Notice no mention of actual numbers, just percentages. Sign number 1 that this is a loaded propaganda piece without any real science.

In another case, an infant who suffered multiple seizures and a heart attack died after being given alternative therapies — which the parents had chosen due to their concerns about the side effects of regular medicines.

This is daily business for the practice of medicine. And all they have is ONE single case?

Let my play skeptic/science blogger wannabe for a moment. Since they ALWAYS say that it's temporal or coincidental when a vaccine permanently injures or kills a child then I'm going to say prove that this alternative medicine caused a seizure and heart attack. They can't. Not by their own standards. They use double standards to protect their own ideas and belief systems, but use those same standards to attack others who don't agree with their value system.

FYI...Chemo IS the reason why most cancer patients end up dying.

Smc31569: And you know this HOW? Your credentials? Your double blind, peer-reviewed, journal published manuscript?

I thought not!

Most of us are not old enough to remember when people died from a simple step on a rusty nail, a cold that became pneumonia, or the "polio season" when parents worried if their kids didn't even "look just right."

You want that all back? Go to it! Burn some incense too while you are at it!

V. Bevis, BUT it all comes with a price. We have MORE, not LESS cancer and other diseases that did NOT exist before. We have saved some only to create bigger and badder illnesses that have developed an immunity to the drugs now being used especially anti-biotics.

I highly suggest you read up on the reports of the side effects of Chemo. If you don't want to read about it then visit a hospital and sit with some that are going through it. I took care of my mother-in-law for three years and I can tell you that Chemo is the worst part of cancer treatment.

luvenia48,

There are lots of reasons why there is an increase in cancer -- and most of it has to do with environmentals, not prescription drug use. There are a lot of things humans have done to our world that contribute to our disease load that are far more significant than prescription drugs. A lot has to do with the destruction of the ozone layer that has allowed increased radiation from the sun to reach us on the ground. It has to do with increased exposure to ambient radiation from who knows what. (I for one have been through a radiation induced cancer and have never knowingly been around a source of unusually strong radiation, so go figure). A large part of the increase has to do with the chemicals we are surrounded by on a daily basis -- pesticides, preservatives, etc. Part of the increase has more to do with a better ability to diagnose cancer than in the past and is not an actual increase at all. It used to be called "wasting sickness" and such when people withered and died for no reason medical science of the time could understand. There are many, many reasons why people get sick and blaming it on prescription drugs is just narrow minded and, I'm sorry to sound harsh, but, ridiculous.

Yes, absolutely, over use of anti-biotics and anti-bacterial products have caused serious problems with the development of anti-biotic resistant strains of disease - and that needs to be addressed. Every case of the sniffles should not have a broad spectrum anti-biotic thrown at it to satisfy the worried parents who just want doctors to do something to make their child feel better. But all of that is irrelevant by your own argument, because you seem to believe prescription drugs are bad and, by extension, rather wish people still died of the non-anti-bacterial resistant diseases. So... 6 of one or half a dozen of the other. Either people never used anti-biotics and people die of old diseases or over-use anti-biotics and people die of new diseases. Either way, people die, so what good does your anti-prescription drug stance do? I'd rather try to save people from what we can and continue the research to fight what comes next. Sure, it is a biological arms race that may not end well for our species in the long run, but so goes natural selection.

As for chemo -- yes, it sucks. It is brutal. It is barbaric. It can hasten the end for some, perhaps many, patients. And it is the only chance a lot of people have to live through their disease. People just have to be realistic about how much they are willing and/or able to endure. Some people need to know when to give up hope of a better outcome and concentrate on making what time they have left better. But those are really hard decisions to make. The irony of chemo is that it can save your life or kill you quicker than the disease. But if it is your only chance to live -- sorry, but mega-doses of vitamin C, D or what have you are not going to cure cancer -- I can understand why so many people are willing to take the chance. On the other hand, I can understand why someone watching a loved one go through it may not understand that choice and just want to see the suffering end. Is chemo the best solution to treating cancer? Of course not. And that is why doctors continue to research and look for alternatives. But for a lot of diseases, it is the best way to treat it at this time.

I am very sorry about your mother-in-law.

Completely agree; how about how many kids die from conventional over the counter meds? Or drug reactions? Many more that this; once again the Big Pharma tries to limit our freedom and make alternative medicine seem dangerous.

An excellent point, ram, and one I think many people tend to forget. Just because something is "natural" or plant based does not mean it is healthy. Hemlock is natural and plant based, but I wouldn't want to drink hemlock tea -- just ask Socrates. (On the flip side, many prescription drugs are made from plants and plant-derived components.) It's just not as straight forward as many people believe and there should be a note of caution for anything one puts in their body.

Maybe some of you don't know that homeopathic pharmacies have to follow the same, if not stricter, regulations as traditional pharmacies. Homeopathic remedies have been tested more than any traditional Western medicines and have found to be safe even for babies and elderly. I would urge caution with herbs and other naturopathic preparations, but work with a good practitioner and make sure if ever in doubt about child's condition, check it out; then you can choose which route of treatment you want to pursue and know how serious the condition is.

