quite some time, but if required I'd choose the cheaper brand also.


----------



## gav (15 June 2009)

Sunder said:


> Most of the time because they DON'T work. People want to get rid of their ailment, not be human trials.
> 
> The problem is there are good and bad GPs, but the medicine is regulated and has solid research, meaning the medicine is mostly good. There are good and bad naturopaths, but the advice is untested and unregulated, meaning the advice is mostly bad.
> 
> Imagine: If a heavily regulated and scrutinised industry can get the odd bad egg - how many bad eggs are there in a unregulated unscrutinised industry?




If a naturopath is registered with the associations I listed, they have adequate formal formal qualifications,  and HAVE INSURANCE.  If they didn't work most of the time, didn't help people with their ailments, used humans as trials, didn't have solid research (as you put it), then how the hell could they get insurance?? 

There are many areas of alternative medicines that I do not understand, mainly because I have not had the training.  But that does not mean I would dismiss them.  Homeopathy is one area, and I've debated this many times with my partner.  My argument was that any benefit from homeopathy was from a placebo affect.  But that argument is thrown out the window when I have seen homeopathy (and many other alternative medicines) work on pets.  How does this work when a pet clearly doesn't know they are taking something to treat an ailment?

I totally agree that the industry should be regulated, and registration with the appropriate associations and insurance be made compulsory.  The only ones who will suffer are those who do not have the appropriate qualifications.


----------



## Julia (15 June 2009)

Sunder said:


> Imagine: If a heavily regulated and scrutinised industry can get the odd bad egg - how many bad eggs are there in a unregulated unscrutinised industry?



This is really relevant and one of the things that concerns me.



gav said:


> Actually, GP's *DO *get kickbacks for prescribing drugs, whether it be in the form of money, holidays, etc.  I have a friend who is a sales rep for a drug company which I will not name.  Her job is to go around to Pharmacist's, GP's and doctor's and convince them to sell her companies drugs.  They receive many incentives, and even get extra incentives for meeting a certain quota.



Could you clarify here whether you are suggesting the drug rep gets the incentives for meeting a quota, or the doctor for prescribing a quota?
And if it's the rep, then clarify what you mean by 'meeting a quota':
i.e. do you mean the number of doctors she sees or the volume of drug which goes out of the company's warehouse in her area?





> My g/f is a qualified naturopath (Bach of Sci, Naturopathy) and *is* registered, however she no longer works in the industry.  The amount of clients she used to have that would come in complaining about side affects from drugs prescribed from GP's were unbelievable - GP's prescribe far too easily.



I agree that most GP's prescribe too readily.  It's pressure of time which is a pity.

Re your g/f seeing so many unhappy clients, you have to bear in mind that she's only seeing those who have had unsatisfactory results from conventional medicine, or - more likely imo - those who for their own reasons are predisposed against conventional medicine, i.e. those who automatically distrust something which is "a drug" compared to what they think is pure and beautiful because it contains various plant materials.

Good that your g/f has a Bach Science.  Where does the naturopathic qualification come from?   Presumably either  The Australian Naturopathic Practitioners Association, or the Australian Traditional Medicine Society?

Who sets the standards of education for either/both these organisations? 

I could set up, say, "The Australian Association of Nutritional Wellness", devise a bit of education in nutrition, invite students to undertake my course (at a fee of course), and when they have passed it, confer on them the qualification "Member of the Australian Assn of Nutritional Wellness, Hons."
Wouldn't necessarily mean squat, but will appeal hugely to those who are into 'natural therapies'.

Now, Gav, I'm sure your g/f is well educated and I'm not having a go at you or her in any personal sense.

I just don't see - unless the industry is regulated by the TGA as is the medical industry - that the public can reasonably have confidence in either the practitioners or their products.




> The most common was for blood pressure related medication.  NOT ONE GP recommended for the patient to commence aerobic activity,



How big is the sample here?   Not one out of how many?



> which is one of the most favorable resolutions for lowering high blood pressure.



Agree, along with weight reduction.



> My g/f seen more than 20 ppl for blood pressure related problems last year, only one needed to go back on medication prescribed by their GP.  Aerobic activity, and supplementing with magnesium and hawthorn berry was all she advised (as well as having their blood pressure checked regularly).  No longer are those people dependent on drugs.



20 people over a whole year is not exactly a large number!  A GP would be likely to see possibly 20 people in a day with BP related problems, certainly more than 20 in a week.
What's the role of magnesium and hawthorn berry in reducing BP?





> However one thing that worries me is that in some areas of the USA, naturopaths are allowed prescribe hormone replacement therapies.  This is concerning because the majority of naturopaths do not have enough training in the area.  But then again, it is no different to GP's prescribing hormone and thyroid medication, when they do not have the proper training to do so either.  When getting a blood test for thyroid and/or testosterone, a GP will simply request an overall thyroid count and total testosterone count.  NEITHER OF THESE give the full picture and can lead to a wrong diagnosis.
> 
> Unfortunately a relative of mine was diagnosed with over active thyroid.  Even though multiple blood tests from different GP's came back fine, it wasn't until he seen a specialist that the problem was discovered.  By then he had lost 15KG in less than a month, and was skinny to begin with.  The specialist recommended INJECTING RADIATION to kill off part of the thyroid   But they killed off too much.  Now he has an under active thyroid and has put on over 45KG.  Unfortunately, this cannot be reversed.



You describe one case.   GP's successfully diagnose and treat thyroid problems all the time.  I have an underactive thyroid which is easily managed with medication.  So do many people.




> I do not understand why people will use drugs or even have operations, when there are less invasive options.  If those options don't work (and they don't work in every situation), then go and take the drug or have the operation.



You're quite naturally expressing your own view, Gav, and I respect that.
But most people prefer to take the advice of a registered medical doctor in an industry that is properly regulated and to use medication that has been through rigorous clinical trials before being approved for release.




> I find it strange that people are complaining about the need for naturopaths to be registered, when Australia allows people like Doctor Death in QLD to practice.  And another doctor in QLD (cant recall his name) has been found guilty of many sexual assault charges, has served his time and is now allowed to practice again!



Now that is just a silly comparison.  You have two dysfunctional individuals who have been dealt with by the system.  Pity, of course, they were not sorted out before they did so much damage.  Queensland Health are too busy covering up all their stuff ups to actually respond to patient complaints.

The pathological behaviour of two doctors has no relationship to the whole body of natural therapists being required to be regulated and held accountable.




> If you are seeing a naturopath and concerned about their qualifications, simply ask them to provide proof they are registered with the The Australian Naturopathic Practitioners Association, or the Australian Traditional Medicine Society.  If they can't, then there is a possibility they are not appropriately qualified, and you should go elsewhere.



As above, neither of these registrations would reassure me.


----------



## Sunder (15 June 2009)

gav said:


> If a naturopath is registered with the associations I listed, they have adequate formal formal qualifications,  and HAVE INSURANCE.  If they didn't work most of the time, didn't help people with their ailments, used humans as trials, didn't have solid research (as you put it), then how the hell could they get insurance??




I managed to get professional indemnity insurance for $300 a year. They didn't ask me whether I had a degree, industry certifications, or whether I had been fired for incompetence in the past. Just "What industry do you work in" and "How would you like to pay for this"?

Also another thing to think about:

If you were just feeling mildly unwell, and you believed in alternative medicine, you'd probably give it a go right?

But if you were feeling majorly sick, and all you could think of was getting something to ease the pain, would you go to a naturopath?

So, your G/F's clients could have had minor, temporary ailments such as stress or too much coffee raising blood pressure, and the placebo effect in conjuction with time, could mean they never needed anything more than some reassurance and a more active lifestyle.

However, someone who is suffering fainting and is at risk of imminent heart attack... Do you see them going to naturopaths? I do - they get in the news a couple time a year - usually in the coroner's report.


----------



## gav (15 June 2009)

Julia, my responses are in bold



Julia said:


> Could you clarify here whether you are suggesting the drug rep gets the incentives for meeting a quota, or the doctor for prescribing a quota?
> And if it's the rep, then clarify what you mean by 'meeting a quota':
> i.e. do you mean the number of doctors she sees or the volume of drug which goes out of the company's warehouse in her area?
> 
> ...


----------



## gav (15 June 2009)

Sunder, my points in bold.



Sunder said:


> I managed to get professional indemnity insurance for $300 a year. They didn't ask me whether I had a degree, industry certifications, or whether I had been fired for incompetence in the past. Just "What industry do you work in" and "How would you like to pay for this"?
> 
> *As a naturopath you cannot get insurance unless you have the appropriate qualification.*
> 
> ...


----------



## gav (15 June 2009)

Julia, please disregard my second point in bold.  It should read:

"My g/f did her Bach of Science at the Southern School of Natural Medicine, not an organisation connected to the registration, but I understand the point you are making. Once an organisation offers a Degree, it is subject to government regulation and strict requirements that must be adhered to."

As I said in my first post, I have nothing against drugs or GP's.  However I believe the majority are misinformed when it comes to alternative therapies.  There are good and bad in every industry, and this industry needs to be regulated too, as unfortunately the reputation of the good ones is being tarnished by the bad ones.

The pharmaceutical industry also requires tougher regulation.


----------



## gfresh (15 June 2009)

This was in the news recently. Raises some further issues to that discussed above. 



