"Alternative" Therapies

[Sunder]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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

 

[gav]

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

Did you end up buying creatine? :

 

[gav]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.