Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actual research on herbal supplements is pretty much non-existent, (snip)
Pure FANTASY upon your part. The Germans, for example, consider homeopathy a legitimate medical practice and have conducted rigorous, double-blind, and other studies similar to pharmaceuticals for well over a century. Peer reviewed studies by MD's, no less. They've published the results and the products are formulated to the same standards as the products commonly available in the USA.
FWIW, Oriental and Indian medicine has used herbal products for many thousands of years prior to what you regard as the practice of medicine, with long term documented results.
With a USP product, you do not have to worry that the product contains contaminants like heavy metals or pesticides, and the dose needs to be within standard guidelines.
To the extent of the USP guidelines in the approval process, yes. But you've again ignored that trace elements have the potential to play a big role in the efficacy of homeopathics and herbs and supplement much the way as they do with prescription drugs from various formularies. I've already cited the differences between the patented drugs effectivenss vs the generics, and if you don't know that there's such a difference in many drugs in the marketplace, then you've already shut out a huge portion of the pharmaceutical industry activity. I've cited Thyroid treatment drugs, and you've had no response to that whatsoever ... but it's a fact that there is a wide variance in the efficacy and side effects of these drugs.
You may get your vitamin C from rose hips if you wish, but you will pay for it.
And your point is? I can get a lot of drugs prescribed by my doctors and I "will pay for it".
There is no way to standardize a product which is made from whole plants. For your rose hips, for example, the amount of vitamin C can vary tremendously:
Try telling that to the folks at Hauser Chemical in Boulder, Colorado. They've made a long term successful business out of standardizing "a product made from whole plants". At one point in time, they were the USA's sole source of certain raw components that went into highly regarded as breakthrough cancer treatment prescription drugs. They did this for years until the pharmaceutical companies were able to synthesize the products. At that time, the contracts with Hauser were cancelled and the med's were made from the synthesized material; shortly thereafter, the prescription drug appeared to lose it's effectiveness in the oncology biz and the manufacturers moved on to other drugs. I believe that this was the result of certain trace compounds which accompanied the distilled product that Hauser supplied from whole plants that subsequently weren't in the patent drug formulation any longer.
Saying that a product derived from a plant is "different" from one that is commercially produced is meaningless. Ascorbic acid from a chemical factory is handled by the body the same way as ascorbic acid from rose hips.
Let's try not to confuse "commercially produced" with "synthesized", which is what I assert can be the difference between a plant derived source and a chemically manufactured substitute.
If you had heart failure, you could chew on some foxglove or take digitalis from a chemical company. The difference is that with the latter, you would know the dose you're getting.
Your argument that supplements are better than "patent" drugs because some people have problems with prescription products fails. Supplement manufacturers do not publicize how many of their customers throw away their products, but plenty do.
Do not put words in my mouth, I've never claimed that supplements are "better" per se, but that they do have powerful properties which can be efficacious if administered with the same care and supervision as prescription drugs.
OTOH, you're the one who consistently asserts that a drug is worthless unless it's an FDA patented drug.
That becomes a very worthless position in view of the multi-billion dollar legal bonanza that has followed "some people (that) have problems with prescription drugs".
News Flash! It's not just "some people" that have had problems with prescription drugs. It's millions of people taking drugs that went through the rigorous process to be patented and prescribed by MD's. And they've killed a lot more people than all the supplements have in this country.
Do not put words in my mouth, I've never claimed that supplements are "better" per se, but that they do have powerful properties which can be efficacious if administered with the same care and supervision as prescription drugs.
OTOH, you're the one who consistently asserts that a drug is worthless unless it's an FDA patented drug.
That becomes a very worthless position in view of the multi-billion dollar legal bonanza that has followed "some people (that) have problems with prescription drugs".
News Flash! It's not just "some people" that have had problems with prescription drugs. It's millions of people taking drugs that went through the rigorous process to be patented and prescribed by MD's. And they've killed a lot more people than all the supplements have in this country.
Please show me a placebo controlled double blind study of a homeopathic product that shows the homeopathic product does better than placebo.
Sorry, the thousands of years of Asian medicine claim just does not do it. If those products are so great, why is it only into the twentieth century that average life expectancy has increased significantly?
What was the Hauser product? Taxol? You realize that the natural source was prohibitively expensive, don't you? Producing it killed the trees from which it was isolated. Enough to treat melanoma and ovarian cancer in the US would kill an estimated 360,000 trees. So a way was found to synthesize it. The procedure is complex. Taxol is still used.
Do you really think that the products on the shelves in GNC are produced the way Hauser made taxol? Really?
Your example of thyroid drugs appears to be based on your personal experience. Millions of people are successfully treated with prescription drugs for thyroid problems.
The vast majority of over the counter supplements are nothing more than high priced placebos.
If you want to take vitamins and minerals, just use a USP tested multi. No need to get them from bits and pieces of plants and flowers.
That was already established a post or two after I posted. It's also nitpicking. Significant is significant, whether it's 100x the RDA or 10x the RDA.