> A couple whose baby daughter died after they treated her with homeopathic remedies instead of conventional medicine have been found guilty of manslaughter.




http://www.smh.com.au/national/pare...ver-daughters-eczema-death-20090605-bxvx.html


----------



## Julia (15 June 2009)

gav said:


> Julia, my responses are in bold






gav said:


> Julia, please disregard my second point in bold.  It should read:
> 
> "My g/f did her Bach of Science at the Southern School of Natural Medicine, not an organisation connected to the registration, but I understand the point you are making. Once an organisation offers a Degree, it is subject to government regulation and strict requirements that must be adhered to."



Well, thank you for clarifying that.  With all due respect to your g/f, I would not at all be impressed or reassured by a qualification from the "Southern School of Natural Medicine".   

I elaborated on this point in my example of how easy it would be so set up an "Institute of Nutritional Wellness" or whatever you would like to call it.

Government regulation?   In what form?   How does this work and how does it provide protection for the consumer?


----------



## Julia (15 June 2009)

> Obviously my friend the sales rep receives incentives when she convinces businesses to buy her companies drugs - thats how working in sales is.



So she sells to pharmacies and wholesalers?   I'm sure you're not suggesting any pharmaceutical rep actually sells their product direct to doctors???



> But the pharmacists, GP's and other doctors also get the kickbacks and incentives for recommending/prescribing certain drugs from that company, and get even more if the meet a certain quota.



So can you be more clear about this?   Most pharmaceutical reps will give doctors pads and pens e.g. and sponsor 'educational events' but I think you are misrepresenting the situation if you are actually suggesting doctors receive some tangible benefit if they prescribe a company's products.

Please clarify the 'quota' suggestion above :  i.e. to whom does this apply?



> I am not surprised this happens, but I am surprised as to how much trust people put in GP's. I drive almost 3 hours to see a GP I trust.



Interesting that you do actually see a GP.


----------



## Julia (15 June 2009)

No one has commented on whether they do or would buy some of the 'natural' products which line the shelves of pharmacies and health food shops, also supermarkets.   Anyone?

One of the few natural products that has actually been subjected to proper clinical trials is glucosamine.  Following the unsuccessful use of vet prescribed products for a dodgy elbow joint in my dog, I've used this in combination with chondroitin very successfully.  

Might be other similar natural products which work well?


----------



## Sunder (15 June 2009)

Well, the only products I use from health food stores and pharmacies are:

1. Creatine monohydrate
2. Whey protein
3. Multi-vitamins
4. Celtic Sea salt (to treat eczema when I am on the "off" cycle for steroid creams)

None of them are really organic. I suppose since the sea salt isn't refined, it could be called natural. 

If I am coming down with a cold, I may use Garlic tablets. They are high in Zinc and other minerals required when your immune system is stressed. 

If the cold gets worse though, I let nature take its course with plenty of fully organic water, and natural bed rest. Or if I have unavoidable commitments, I suppress symptoms with psuedo ephedrine, because natural organic ephedrine from ephedra is illegal.  

Okay, I'm just stirring the pot now.


----------



## gav (16 June 2009)

Julia said:


> Well, thank you for clarifying that.  With all due respect to your g/f, I would not at all be impressed or reassured by a qualification from the "Southern School of Natural Medicine".
> 
> I elaborated on this point in my example of how easy it would be so set up an "Institute of Nutritional Wellness" or whatever you would like to call it.
> 
> Government regulation?   In what form?   How does this work and how does it provide protection for the consumer?




Her qualification is a Bachelor of Health Science Naturopathy from the Southern School of Natural Therapies which took 4yrs full time to complete.  To receive this title it has to meet the same requirements as any other Bachelor of Science, from any Australian university or college.  To dismiss this particular degree, then you may as well dismiss every other Bachelor of Science too.  To set up your own organisation and Bachelor of Science Naturopathy, you would need to follow the same procedures as you would  for a Bachelor of Medicine or Chemistry.

The Southern School of Natural Therapies complies with the following government regulated acts: 
• Copyright Act 
• Disability Services Act 
• Education and Training Reform Act 2006
• Equal Opportunity Act 
• Health Professions Registration Act 2005 
• Higher Education Support Act 2003
• Occupational Health & Safety Act 
• Privacy Act 
• Private Security Act 
• Victorian Registration & Qualifications Authority - VRQA 
• Vocational Education and Training Act 
• Workplace Relations Act 

Feel free to call the Southern School of Natural Therapies on (03) 9415 3333 if you wish to further discuss the matter with them.


----------



## gav (16 June 2009)

Julia said:


> So can you be more clear about this?   Most pharmaceutical reps will give doctors pads and pens e.g. and sponsor 'educational events' but I think you are misrepresenting the situation if you are actually suggesting doctors receive some tangible benefit if they prescribe a company's products.
> 
> Please clarify the 'quota' suggestion above :  i.e. to whom does this apply?
> 
> Interesting that you do actually see a GP.




Julia, if you wish to believe that the multi billion pharmaceutical industry operates in an ethical manner and do not want to believe pharmacists and doctors receive benefits for prescribing certain drugs or a company's products, that is your choice.

Despite regulations, pharmaceutical corruption is rife world wide, as explained in this article: http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/research/drug2a.html

Google pharmaceutical corruption.  

Why do you find it interesting that I actually see a GP?  If I have an ailment that requires the attention of my GP, I will go see him.  I will also ask many questions as to anything that is prescribed.  In general I do not trust the majority of GP's as I do not believe their training to be adequate.  As I stated earlier, I travel almost 3hrs to see a GP I trust.


----------



## Julia (16 June 2009)

Gav, thanks for responses.

I don't at all dismiss corruption in the pharmaceutical industry, having worked in it for 12 years.  Not all companies are unethical.  I left two before I found one that was absolutely ethical in all ways.

I pursued the point of "kickbacks", though, because I think you are possibly unreasonably painting responsible doctors as naive or venal enough to be influenced by drug representatives.   I never met one who wouldn't question a dubious claim, or who would not seek endorsement of info from a drug company from an independent source before prescribing, at least until they had determined the integrity of the rep.

There's a very interesting book "Bad Science" by Ben someone (sorry, forget surname).  He's a doctor who has looked into the pharmaceutical and natural products in detail over many years.

One of the simplest means of cleaning up a lot of what's currently not reported, he suggests, would be to have a complete Register of Clinical Trials (unbelievably something which doesn't currently exist), where all the details re method etc would have to be entered at the start, and the results recorded.

Presently anyone can simply discard an unsuccessful trial.  So it's possible to have say six trials showing a drug/product does not work as anticipated, simply dump these, and present one trial which shows the product to be effective.


----------



## Prospector (16 June 2009)

Naked shorts said:


> It is in a GP's best interests to make his patients better. He doesn't get money from selling products. .



Um, the drug industry provides lots of incentives for Doctors to prescribe 'their' drugs.  I have a friend who is a medical specialist who regularly takes off on Business Class trips to exotic locations for 'conferences'; all paid for by drug companies.

When you go into the GP practice next time, just have a look at how much branding is in their office.  And that is the obvious stuff.

As for Alternative therapies, I think if you can sort the obvious quackery stuff from the rest, then it is certainly worthwhile exploring.  But like all things in life, moderation is the key.


----------



## freddy2 (16 June 2009)

Most "alternative" therapies and some "traditional" therapies work via the placebo effect. Many times the best treatment is to do nothing, however when people go to see a doctor/naturopath they expect something to be done and aren't happy to just let the body heal itself. This is why there is an over-prescription of antibiotics when not justified (eg for viral infections).

So I guess it's OK as long as alternative therapies don't do harm and don't stop people from getting traditional medical care that does work.


----------



## gav (16 June 2009)

Hi Julia,

I apologise for assuming you did not believe there is corruption in the pharmaceutical industry.  You would know a lot more about it than I, considering you worked in the industry so long.  As for doctors receiving kickbacks for prescribing a particular type of drug or companies drug, I am only stating what I have been told by sales rep for a pharmaceuticals company.  I have not personally witnessed this.


----------



## gav (16 June 2009)

freddy2 said:


> *Most* "alternative" therapies and some "traditional" therapies work via the placebo effect.




There may be some that have a placebo affect, but do you have evidence that proves that this is the case for "most"?  Which alternative and traditional therapies are you referring to?


----------



## Sunder (16 June 2009)

gav said:


> There may be some that have a placebo affect, but do you have evidence that proves that this is the case for "most"?  Which alternative and traditional therapies are you referring to?




Shouldn't the onus be the other way around? Alternative medicines should be able to prove that their treatments work, not skeptics prove that they don't.

If they were truly effective, why haven't they been incorporated into mainstream medicine? Let me guess, there's no patent on plants...


----------



## Julia (16 June 2009)

Prospector said:


> Um, the drug industry provides lots of incentives for Doctors to prescribe 'their' drugs.  I have a friend who is a medical specialist who regularly takes off on Business Class trips to exotic locations for 'conferences'; all paid for by drug companies.



Prospector, your friend has the choice to refuse to accept this travel.

Your placing quotes around 'conferences' suggests you don't believe these events are in fact of any educational/scientific value.

All of those in which I've been involved have brought a visiting speaker/expert in a given field and many doctors, including specialists, are pleased to have the opportunity to engage in discussions in their field of interest.

Yes, of course, the company will probably make a drug which has an application in that field - they're running a business after all - but it's always entirely up to any doctor whether they (a) wish to participate, and (b) want to accept or reject any material that is offered to them.

Re branding in doctors' offices, my GP has none and I don't think he's all that unusual.
Any doctor can refuse to see drug reps.

I've acknowledged dodgy marketing practices in some companies, but don't believe most doctors lack the intelligence to see through this.  To suggest they are the puppets of the pharmaceutical industry is imo to do a considerable disservice to the medical profession.


----------



## Julia (16 June 2009)

gav said:


> Hi Julia,
> 
> I apologise for assuming you did not believe there is corruption in the pharmaceutical industry.  You would know a lot more about it than I, considering you worked in the industry so long.  As for doctors receiving kickbacks for prescribing a particular type of drug or companies drug, I am only stating what I have been told by sales rep for a pharmaceuticals company.  I have not personally witnessed this.



No apology necessary, gav, but thank you.

I'm only attempting to dispel the impression that 'kickbacks' - an expression which implies material gain - motivate the medical profession in their prescribing habits.  

And having also managed a medical practice, we had no problem with accepting some literature from companies.  Often they produce genuinely useful material, e.g. general nutrition and calorie information which are helpful to patients.


----------



## Soft Dough (16 June 2009)

Naked shorts said:


> Gav,
> 
> I haven't had many prescriptions, but the ones I have had have been for a particular drug, not a particular brand of drug. When at the chemist I get to choose if I would like a "cheaper alternative" because I choose the brand, not the doctor.
> 
> I will however take your comments on board as I have no doubt there are some dodgy GP's out there.




And the pharmacist loves it too, with kickbacks from the generic companies worth usually a minimum of 30% up to 70%.

ie your cholesterol tablet might cost you $32, but in reality the cost is $80 to the government, the pharmacist pays $30 for the pack and profits $50 for a single dispensing which takes approximately 2 minutes to fill.

I have posted on ASF before that the government could save a lot of money by cracking down on this..... but the pharmacy guild has politicians scared, and consumers hoodwinked.


----------



## gav (16 June 2009)

Sunder said:


> Shouldn't the onus be the other way around? Alternative medicines should be able to prove that their treatments work, not skeptics prove that they don't.
> 
> If they were truly effective, why haven't they been incorporated into mainstream medicine? Let me guess, there's no patent on plants...




I totally agree, alternative medicines should be able to prove their treatments work.  It is illegal to claim therapeutic value and not be TGA listed.  Although unfortunately, this is not policed very well.  But you still have not answered my question.  Where is the evidence to support your claim that "most" therapies do not work? 

It is worse in the USA, you can claim what you like when selling something.  It isn't until the FDA investigate a product and deem that it does not meet claims that it is taken off the market.  

It is not just alternative medicines that require regulation, the pharmaceutical/drug industry requires much tougher regulations, as Julia mentioned earlier...



Julia said:


> One of the simplest means of cleaning up a lot of what's currently not reported, he suggests, would be to have a complete Register of Clinical Trials (unbelievably something which doesn't currently exist), where all the details re method etc would have to be entered at the start, and the results recorded.
> 
> Presently anyone can simply discard an unsuccessful trial. So it's possible to have say six trials showing a drug/product does not work as anticipated, simply dump these, and present one trial which shows the product to be effective.




It is disgraceful that drug companies are allowed act in such a way.


----------



## Naked shorts (16 June 2009)

Well this thread has certainly been an eye opener, I'm glad I joined in


----------



## gav (16 June 2009)

Naked shorts said:


> Well this thread has certainly been an eye opener, I'm glad I joined in




Did you end up buying creatine? :


----------



## gav (16 June 2009)

Julia said:


> No one has commented on whether they do or would buy some of the 'natural' products which line the shelves of pharmacies and health food shops, also supermarkets.   Anyone?
> 
> One of the few natural products that has actually been subjected to proper clinical trials is glucosamine.  Following the unsuccessful use of vet prescribed products for a dodgy elbow joint in my dog, I've used this in combination with chondroitin very successfully.
> 
> Might be other similar natural products which work well?




I use the following every day:
- Multi-vitamin (which consists of 11 tablets)
- Liquid fish oil (10ml per day)
- Whey protein
- Creatine monohydrate
- Garlic, horseradish, vitamin c combination (for sinus problems)

I use the following at less regular intervals:
- Probiotic (I take 1 per day for 1 month, then have 2 months off)
- Milk thistle (same as above - 1 month on, 2 months off)
- Glutamine, vitamin c, echinecea (when I have a cold)


----------



## Naked shorts (16 June 2009)

gav said:


> Did you end up buying creatine? :




haha yep, got a kilo of "brox wild bull" from MrSupplement 
Was glad i got your advice as I would have been completely ripped off otherwise


----------



## Julia (16 June 2009)

gav said:


> I totally agree, alternative medicines should be able to prove their treatments work.  It is illegal to claim therapeutic value and not be TGA listed.



Gav, I don't think this is correct.  All the TGA does, as far as I know (and Soft Dough may be able to comment further on this) is offer verification that the ingredients quoted on the label are in fact in the product.  I understand this is ascertained via random audits.

But what the TGA does not do, and what is so rigidly required of prescription medicines, is ensure proof is provided that *the alternative medicines actually do what they claim to do*.

   This is the basis of my criticism of the alternative medicine industry:  i.e. they can make any claim they like (which undoubtedly sells their products) but are not required to demonstrate this via properly constituted clinical trials.

Ditto anyone can set up a business as, say, a "Natural Medicine Therapist", call themselves whatever they like, and no one is going to question this.

So I can advertise myself as an expert in alternative therapies, make up some bottles of mixtures of plants from my garden, and run a business of consulting in natural therapies.   No law against it.  No one checking what I'm doing.  And probably plenty of customers who for reasons only known to themselves, distrust conventional medicine.




> It is worse in the USA, you can claim what you like when selling something.  It isn't until the FDA investigate a product and deem that it does not meet claims that it is taken off the market.



Well if it is in fact different here, I'd like to see the relevant legislation.
I also doubt that the FDA do check the efficacy of products in the U.S.
To do so they would have to run clinical trials, and as far as I know the FDA isn't into that!




> It is not just alternative medicines that require regulation, the pharmaceutical/drug industry requires much tougher regulations, as Julia mentioned earlier...



What I mentioned was the advisability of a Register of all Clinical Trials so that ALL results have to be recorded publicly.

The natural medicines industry wouldn't have much to put in this Register, would they, considering they don't routinely do any trials before slamming their products onto the market.

In comparison, the medical industry is well and truly regulated!





> It is disgraceful that drug companies are allowed act in such a way.



Not as disgraceful as the fact that 'alternative' companies don't have to provide any proof of efficacy whatsoever!
At least drugs available to be prescribed have actually submitted data to the TGA re their efficacy, and it's then up to the TGA to approve them for prescription to the public.

I would be happy if the 'alternative' industry simply had to do the same.


----------



## gav (16 June 2009)

Julia said:


> Not as disgraceful as the fact that 'alternative' companies don't have to provide any proof of efficacy whatsoever!
> At least drugs available to be prescribed have actually submitted data to the TGA re their efficacy, and it's then up to the TGA to approve them for prescription to the public.
> 
> I would be happy if the 'alternative' industry simply had to do the same.




So you'd be happy if the "alternative" companies were also able to throw out 5 unsuccessful trials and presented the one and only effective trial?   I would hope that regulation was tougher than that.  Julia, I've mentioned several times that I also believe alternative medicines should be regulated, as do many leading natural practitioners such as Mr Wardle in the article you provided in the first post.  

Would there be alternative medicines that did not get TGA approval?  Yes, I'm sure there would be.  But if regulation were to happen, I personally believe the pharmaceutical companies would suffer.  As those proven natural therapies would directly compete against drugs as legitimate medicines, and there would be no unqualified people able to prescribe these or call themselves a 'naturopath'.  There would also be pressure to make them PBS listed.  

The other possible negative for the drug companies is one that Sunder previously mentioned.  You cannot patent a plant.  Drug companies often isolate a constituent from a herb or plant and patent it.  If that plant was proven to be effective at treating an ailment, then there would be no benefit for a drug company to put a patient on that constituent.


----------



## Sunder (17 June 2009)

gav said:


> The other possible negative for the drug companies is one that Sunder previously mentioned.  You cannot patent a plant.  Drug companies often isolate a constituent from a herb or plant and patent it.  If that plant was proven to be effective at treating an ailment, then there would be no benefit for a drug company to put a patient on that constituent.




Here's an interesting one, especially in light of cold and flu season.

Lactoferrin has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be an effective anti-viral, anti-bacterial compound. The great thing? It's found in milk! Both human milk and cow's milk.

Now I'm sure a "natural" method to consume this would be to consume whole milk, because purifying it into a patentable compound would somehow strip it of its value and add side effects and other things right? The problem is, depending on studies, you need 200mg to 8g per day to be effective. To get 1g, you'd need to drink about 20 litres of milk. 

Now... Is the issue that they can't patent milk, or the issue that lactoferrin is useless in it's natural form? 

I was reading a bit more on the "philosophy" of naturopathy last night, and one sentence that struck me was the belief that the body was self healing, and we just need to provide it the right support. It made me think of once again, the tiny element of truth in a very dangerous lie. 