I'm assuming you didn't see the "edit" portion of my post. I responded to your post as the thread title caught my eye and I saw your post next. After I posted, I didn't notice Sunsprit's correction.
I wasn't intending to nitpick your post. I truly thought my observation could be accepted without attitude or judgement.
After reading through the thread now, I'm sorry I stumbled into it.
Please show me a placebo controlled double blind study of a homeopathic product that shows the homeopathic product does better than placebo.
Will try to dig one out that I read some 30 years ago re the German tests of Saw Palmetto vs the prescription drugs for treating BPE. IIRC, it included placebo's in the double-blind study. It was the document that convinced me to try using Saw Palmetto when I was experiencing the early stages of BPE and I'm glad I did ...
Sorry, the thousands of years of Asian medicine claim just does not do it. If those products are so great, why is it only into the twentieth century that average life expectancy has increased significantly?
How convenient of you to totally ignore the living conditions and food supply that was prevalent in that area of the world for those thousands of years. And yet, there's much documentation of folk living into their 60-70's during those years.
IIRC, some of the longest lived cultures are in that area of the world, and have produced centanarians for many years prior to the 20th century.
What was the Hauser product? Taxol? You realize that the natural source was prohibitively expensive, don't you? Producing it killed the trees from which it was isolated. Enough to treat melanoma and ovarian cancer in the US would kill an estimated 360,000 trees. So a way was found to synthesize it. The procedure is complex. Taxol is still used.
Correct, Taxol was produced by Hauser in Boulder. The point of the mentioning them was in response to another poster who claimed that the ability of the industry to produce standardized product from natural sources could not be done ... and they were totally wrong. Hauser obtained their raw goods from South American farms for this, and the concern at the time wasn't the cost of the natural product vs the synthesized, it was the ability to create a very promising cancer therapy drug.
Again, you've introduced "cost" as a defining adverse factor in the production of a product compared to patented pharmaceuticals. If "high cost" was the big adverse deal you're making it to be, then how do you justify the exhorbitant prices in the marketplace for a huge number of patented drugs? I'll point out again that many of them are derived from solely natural sources; I knew people that used to be in the snake venom collection business to source that product for the anti-venin pharmaceutical that's used in the industry.
Do you really think that the products on the shelves in GNC are produced the way Hauser made taxol? Really?
Due to the nature of one of my businesses, I get to be inside the production facilities of many herbal/supplement companies. While not all would qualify to NSF/FDA production standards, many do. Their concern about quality control is no less than the prescription drug industry, and for many of the same reason ... liability is a detriment to irresponsible behavior in personal or health products, isn't it?
Your example of thyroid drugs appears to be based on your personal experience. Millions of people are successfully treated with prescription drugs for thyroid problems.
My example of thyroid drugs is based upon listening to a number of well-known internal medicine MD's in the Denver area discussing their cases among their peers at those friendly gatherings I've previously mentioned I attended for decades. Those guys talk shop endlessly, even when we're out doing other activities. Yes, millions of people are successfully treated ... but all you have to do is search the C-D threads on this condition alone to appreciate how difficult it is for many of them to find the beneficial prescription/doseage/product. This is but one forum among hundreds where patients come to report their experiences and the difficulties they've encountered to find the right treatment for them.
The vast majority of over the counter supplements are nothing more than high priced placebos.
In your opinion perhaps, but if they are "nothing more than high priced placebos", then how do you account for all of the adverse outcomes that this thread attributes to the use (or mis-use) of these products? If they were without any effect, such as a placebo, then people wouldn't have adverse effects, now would they? Case in Point: Niacin Flush by the OP. Was that a worthless placebo causing the Flush reaction? or was it a well known common reaction to niacin intake?
If you want to take vitamins and minerals, just use a USP tested multi. No need to get them from bits and pieces of plants and flowers.
I'll stick with only USP tested products the day you can assert with 100% certainty that the process identifies everything in the product. Until then, I'll continue to use products that have earned my trust from any source that provides beneficial efficacy.
I'll stick with only USP tested products the day you can assert with 100% certainty that the process identifies everything in the product. Until then, I'll continue to use products that have earned my trust from any source that provides beneficial efficacy.
How do you know whether a source provides beneficial efficacy?
That's the problem with supplements. The proof does not have to be provided.
"Seeing the USP Verified Mark on a label indicates that the dietary supplement product inside
Contains the ingredients listed on the label, in the declared potency and amounts.
Does not contain harmful levels of specified contaminants.
Will break down and release into the body within a specified amount of time.
Has been made according to FDA current Good Manufacturing Practices using sanitary and well-controlled procedures."
"CONCLUSIONS: With the possible exceptions of Vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids there is no data to support the widespread use of dietary supplements in Westernized populations; indeed, many of these supplements may be harmful."
Most people who eat a diet that includes meat, vegetables, and fruit will get enough of both macronutrients (protein, carbohydrate, and fat) and micronutrients (vitamins and minerals). If you start removing a major food group from your diet, such as meat, it will be more difficult to get all you need. In that case, supplementing vitamins, such as B12, may be a good idea. Anyone who is on a weight loss diet may want to consider a vitamin and mineral supplement. It is not necessary to use expensive health store vitamins and take each vitamin and mineral separately.