For example, I saw one case where a naturopath recommended a child go off amoxillin and use garlic and honey as a natural anti-biotic. Now, I stated above that I use garlic to strengthen the immune system during colds. I know that garlic has a lot of zinc and magnesium, which are required for proper immune system function. I know that honey is a natural TOPICAL anti-bacterial, but its effectiveness as an ingested one is questionable. There's your truth.

The lie is the child was so badly infected and their immune system compromised, that the body was beyond self healing and required external intervention. The child died. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all naturopaths are incompetent and using naturopathy will kill people. There are plenty of cases of deaths in care from incompetent doctors, honest mistakes and simply unavoidable situations. However, naturopathy is NOT medicine and should not be classed as an "alternative" medicine.

If naturopathy and many of the so called other alternative medicines were regulated to put signs up that say "We can assist you in maintaining a healthy lifestyle, which may reduce the incidence of illness or injury, but are not doctors and cannot treat any specific illness or injury", I would be happy.


----------



## Soft Dough (17 June 2009)

gav said:


> So you'd be happy if the "alternative" companies were also able to throw out 5 unsuccessful trials and presented the one and only effective trial?




Do you really think this happens?   

1. Other competitors would love nothing more than to disprove a competitor's product.

2. It would open the floodgates of litigation, which they are not prepared to do.

It is called peer review, and it is an excellent checkpoint. Safety data is analysed by FDA etc.

Please tell me, where has any safety analysis been performed on "natural" products, as well as quality control ... oh and any studies on efficacy?

I know which one I'd prefer to trust wrt safety and efficacy.


----------



## gav (17 June 2009)

Soft Dough said:


> Do you really think this happens?




Do you really need to ask?  Whether I believe it happens or not is irrelevant, the fact is that *can* happen because there is no Register of Clinical Trials.



Soft Dough said:


> Please tell me, where has any safety analysis been performed on "natural" products, as well as quality control ... oh and any studies on efficacy?




Soft Dough, if you bothered to read my posts properly I have stated several times that I believe natural products should be highly regulated.  I am also saying that the regulation for pharmaceutical products in not strict enough.

Oh, and for a natural product to be TGA approved (and it needs to be TGA approved to sell it and claim theraputic value), it IS tested for safety and quality.

This is straight from the TGA website:

http://www.tga.gov.au/docs/html/medregs.htm#apply

"Medicines used to treat serious conditions, or which need to be used under a doctor's supervision, are subjected to a high level of scrutiny and evaluation to determine their quality, safety and efficacy.

Other products, for example many complementary medicines (such as herbal, vitamin and mineral products), are not generally subject to the same level of evaluation and *are assessed only for quality and safety*."

I left the first paragraph in there because this shows that medicines used to treat serious conditions are subject to a higher level of scrutiny (and so they should be).  However I don't believe this "higher level" is good enough, for reasons already stated.


----------



## Julia (17 June 2009)

Soft Dough said:


> Do you really think this happens?



In an earlier post I quoted the book "Bad Science" by Dr Ben Goldacre.
(I think he also has a website.)

I found it an enlightening read, even after many years of exposure to various aspects of the medical industry.

His suggestion that there should be one overall Register of Clinical Trials makes complete sense to me.   

Do you not believe that a company will bury a trial which shows their product in a poor light?   I can tell you for sure that there are companies which have no compunction whatsoever in doing this.   Or alternatively, change the method and/or data while the trial is in progress, until they get a result that says what they want.

Gav, re TGA testing for quality *and efficacy* in 'natural' medicines which are intended for treating *serious illness*, I wouldn't have thought there would be too many of these.  Do you have any examples?

I have heard a professor of medicine say categorically that there are no natural products which are comprehensively tested for *effectiveness* by the TGA.  He did say they are checked for assurance they contain whatever substance they claim.  This imo has nothing to do with their necessarily being effective.  I notice on some that I've picked up and looked at that they usually say something like "May assist in the relief of....
......." etc.

Btw, it's a bit unfortunate that you seem to be the only person on this thread with your point of view.  Don't mean to be, um, picking on you.


----------



## aussiepipe (18 June 2009)

Hi,

Here is my point of view as a user of 'alternative' medicines. We use mainly supplements and vitamins but we don't use a naturopath. 

Like most decisions in life we need to weigh the costs and benefits and using a doctor or medication is no different. The body is a complex thing and I don't believe 'a' doctor has all the answers. Natural medicines have been used for thousands of years before pharmaceutical drugs came along. But this does not mean I discount drugs because they are relatively new nor should I discount natural remedies because they have not been declared safe set by some govt organisation. There are many examples over the years where these tested safe drugs eg Vioxx have caused many people harm. 

I think it is quite easy to argue both sides about misinformation, greed and harm caused by big pharma and the alternative medicine industries. I believe both are needed in our society. For in our family we have needed both. If we didn't have drugs our child's seizures they would not be under control. The costs to the benefit of controlling the seizures is sleeping in till 10 am and its very diffficult trying to get to school if at all possible. However if we didn't follow natural remedies they would not be walking or using the limited speech that they have today. Mainstream medicine told us there was nothing we could do. I have numerous examples of natural therapies working in our family. Basically our approach is to weigh up each individual case on its merits and go from there. For the seizures we started the drugs straight away as we believed it was the best and safest option. However for things like viruses, busted ear drums etc we have used natural medicines.

Whether the 'alternative' medicines should be regulated or not I think comes down to your point of view on governmental control. I think the government controls too much of our lives and taken personal responsibility away. I started reading the Storm thread and people were saying how the clients were foolish and should take responsibility for what has happened. I am not saying people are being foolish by just believing a doctor but we should take more responsibility for our health. We look down at someone who just believes what a financial adviser tells them but it is ok for us to believe the doctor because he/she is all knowing. We do all this research in our investments but don't for our health which I believe is more important than our wealth. 

My view is obviously based on my experience and can understand how others believe there should be more regulation. My child has had stomach issues all their life and this causes many issues eg bloated stomach and can't digest food. We have tried 4 different drugs to no effect but through digestive enzymes and recently another type of enzyme the bloating and other issues has gone. Both of these products are banned from being sold in Aust. for no good apparent reason so we get them sent from NZ or the States. They are naturally occuring enzymes in plants.

I know this doesn't follow the last few posts about research etc but I thought i would give a different view of the issue.

Cheers


----------



## Prospector (18 June 2009)

Not exactly related to the use of Alternative Therapies, although perhaps suggesting a lack of due care in some of these practices, there was a terrible accident yesterday in Adelaide.  A mother was attending a Therapy place having a massage and her 21 month old child was playing underneath the lounge the mum was on. The lounge was being lowered when it crashed to the floor, instantly killing the child.  (Am I allowed to say how sad that is without Dhukka coming in with his usual line - not that I seem him as he in on ignore)

Just the day before the Therapy place's owner had been named in a Parliamentary commission as making fraudulent claims about being able to cure cancer through massage.


----------



## Soft Dough (18 June 2009)

gav said:


> Do you really need to ask?  Whether I believe it happens or not is irrelevant, the fact is that *can* happen because there is no Register of Clinical Trials.




point taken,

but the published trials would be highly scrutinised by competitors and regulators, and they would see sources of bias, and neglect in addressing confounders.


wrt the claims of natural medicines being approved.

1. There aren't many ( for a start check Aust L and Aust R ) as many are registered as food supplements
2. Many are used out of indication.

The problem is not only that the products need to be registered more thoroughly, but also that the people selling them need better ethical standards and training ( and need to be able to read a journal article and find the real answers in it )



gav said:


> Soft Dough, if you bothered to read my posts properly I have stated several times that I believe natural products should be highly regulated.  I am also saying that the regulation for pharmaceutical products in not strict enough.




I did.  I just pointed out that I would prefer 1 trial with proof ( and even as if you suggest 5 are hidden ) as opposed to ZERO and a lot of suspicious practices.


Sorry if I am very sceptical of natural health and procedures of some of the people who sell it, but I actually work in health, and see what is going on, read medical journals, and natural health journals and can tell you, there are a lot of false claims that the uneducated believe.



Julia said:


> Do you not believe that a company will bury a trial which shows their product in a poor light?   I can tell you for sure that there are companies which have no compunction whatsoever in doing this.   Or alternatively, change the method and/or data while the trial is in progress, until they get a result that says what they want.




Sure, but then a competitor only has to replicate a poor trial once stuff all the research.  This is in the competitor's best interests.

It very very very rarely happens.


----------



## gav (18 June 2009)

Julia said:


> I have heard a professor of medicine say categorically that there are no natural products which are comprehensively tested for *effectiveness* by the TGA.  He did say they are checked for assurance they contain whatever substance they claim.  This imo has nothing to do with their necessarily being effective.  I notice on some that I've picked up and looked at that they usually say something like "May assist in the relief of....
> ......." etc.
> 
> Btw, it's a bit unfortunate that you seem to be the only person on this thread with your point of view.  Don't mean to be, um, picking on you.




The natural products tested by TGA are tested for quality (they contain what they say they contain) and safety.  I stated this in my last post, which is quoted directly from the TGA website.

My views are not that different to yours Julia, and I know you are not picking on me.  It's been a healthy discussion and I've learnt quite a bit from it.  We both believe that natural products require regulation and that pharmaceutical products require tougher regulation.  

The only opinions I have a gripe with are those that completely dismiss alternative medicine, claiming the vast majority is 'placebo'.  If this were true, the qualified practitioners of alternative medicine would not be calling for regulation, as Mr Wardle does in the article in the first post of this thread.



Soft Dough said:


> Sorry if I am very sceptical of natural health and procedures of some of the people who sell it, but I actually work in health, and see what is going on, read medical journals, and natural health journals and can tell you, there are a lot of false claims that the uneducated believe.




Point taken, but the same can be said about those uneducated in their finances believing Storm financial planners, a point which Aussiepipe raised.  We are quick to slam people for not taking responsibility for their own finances and trusting a Storm financial planner... So why can't people take responsibility for their own health, instead of trusting a doctor because he/she is all knowing?


----------



## Soft Dough (18 June 2009)

gav said:


> So why can't people take responsibility for their own health, instead of trusting a doctor because he/she is all knowing?




I guess you are not a doctor then.

medicine is a very difficult course, it is usually 10-12 years of training until you are fully registered, the education and experience is phenomenal. 

There is no incentive like storm to go past the boundaries, in fact most doctors that I have worked with are very conservative.

Naturopaths and homeopaths on the other hand undergo no selection criteria, questionable training standards ( albiet I have also known some very skilled naturopaths who were extremely knowledgable ) and once again are regarded as a viable alternative to someone with 12 years of intense training and variety of experience and knowledge.  But if the magic works for ya...


----------



## gav (18 June 2009)

Soft Dough said:


> There is no incentive like storm to go past the boundaries, in fact most doctors that I have worked with are very conservative.




Except when it comes to handing out prescriptions...


----------



## Soft Dough (18 June 2009)

gav said:


> Except when it comes to handing out prescriptions...




whatever.. 

Tell you what. 

How about you do an experiment. 

Go to the doctor, tell them that you have high cholesterol, high blood pressure and are feeling a "bit down".

See what you get prescribed.

Go to a naturopath tell them that you have high cholesterol, high blood pressure and are feeling a "bit down".

I bet they try to sell you $300 worth of placebos, do little or no tests and have no idea what tests to do anyway.

The doctor, will test you before giving any medications, that's what they do.


----------



## noco (18 June 2009)

Julia said:


> In an earlier post I quoted the book "Bad Science" by Dr Ben Goldacre.
> (I think he also has a website.)
> 
> I found it an enlightening read, even after many years of exposure to various aspects of the medical industry.
> ...




Hi Julia, have noted your comment "May assist in the relief of.........
That has to be stated on these natural alternatives to protect the supplier from litigation if it does not work.
Some things work for one but not others due to imo the genes we inherit.
Some homosexuals can be exposed to HIV/AIDS and never get it. 

Some people develope cancer and can conquer it where others can't.

Some people can be exposed to ASBESTOS but never developes into ASBESTOSIS or MELOTHEMIOMA (Ithink that is the way they spell it ).

I was exposed to lots of asbestos in the late 1940's and have carried PLURAL PLAQUES around my lungs for my whole life.

However, during to  a routine X-ray in August 1998, it was revealed I had developed a HISTYISOTOMA the size of a can of coke which was attached to my heart and left lung.

Having had this growth removed in the open heart surgery fashion which was attached to my heart and left lung, my surgeon informed me three days later that this growth was malignant and I had less than five years to live. Nobody in the medical profession would dare suggest it may have been caused from asbestos, although in the USA evidence has been produced referring to tumors developing outside the lung. I applied for compensation, but was informed that if I had survived more than 40 years, I had little chance of success.

I went a radium course for six weeks as suggested by the medicos which they stated "MAY  help eliminate the cancer dregs". However, some two weeks before I started the radium treatment and during this treatment, my daughter who has been in the Pharmacy business for 32 years, strongly recommended I take three capsules of SHARK FIN CARTLEGE  every day. On the 4th,5th and 6th week of radium, my oncology Doctor kept asking me could  I swallow because the radium "cooks the asophalis" ( may be not the correct spelling) anyway its the tube that takes food from the mouth to the stomach, to which I replied in the affimative. He could not understand untill I told him I was taking SHARK FIN CARTEGE.

Following my radium treatment, I read a book written by Mr. Ron Gellatley N.D. "How to fight Prostrate Cancer and WIN", so I decided to give his treatment a go because the medicos could not gaurantee the radium treatment being successful.

His treatment was the use of a formulae named 'LAC-TO-MAX'. now called MAXIFERRIN. This formulae is made up of :-

*Lactoferrin from the first week's milk of a cow after having given birth.
*Collustorm ditto ditto.
*Bovine cartlege which is 9 times stronger than shark fin cartlege.
*Cats claw herb from South America.

Combining the ingredients with a high Beta Cerutone diet (carrots) and lots of Vitamin "c", he bought his PSA down from 125 to .5 in 6 months after being told he had less tha 6 months to live. The theory behind all this is the combination cuts down the blood supply to cancer cells and increases your imune system.

I took this formulae for ten years and after my sheduled 5 year clearance from my oncology doctor, he stated he was watching another growth forming below my collar bones and above the one that had been removed. He could not understand  why it had disappeared in the period 2 years after radium treatment. I informed him of the treatment I had learned from Ron Gellatley and  whilst he was  unaware and a little sceptical of my success, he nevertheless said, if you have faith in something by all means do it.

I must also confess at this point in time, that I had practised YOGA for some years of which incompasses meditation. If one has the right state of mind it can help.

Julia, whilst this may have worked for me, it may not have the same result for someone else. Hence the statement we so often read on alternative treatments, "IT MAY ASSIST IN THE RELIEF OF............. 

Hope you find this of interest.


----------



## robots (18 June 2009)

hello,

perhaps some people might like to inform ASF members where pharmaceuticals originate from and how they are "farmed"

you can get penicillin on your orange

thankyou
associate professor robots


----------



## gav (18 June 2009)

Soft Dough said:


> whatever..
> 
> Tell you what.
> 
> ...




LOL touchy subject?  In fact judging from your reply, you may want to go check your own blood pressure :

You may get someone try to sell you placebos and not do any tests if you seen someone who was not qualified (which is why the industry needs to be regulated), however if you seen my g/f when she was practicing she would have asked you to provide evidence for your high cholesterol (test or letter from doctor) before prescribing what she believed was best (I have no idea what she'd prescribe).  As for the blood pressure, she can test that herself (and yes she IS qualified to do that).  Depending on the client's circumstances the first thing she'd recommend aerobic activity, and maybe a magnesium supplement and/or hawthorn berry supplement - unlike the many GP's whom her clients have come from who end up with side effects from blood pressure meds without even being recommended aerobic activity...


----------



## IFocus (18 June 2009)

A friend earlier this year was diagnosed with Non Hodgkins. He was pretty much on his death bed no platels etc 

He had everyone come out of the woodwork offering natural remedies etc.

The Fremantle Hospital staff told him to ignore everything and follow their treatment and advice.  

He did and hes back at work looking and feeling like a million dollars..........nice to know a good story for a change seems many around me falling over with some insidious cancer.......


----------



## gav (18 June 2009)

Soft Dough said:


> medicine is a very difficult course, it is usually 10-12 years of training until you are fully registered, the education and experience is phenomenal.




Unfortunately their years of training and experience mean little if they prescribe something that has had insufficient testing.  You may argue that alternative medicines have not had any testing for efficacy, and I agree with this.  However, for prescibed drugs to be recalled shows they have had initally had insufficient testing, and should not have been prescribed in the first place.  Unfortunately it is costing people their health, and often their lives.


----------



## Soft Dough (18 June 2009)

gav said:


> LOL touchy subject?  In fact judging from your reply, you may want to go check your own blood pressure :
> 
> You may get someone try to sell you placebos and not do any tests if you seen someone who was not qualified (which is why the industry needs to be regulated), however if you seen my g/f when she was practicing she would have asked you to provide evidence for your high cholesterol (test or letter from doctor) before prescribing what she believed was best (I have no idea what she'd prescribe).  As for the blood pressure, she can test that herself (and yes she IS qualified to do that).  Depending on the client's circumstances the first thing she'd recommend aerobic activity, and maybe a magnesium supplement and/or hawthorn berry supplement - unlike the many GP's whom her clients have come from who end up with side effects from blood pressure meds without even being recommended aerobic activity...




Not touchy, just wanting to put it into perspective.

1. Where would have the evidence for high cholesterol have been obtained from? 

the doctor? Please provide evidence that any natural health medicine is any more effective than atorvastatin.

2. What evidence is there that hawthorn works, and please quantify blood pressure reduction and relative risk reduction compared to an angiotensin 2 receptor antagonist ( a medicine which delivers excellent results )

3. Please confirm that there have never been any side effects to Hawthorn.

4. Good doctors will also recommend lifestyle changes.

5. I have seen many examples of anaphylaxis from natural products, naturopaths prescribing medicines to pregnant women with echinacea, eucalyptus, subtherapeutic folate. People being prescribed medicines for schizophrenia who were a danger to society without real treatment, and have seen many examples of placebos being prescribed for no apparent reason apart from snake-oil salesman technique placebo driven incompetence. 



gav said:


> Unfortunately their years of training and experience mean little if they prescribe something that has had insufficient testing.  You may argue that alternative medicines have not had any testing for efficacy, and I agree with this.  However, for prescibed drugs to be recalled shows they have had initally had insufficient testing, and should not have been prescribed in the first place.  Unfortunately it is costing people their health, and often their lives.