If your overall diet is poor, you are wasting money by using supplements. Improve your diet first.
There is no convincing evidence that there is benefit in taking more than the recommended amounts of vitamins and minerals is helpful to the average healthy person. Consult your doctor before taking large amounts of any vitamin or mineral, such as niacin.
Just for grins ... a few drugs currently or recently in use that have such massive adverse effects that they are being withdrawn or advised to be used under much more restrictive circumstances than originally prescribed:
for examples:
due to highly elevated Potassium Levels, as listed by the American Faily Physician medical journal ... OK, we're not using an anecdotal unprofessional supplement guide here, we're using the same resources that MD's use ...
some of these have been found in use to be so detrimental in the treatment of elderly patients that there is a risk for hospitalization by the British Medical Journal (9/13/2011); the medical term is hyperkalemia.
Please note that this is just one example of a very wide group of drugs used in the treatment of numerous ailments that are now being written up as causing severe side effects even when carefully monitored under the prescription of an MD.
Let's try another group: I can cite heart troubles attributed to SEROQUEL, found by the FDA in July 2011, to cause arrhythmia ... the drug family (quetiapine) is prescribed as an antidepressant. Here again, side effect risks of the use of a given drug family may outweigh the beneficial aspects of the drug. But wasn't this revealed in the clinical trials and studies before the patented drug was released for use by the all-knowing FDA? Not to mention that there's been a history of suicidality associated with this drug group.
How about the adverse reviews lately of the Gliptin diabetes drugs? FDA released sitagliptin in Oct 2006, but has since updated the warning lable to include reports of acute pancreatitis to include FATAL hemorrhagic pancreatitis. As it is, there's no associated benefit with gliptin drugs re strokes and heart attacks, which are the two principal concerns with type 2 diabetes outcomes. Maybe there's better ways to reduce the insulin problems for diabetics?
Just a couple of minutes research yielded these drugs with serious problems. My search came up with many many more, but my point that the FDA approval process yields patentable drugs with perhaps no better net outcome than the products coming from other sources like supplements just might not be any better. Knowing an exact formulation and strength per USP doesn't deter from the adverse effects of many drugs ....
Just for grins ... a few drugs currently or recently in use that have such massive adverse effects that they are being withdrawn or advised to be used under much more restrictive circumstances than originally prescribed:
for examples:
due to highly elevated Potassium Levels, as listed by the American Faily Physician medical journal ... OK, we're not using an anecdotal unprofessional supplement guide here, we're using the same resources that MD's use ...
some of these have been found in use to be so detrimental in the treatment of elderly patients that there is a risk for hospitalization by the British Medical Journal (9/13/2011); the medical term is hyperkalemia.
Please note that this is just one example of a very wide group of drugs used in the treatment of numerous ailments that are now being written up as causing severe side effects even when carefully monitored under the prescription of an MD.
Let's try another group: I can cite heart troubles attributed to SEROQUEL, found by the FDA in July 2011, to cause arrhythmia ... the drug family (quetiapine) is prescribed as an antidepressant. Here again, side effect risks of the use of a given drug family may outweigh the beneficial aspects of the drug. But wasn't this revealed in the clinical trials and studies before the patented drug was released for use by the all-knowing FDA? Not to mention that there's been a history of suicidality associated with this drug group.
How about the adverse reviews lately of the Gliptin diabetes drugs? FDA released sitagliptin in Oct 2006, but has since updated the warning lable to include reports of acute pancreatitis to include FATAL hemorrhagic pancreatitis. As it is, there's no associated benefit with gliptin drugs re strokes and heart attacks, which are the two principal concerns with type 2 diabetes outcomes. Maybe there's better ways to reduce the insulin problems for diabetics?
Just a couple of minutes research yielded these drugs with serious problems. My search came up with many many more, but my point that the FDA approval process yields patentable drugs with perhaps no better net outcome than the products coming from other sources like supplements just might not be any better. Knowing an exact formulation and strength per USP doesn't deter from the adverse effects of many drugs ....
You are still saying that because prescription drugs have side effects and complications it is better to use supplements because they have fewer side effects and complications.
You are ignoring the fact that most supplements do not really do anything useful.
It is also illogical to compare supplements to prescription drugs used to treat diseases. "Supplements" are used by healthy people. They should not have any adverse effects --- but they do. The average healthy person does quite well without any supplements at all.
If you choose to use something that has no testing you are trusting the manufacturer and only the manufacturer about the product you are using. One in four of those supplement makers is not doing a good job. Why play those odds? Why not insist that your vitamin and mineral supplement maker go through the USP evaluation process?
As far as the thousands of botanicals are concerned, standardization just does not happen. What is on the label may or may not be what is in the container and it may or may not be in the dose claimed on the label and it may or may not have substances in it that are not on the label. The FDA does not get involved until it makes people sick.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