Recalled drugs? which ones. I can recall a couple over the last 10 or so years - Vioxx, Prexsige ( same class, and the evidence is still a bit inconclusive )

It is impossible to test for absolutely everything, perhaps some research into how clinical trials are conducted would help.  Are you aware of how they are conducted, the peer review that they are exposed to, the different stages of trials and the FDA procedures for approval?

couple of questions.

1. How many people have died in Australia from drugs prescribed that were subject to recall?
2. How many patient years have been saved due to medicine intervention in the past 10 years?



gav said:


> Unfortunately their years of training and experience mean little if they prescribe something that has had insufficient testing.




100% agree, so no matter what training is given, remove 90% of all natural products off the shelf immediately.


----------



## robots (18 June 2009)

hello,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin

see: production

so much undiscovered/untested flora which will provide many pharmaceuticals in the years to come

maybe in a pill today but very much in a plant (fungi) yesterday 

thankyou
associate professor robots


----------



## Soft Dough (18 June 2009)

robots said:


> hello,
> 
> perhaps some people might like to inform ASF members where pharmaceuticals originate from and how they are "farmed"
> 
> ...




oi robots, stick to housing, you are good at that 

stop giving naturopaths ideas, next thing they will truly believe that eating oranges can help with bacterial infections !

True most original medicines a derived from plants ( I can remember studying phytochemistry back in the day )

but thankfully they are purified, measured, modified to improve affinity and efficacy, bioavailability, selectivity etc.

thank goodness for biochemists, pharmacologists, chemists, pharmacists etc.


----------



## gav (18 June 2009)

Soft dough, I can list many, many examples of incompetence of doctors, as you have listed for alternative medicines.  It does proves nothing except there are bad in both.

Atorvastatin side effects include abdominal pain, allergic reaction, back pain, changes in eyesight, cold, constipation, diarrhea, dry eyes, dry skin, flu symptoms, gas, hair loss, headache, heartburn, indigestion, inflammation of sinus and nasal passages, itching, joint pain, leg cramps, muscle aching or weakness, purple or red spots on the skin, rash, sore throat, urinary problems, vomiting, weakness and occasionally liver damage.  

If I suffered from any of those and found an alternative that kept my cholesterol levels down, I'd certainly use it - even if it lacked research.

Too many doctors over prescribe.  SD, do you have any ideas how this can be combated?


----------



## gav (18 June 2009)

Soft Dough said:


> The doctor, will test you before giving any medications, that's what they do.




Is that so? Based on American findings, but still very relevant. 

Misprescribing and Overprescribing of Drugs
http://www.worstpills.org/public/page.cfm?op_id=3


----------



## gav (18 June 2009)

And one a bit more local...

Doctors doling out more opiate drugs
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25300922-23289,00.html


----------



## Soft Dough (18 June 2009)

gav said:


> Soft dough, I can list many, many examples of incompetence of doctors, as you have listed for alternative medicines.  It does proves nothing except there are bad in both.
> 
> Atorvastatin side effects include abdominal pain, allergic reaction, back pain, changes in eyesight, cold, constipation, diarrhea, dry eyes, dry skin, flu symptoms, gas, hair loss, headache, heartburn, indigestion, inflammation of sinus and nasal passages, itching, joint pain, leg cramps, muscle aching or weakness, purple or red spots on the skin, rash, sore throat, urinary problems, vomiting, weakness and occasionally liver damage.
> 
> ...




What do they overprescribe?  because as you might be aware, there are restrictions placed on prescribing that mean that doctors cannot prescribe certain medicines unless indicated.. so some examples please.

and as for side effects what is the alternative, which is efficacious, that has no side-effects?   Please, provide me 1 natural medicine that is clinically proven to reduce cholesterol without side effects, and especially one with the relative risk reduction of atorvastatin.


----------



## Soft Dough (18 June 2009)

gav said:


> And one a bit more local...
> 
> Doctors doling out more opiate drugs
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25300922-23289,00.html




2 doctors?

please try harder.

Of course there are dodgy professionals in every profession, but to stereotype doctor prescribing habits because of 2 doctors is ludicrous.

AND 

at least the medical board is doing something about it, and they are being reprimanded.

Are you also aware that controlled drug sales are monitored?  that there are checks and balances?


----------



## gav (18 June 2009)

Soft Dough said:


> What do they overprescribe?  because as you might be aware, there are restrictions placed on prescribing that mean that doctors cannot prescribe certain medicines unless indicated.. so some examples please.




Read the articles in my last 2 posts.



Soft Dough said:


> and as for side effects what is the alternative, which is efficacious, that has no side-effects?   Please, provide me 1 natural medicine that is clinically proven to reduce cholesterol without side effects, and especially one with the relative risk reduction of atorvastatin.




I am not a naturopath, and have no idea what one would recommend to reduce cholesterol.  If you desperately want to know, go see one for yourself.  I simply stated if I was suffering side effects from a drug such as the one you mentioned, and found an alternative that also kept my cholesterol down, I'd use it. Even if it didn't have any clinically proven evidence.


----------



## gav (18 June 2009)

Soft Dough said:


> 2 doctors?
> 
> please try harder.
> 
> Of course there are dodgy professionals in every profession, but to stereotype doctor prescribing habits because of 2 doctors is ludicrous.




How about an entire nation? Read the first article I posted...


----------



## robots (18 June 2009)

hello,

looks like we have a spruiker

thankyou
associate professor robots


----------



## Soft Dough (18 June 2009)

gav said:


> Read the articles in my last 2 posts.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a naturopath, and have no idea what one would recommend to reduce cholesterol.  If you desperately want to know, go see one for yourself.  I simply stated if I was suffering side effects from a drug such as the one you mentioned, and found an alternative that also kept my cholesterol down, I'd use it. Even if it didn't have any clinically proven evidence.




That last 2 posts. 1 was relevant, and the other was from America ( which has totally different health regulations to Australia and so it makes the article irrelevant )

So you are defending naturopathic practices, and admit you have no idea about them.

Interesting, I might save some time, you see I know that natural products are untested, unreliable, and are used inappropriately, I do work in the health industry.


----------



## gav (18 June 2009)

Soft Dough said:


> That last 2 posts. 1 was relevant, and the other was from America ( which has totally different health regulations to Australia and so it makes the article irrelevant )
> 
> So you are defending naturopathic practices, and admit you have no idea about them.
> 
> Interesting, I might save some time, you see I know that natural products are untested, unreliable, and are used inappropriately, I do work in the health industry.




Wow, you work in the health industry? Well then, you must know everything! 

Unfortunately the article about America IS relevant, to think that nothing in that article happens here is just plain naive, as is your thinking that the majority of natural products only work due to the placebo affect.  And to think doctors don't over prescribe... well Julia worked in the pharmaceutical industry for 12 years and she believes doctors do prescribe too readily, so there's another "industry opinion" for ya.  

I used to work for a naturopath, and my partner is a qualified naturopath but no longer practices.  Just because I defended naturopathic practices does not mean I am one, and not knowing what one would prescribe for a specific ailment does not mean I have no idea about them.  Just as you working in the health industry does not mean you know more about them, nor does it mean your opinion is more valid than mine.

Have a good night.


----------



## Julia (18 June 2009)

noco said:


> Hi Julia, have noted your comment "May assist in the relief of.........
> That has to be stated on these natural alternatives to protect the supplier from litigation if it does not work.
> Some things work for one but not others due to imo the genes we inherit.
> Some homosexuals can be exposed to HIV/AIDS and never get it.
> ...







Hi Noco,

Thank you for telling us your story.  Must have been a really hard time for you.  I'm so pleased it has turned out well.   

I'm happy to concede that some 'natural' products can indeed have useful effects.  I guess I'd just like some scientific research into why they do what they are suggested to do.  

If the manufacturers were to engage in genuine clinical trials with at least some of their products (and if the results were actually as they claim) then I'd imagine the short term expense would ultimately be balanced by more sales from a clinically proven product.

In other words, if pharmaceutical manufacturers face up to spending the millions involved in getting a drug through all the checks and balances in order to gain FDA/TGA approval, then I don't really see why the alternative industry shouldn't be prepared to do likewise, if they want the same level of recognition.







gav said:


> LOL touchy subject?  In fact judging from your reply, you may want to go check your own blood pressure :
> 
> You may get someone try to sell you placebos and not do any tests if you seen someone who was not qualified (which is why the industry needs to be regulated), however if you seen my g/f when she was practicing she would have asked you to provide evidence for your high cholesterol (test or letter from doctor) before prescribing what she believed was best (I have no idea what she'd prescribe).  As for the blood pressure, she can test that herself (and yes she IS qualified to do that).



Gav, again, not wishing to in any way malign your g/f's capabilities, you can buy blood pressure monitors at retail these days for home use.  Anyone can use them.  Probably more complicated to take one's temperature!





> Depending on the client's circumstances the first thing she'd recommend aerobic activity, and maybe a magnesium supplement and/or hawthorn berry supplement - unlike the many GP's whom her clients have come from who end up with side effects from blood pressure meds without even being recommended aerobic activity...



Again, I acknowledge that you're not the naturopath here and are probably guessing a bit, but I'm surprised that for the second time you haven't suggested some modification of diet/weight loss in the attempt to control the hypertension.





gav said:


> Unfortunately their years of training and experience mean little if they prescribe something that has had insufficient testing.



Very, very few medicines make it to market with 'insufficient testing'.
There are minimum requirements that have to be met.   Every now and again something like Vioxx is discovered to have longer term side effects which were not experienced in earlier testing.  Or perhaps this might have been something which did become apparent in early trials and was 'buried' by the company.   
But instances like this are rare indeed.   

And there will always be ongoing research which will discover new facts about medications e.g. after HRT being used for many years, additional research implicated it in the increased incidence of breast cancer.



> You may argue that alternative medicines have not had any testing for efficacy, and I agree with this.  However, for prescibed drugs to be recalled shows they have had initally had insufficient testing, and should not have been prescribed in the first place.  Unfortunately it is costing people their health, and often their lives.



The lives saved by medicines would far and away outweigh any lives lost, to the degree that it's pretty ludicrous to attempt to make this point.

A drug recall (again something which happens very rarely) does not at all necessarily indicate insufficient testing, as you suggest, but rather - as I've pointed out above - ongoing research will always allow the possibility of new information being discovered.

And regarding side effects you listed somewhere, what needs to be made clear is that if the drug is trialled on a million patients and just one of them gets a cough while on it, then that has to be listed as a potential side effect.
Absolutely does not mean it is likely to happen.





Soft Dough said:


> What do they overprescribe?  because as you might be aware, there are restrictions placed on prescribing that mean that doctors cannot prescribe certain medicines unless indicated.. so some examples please.



Yes.   When I agreed that GP's have a tendency to over-prescribe, I think I qualified that remark with the explanation that it's pressure of time that promotes this.  Doesn't make it good, though.


----------



## Hedders (18 June 2009)

Very interesting thread! Just a couple of things to add-

1. I agree with Julia, that natural products would benefit from more clinical trials. I'm certain that at least some of them work but until they have proven clinical benefit, it would be unwise to swap from a proven medicine to an unknown entity. Some natural products HAVE undergone good clinical trials, such as echinacea, and olive leaf extract. Both have demonstrated clinical effectiveness and I have no problem recommending them when it's appropriate to. (some echinacea studies are positive, some are negative though- so, it's not entirely clear-cut)

2. As for the post citing side effects from Atorvastatin- yes , the side effects can occur, but they are rather infrequent. I have over 100 patients taking it regularly, and I know of only 3 or 4 that couldn't tolerate it. That doesn't make it a bad drug. And the fact that it's use is continually under review in subsequent studies is helpful too. We will learn more as time goes on, to see why it suits some and not others. Another reason why ongoing trials are important (they certainly discovered things about Vioxx down the track, that weren't apparent initially).

Many people use drug side effects as a reason to slam the whole industry, as if any kind of side effect is evidence that taking drugs is a poor alternative to taking natural products. This ignores the fact that natural products can also cause serious side effects- look at St John's Wort, Valerian and Ginseng for example. What's the difference? A drug's patient literature must list a side effect even if it's only been documented in one person, while natural products are not obliged to tell you.

Many drugs have come about by refining natural products, and removing the substances that are clinically useless and cause side effects. This is a desirable pursuit in my opinion. Look at Ziconotide- a non-opioid anaesthetic derived from cone shell toxin. At present the side effect profile is so bad (suicidal thoughts, hallucinations, confusion etc) that it can only be infused directly into the spine, to reduce/avoid the side effects. But I think most people would like to see this natural substance studied further, as it could give rise to new pain killers that don't develop tolerance or dependence. 

So I am an advocate for researching natural products, but I don't think it's always wise to keep using them in their natural state, placing principles before better health outcomes.

3. Finally, the placebo effect. A personal passion of mine. Hopefully one day we can work out just how our brains can bring about physiological change via thought processes (in either direction). The one thing I DON'T like about handing people information on side effects is that a significant number of people go home and literally wait for one of them to materialize! And lo and behold, they get one! Now, often it is a real side effect, but I've had people say things like brand A of drug X makes them feel sick, but brand B of drug X is fine (even though brand A and brand B come from the same factory, made by the same people, possibly from the same manufacturing batch!). Here's another example- as soon as I mention head lice, some of you will begin to itch your scalp!

Natural products probably benefit from a lack of "negative placebo effect" because the consumer is not made aware of all the potential side effects. 

I should say that I'm a pharmacist, but I'm not affiliated with any drug company. I'm not against the concept of natural remedies. But all too often the information available about natural medicine is not clinically validated or extensive enough to make an informed choice.


----------



## aussiepipe (19 June 2009)

> The lives saved by medicines would far and away outweigh any lives lost, to the degree that it's pretty ludicrous to attempt to make this point.




Is the opposite true of natural or alternative remedies? 

I believe that if natural or alternative should be regulated then they should be given the same government funding and also placed on the pbs if they have found to have beneficial effects.

If you are interested there was a study done in the US by some doctors called Death by Medicine and it stated that death from the regulated medicine was there 3rd or 4th biggest killer more than heart disease or cancer. If you are interested just google it. Even if you don't believe it or think it happens in Aust. its an interesting perspective.

One issue not raised so far is the placebo effect. Research has shown that a third of cases (varies from 0 to 76% depending on the medicine prescribed) people feel better taking a placebo and it has no side effects. Put it on the PBS.

Cheers


----------



## aussiepipe (19 June 2009)

> One issue not raised so far is the placebo effect. Research has shown that a third of cases (varies from 0 to 76% depending on the medicine prescribed) people feel better taking a placebo and it has no side effects. Put it on the PBS.




sorry Hedders i had started typing before your message came up. My short on the ftse went against me so I got distracted.

Somebody asked for Aussie article before here is a link to an Aussie article if anyone is interested but it is easy to find articles for both sides of the argument.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/death-by-medicine/2007/08/17/1186857771586.html

cheers


----------



## Hedders (19 June 2009)

aussiepipe said:


> Is the opposite true of natural or alternative remedies?
> 
> I believe that if natural or alternative should be regulated then they should be given the same government funding and also placed on the pbs if they have found to have beneficial effects.
> 
> ...




Just mentioned placebo in my previous post- I think it's great! A classic case is putting coloured water on children's warts- it will get rid of them in most cases if the child thinks the "paint" is a real wart butt-kicker. You have to talk it up


----------



## Hedders (19 June 2009)

Sorry Aussiepipe- we must be posting at the same time!


----------



## aussiepipe (19 June 2009)

Hedders,

I hadn't heard about the wart one but that could be why apple cider vinegar worked on my warts because I could never understand it. I thought it was a ridiculous remedy but it worked.

Thanks for your comments. It gave me some good food for thought.

Cheers


----------



## Soft Dough (19 June 2009)

Hedders said:


> Very interesting thread! Just a couple of things to add-
> 
> 1. I agree with Julia, that natural products would benefit from more clinical trials. I'm certain that at least some of them work but until they have proven clinical benefit, it would be unwise to swap from a proven medicine to an unknown entity. Some natural products HAVE undergone good clinical trials, such as echinacea, and olive leaf extract. Both have demonstrated clinical effectiveness and I have no problem recommending them when it's appropriate to. (some echinacea studies are positive, some are negative though- so, it's not entirely clear-cut)
> 
> 3. Finally, the placebo effect. A personal passion of mine. Hopefully one day we can work out just how our brains can bring about physiological change via thought processes (in either direction). The one thing I DON'T like about handing people information on side effects is that a significant number of people go home and literally wait for one of them to materialize! And lo and behold, they get one! Now, often it is a real side effect, but I've had people say things like brand A of drug X makes them feel sick, but brand B of drug X is fine (even though brand A and brand B come from the same factory, made by the same people, possibly from the same manufacturing batch!).




1. Olive leaf extract and echinacea did not have any conclusive results last time I checked.  I will check on medline, embase and cochrane tonight, and see if any reputable studies, published in real journals have been done.

3. 100% agree. How many people want to be prescribed the real ocp when most generics are made by the originator company. The most interesting one is how many say that their ventolin works better than their asmol, I was told that they are both made by GSK.


----------



## Soft Dough (19 June 2009)

aussiepipe said:


> . Research has shown that a third of cases (varies from 0 to 76% depending on the medicine prescribed) people feel better taking a placebo and it has no side effects. Put it on the PBS.




And knowing PBAC they will probably be willing to pay $60 to $80 for a months supply of this.


----------



## Sunder (19 June 2009)

Hedders said:


> Some natural products HAVE undergone good clinical trials, such as echinacea, and olive leaf extract. Both have demonstrated clinical effectiveness and I have no problem recommending them when it's appropriate to. (some echinacea studies are positive, some are negative though- so, it's not entirely clear-cut)




The question is, when does *something* extract stop being a naturopathic product, to becoming a drug? Is it when other parts of the plant, such as the fibre, or water are removed? Or when the chemical left is called something like X123-somethingzine-flavinoid?

Lactoferrin and penecillin has been both brought up. Nobody would drink 20 litres of milk to get one dose of lactoferrin, and nobody would eat mouldy orange to get penecillin, yet, they both come out of natural, every day products. If someone came out with a conclusive study that said echinacea extract was an effective anti-viral, I would classify it as a drug just like lactoferrin and penecillin. 

The issue isn't what is prescribed. The issue is the PHILOSOPHY behind the two "treatment" methods. One is based on rigourously and empirically tested methods, extensive training, and understanding of biology and physiology. The other is based off what? How many naturopaths understand, say, how viruses bind to cells? What the different causes of high blood pressure are and how to lower them back again? No point going on a low fat diet and doing Yoga if the cause of high blood pressure was a congenital heart defect, and avoiding surgery in that case could be fatal. 

You see, that's my problem with natural "treatments"- it assumes the body is self healing, and just needs the right environment. The human body can be pushed so far out of alignment by viruses, toxins, genetic conditions and environmental conditions, that restoring it back to a healthy environment just gives the body a better place to die, where as medicine can intervene.


----------



## noco (19 June 2009)

gav said:


> LOL touchy subject?  In fact judging from your reply, you may want to go check your own blood pressure :
> 
> You may get someone try to sell you placebos and not do any tests if you seen someone who was not qualified (which is why the industry needs to be regulated), however if you seen my g/f when she was practicing she would have asked you to provide evidence for your high cholesterol (test or letter from doctor) before prescribing what she believed was best (I have no idea what she'd prescribe).  As for the blood pressure, she can test that herself (and yes she IS qualified to do that).  Depending on the client's circumstances the first thing she'd recommend aerobic activity, and maybe a magnesium supplement and/or hawthorn berry supplement - unlike the many GP's whom her clients have come from who end up with side effects from blood pressure meds without even being recommended aerobic activity...




Hi Gav,
You can monitor your own blood pressure with an OMRON available at most major chemists.
I purchased mine on a doctors prescription a couple of years ago for $149.99 and received $150.00 back from my private health care.

Whilst I was on prescribed medication, my blood pressure started to climb to 170/90 which began to concern my GP.

She asked me to monitor my blood pressure before I get out of bed each morning and last thing at night before I retire for one whole month.
Before doing so I looked my ALTERNATIVE CURES BOOK and learned that by taking a 1000mg capusule of Omega 3 fish oil with each meal would lower one's blood pressure.

So being a fanatic on alternative cures I became my own guinea pig and carried out what I had read.

To my surprize, my blood pressure kept coming down over the month untill I finished up with 132/82. According to my book, OMEGA 3 relaxes the walls of the arteries and reduces blood pressure.

My doctor was amazed at the results which she  could not explain the reason untill I explained to her what I had done. Her answer was if it works keep it up. What a great doctor I have to participate in alternative cures!

I am not a Naturapath. What works for some may not work for others.


----------



## Soft Dough (19 June 2009)

noco said:


> My doctor was amazed at the results which she  could not explain the reason untill I explained to her what I had done. Her answer was if it works keep it up. What a great doctor I have to participate in alternative cures!




Fish oil is great for vessels, but not for blood pressure, especially not in the order that you describe. Perhaps you do not suffer the anxiety of a bp measurement now that you think it is doing something for you?

see in a trial they would offer 

placebo
500mg
1000mg

and see if there is a dose-response to fish-oil supplementation.  see if it is a placebo you could not even test this yourself as you are aware of the dose that you are taking.

I love the fact the the book makes an unsubstantiated claim as to mechanism of action.


----------



## gav (20 June 2009)

Hi Soft Dough,

You stated earlier that the majority of alternative medicines only work due to the placebo affect.  You also asked what *clinically proven* natural medicines would be prescribed for high cholesterol.  I did not know, so I endeavoured to find out...

Policosanol - Canetti M, Moreira M, Mas R, et al. A two-year study on the efficacy and tolerability of policosanol in patients with type II hyperlipoproteinaemia. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res 1995;15:159-65. 

Artichoke - Pittler MH, Thompson CO, Ernst E. Artichoke leaf extract for treating hypercholesterolaemia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002;3:CD003335

Niacin (Vitamin B3) - McKenney J. New perspectives on the use of niacin in the treatment of lipid disorders. Arch Intern Med 2004;164:697-705. 

Blonde Psyllium - Anderson JW, Allgood LD, Lawrence A, et al. Cholesterol-lowering effects of psyllium intake adjunctive to diet therapy in men and women with hypercholesterolemia: meta-analysis of 8 controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr 2000;71:472-9.


----------



## Julia (20 June 2009)

gav said:


> Hi Soft Dough,
> 
> You stated earlier that the majority of alternative medicines only work due to the placebo affect.  You also asked what *clinically proven* natural medicines would be prescribed for high cholesterol.  I did not know, so I endeavoured to find out...
> 
> ...




Gav, those headings of trials don't allow access to them, so - whilst it's appreciated that you have found them - just the headings are pretty meaningless.

For all we know they might have consisted of a non-randomised sample of six people.  We don't know what controls they used, or anything about how the trials were conducted.

Perhaps you could post again with an actual link to the methodology.


----------



## Julia (20 June 2009)

Out of curiosity I googled the first trial listed.
Here is the abstract.  Doesn't exactly sing the praises of the product, does it!



> Background: Policosanol, commonly derived from purified sugar cane wax, has been reported to exert lipid-lowering effects. Policosanol is available in the United States as a nutritional supplement despite no US research clinical experience. This trial was designed to rigorously establish the lipid-lowering efficacy of policosanol as monotherapy and its potential additive and possibly synergistic effects when added to statin therapy.
> Methods: A randomized, parallel, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled design was used. Patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels from 140 to 189 mg/dL were assigned into 1 of 4 groups to receive policosanol 20 mg, atorvastatin 10 mg, combination therapy, or placebo for 12 weeks.
> Results: A total of 99 patients were examined. Baseline characteristics were similar among all treatment groups. Policosanol (20 mg/d for 12 weeks) did not significantly change plasma total cholesterol, LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, or triglyceride levels when compared with baseline values or with values of placebo-treated patients. Atorvastatin (10 mg/d for 12 weeks) reduced total cholesterol by 27% and LDL-C by 35%. Addition of policosanol to atorvastatin failed to produce any further reduction in lipid levels above that of atorvastatin alone. Policosanol was safe and did not affect liver enzyme or creatinine phosphokinase levels.
> 
> Conclusions: Policosanol did not reduce LDL-C or total cholesterol levels either alone or in combination with atorvastatin. This observation supports the need for systematic evaluation of available products containing policosanol to determine their clinical lipid-lowering efficacy under rigorous experimental conditions. We propose that policosanol should be added to the list of nutritional supplements lacking scientific validity to support their use.


----------



## Julia (20 June 2009)

And the second study, on Artichoke leaf extract:



> REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Few data from rigorous clinical trials assessing ALE for treating hypercholesterolaemia exist. Beneficial effects are reported, the evidence however is not compelling. The limited data on safety suggest only mild, transient and infrequent adverse events with the short term use of ALE. More rigorous clinical trials assessing larger patient samples over longer intervention periods are needed to establish whether ALE is an effective and safe treatment option for patients with hypercholesterolaemia.


----------



## Julia (20 June 2009)

Although a bit vague, this one seems more valid.   But still little different from the standard advice that fibre in the diet will assist in controlling cholesterol.



> Although psyllium therapy does not replace diet therapy for persons with high serum cholesterol concentrations, it offers an additional dietary tool. The results of this study show that psyllium can play an important role in maintaining diet-induced reductions in serum total and LDL-cholesterol concentrations. For some people, psyllium therapy may also be a safe, acceptable, and effective alternative to drug therapy. For example, if a person is trying to reduce his or her LDL-cholesterol concentration to 3.36 mmol/L through dietary modification but can achieve a reduction to only 3.62 mmol/L, the addition of psyllium to the regimen could help the person to attain his or her goal and eliminate the need for drug therapy.
> 
> In this study, dietary change and long-term use of a standard dose of psyllium (5.1 g twice daily) resulted in {approx}5% lower serum total cholesterol concentrations and 7% lower LDL-cholesterol concentrations than did dietary changes and placebo. Because every 1% reduction in serum total cholesterol concentration results in a 2–3% reduction in risk of CHD, dietary change plus psyllium therapy could potentially reduce CHD risk 10–15% more than diet therapy alone in people with hypercholesterolemia (6).




I couldn't find anything on the Niacin suggestion.


----------



## gav (20 June 2009)

Julia said:


> Gav, those headings of trials don't allow access to them, so - whilst it's appreciated that you have found them - just the headings are pretty meaningless.
> 
> For all we know they might have consisted of a non-randomised sample of six people.  We don't know what controls they used, or anything about how the trials were conducted.
> 
> Perhaps you could post again with an actual link to the methodology.




Julia, I understand the point you are making.  Those references I listed are from text books, so I can't provide links.  I guess it doesn't matter if there were 5,000 random subjects in a controlled environment..  They could have thrown out 5 failed tests before publishing the successful ones - just as the drug companies are currently allowed to... More regulation is required all round...


----------



## Sunder (21 June 2009)

Excuse the coarseness, but it is really starting to sound to me like the old "polishing a turd" effect now.

When you have such a poor base as alternative treatments do, you can try to polish it with selective bits of information and misinformation, but at the end of the day, it's still a methodology with a poor base. Claiming traditional medicine also has a poor base does not make your poor base any better. 

If anything, this thread has made me accept that while natural products may have some therapeutic value, it confirms in my mind alternative medicine stumbles across them by accident, not by research or design, and continues to be a dangerous, haphazard risk.


----------