@louisa

I agree that homeopathic remedies are probably the safest drug out there. No other drug could someone take an entire drug store worth at once and not have even develop the slightest side effect (beyond being a bit full).

The problem with homeopathic medicine is when it is incorrectly labeled and there is actual active ingredients within the drug or the applicator. This is the only time when homeopathic medicine has caused direct harm to someone is when the treatment wasn't fully homeopathic.

Although people will be indirectly harmed by homeopathic drugs if they happen to have anything that doesn't respond to the placebo effect.

Homeopathic remedies have been tested more than any traditional Western medicines and have found to be safe even for babies and elderly.

True enough; the problem is that those tests were never evaluated by the FDA, and because the FDA is in Big Pharma's pocket, they won't.

These homeopath companies should file an IND, test their drug in accepted manners, then submit a NDA for regulatory approval. During the clinical trial process, the FDA meets with companies and provides feedback into protocols. That is how you get the FDA to evaluate for safety and effectiveness, and hopefully market your drug and make money to fuel further testing of other compounds. FDA approved compounds then have to meet manufacturing standards and are subject to regulatory inspection for compliance. I encourage this!

Problem is, when the NCAAM tests these homeopathic compounds, they find no difference between placebo. Why would any pharma company further invest their R&D money into something shown not to work?

There also is no reporting system for adverse effects for homeopathic meds, unlike regulated pharmaceuticals, which do have an adverse effect reporting system.

Most homeopathic meds are so diluted that it's basically sugar placebo, though these perhaps may be contaminated with pharma derivatives (happy man compounds from late night TV anyone), but denying your child life saving antibiotics (sepsis) and relying on a homeopathic prep is just plain dumb. I feel for the parents of the septic kid; someone had to sell them on whatever remedy they gave their kid.

Homeopathic remedies/herbs fails time and time again when put in a randomized double blind placebo controlled trial. Yeah, our ancestors used them. They also lived until they were about 30 years old.

If a treatment hasn't been widely studied, subject to double-blind tests, and reported in a major peer-reviewed medical journal, avoid it unless your physician specifically recommends it for your treatment.

Please, yes some companies take advantage of "natural" cures, but let's not forget that big pharama takes advantage of 100X more people. No doubt, big pharma has killed 1000X more than any "natural" treatments.

Would you deny that limes can cure scurvy, maggots can help with infections that are resistent to all other antibiotic treatment?

Just last week there was a study on how a man whose live was wrecked with ulcerative colitis had two options from his doctor... take a drug known to cause cancer, or remove his bowels. He choose an alternative treatment of putting worms in his digestive tract. 7 Years later, a medical study confirmed he was healthy with no side effects.

Only a fool would deny that all "natural" treatments are bad.

Heather... you are completely UNINFORMED and UNEDUCATED on homeopathy and alternative medicine. Many of your so-called "studies" are manipulated by Big Pharma and if you don't think they are you're naive.

The reason why our ancestors had a shorter lifespan than we do had nothing to do with using natural medine and had EVERYTHING to do with living conditions, personal hygiene and the knowledge of disease and illness at that time.

You sound like a complete fool. And the only reason you hear about what goes wrong w/Conventional medicine is because there's usually a LAWSUIT involved.

@ttmadison : If IGNORANCE will kill you... why are you still breathing ?

Yeah, our ancestors used them. They also lived until they were about 30 years old.

You're confusing lifespan with life expectancy. In spite of your belief system people lived to be an old age even a long time ago.

In 1850 a 50 yo white man had a life expectancy of 21.6 years. In 1950 it was 22.83. In 2000 28.2 years.

Avg. lifespan can be influenced by younger children dying. That can be influenced by a host of confounders mainly living conditions and socioeconomic factors.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

SMC: enjoy your expensive placebo. Oscillo for example is so diluted that there is no way a single molecule could remain. Water does not have memory. Ain't ignorance bliss?

Rigorous (so not an open label study of 15 subjects) studies of homeopathy are conducted in the same manner as pharma and in fact are usually run by NCCAM, not by pharma. An analysis plan is in place before the data is unblinded. If the analysis is done per the analysis plan (in this case, written by those who have an interest in homeopathy succeeding) shows no benefit, then the alt med community damns the study anyways.

Robert: thanks...I really do enjoy your counter-posts. I know we don't tend to agree on a lot.

# 6.2: "Just last week there was a study on how a man whose live was wrecked with ulcerative colitis had two options from his doctor... take a drug known to cause cancer, or remove his bowels. He choose an alternative treatment of putting worms in his digestive tract. 7 Years later, a medical study confirmed he was healthy with no side effects."

Chapter & Verse, please. That is just about as ignorant a statement as I've EVER heard in medicine. R.N.; BSN; MSN.

It never ceases to amaze me how reasonably intelligent people can "choose" to believe whatever they want without any corroborating facts. It is a simple matter of fact that I would not be writing this is not for one of the early antibiotics-Teramyacin. I consumed GALLONS of it to fight chronic trachea bronchitis & bacterial pneumonia.

If most of these homeopathic remedies are really effective, wouldn't the drug companies want to pounce on them to make money? Don't they want you to continue buying their products since they worked well?

Pith Helmet

The Big Pharma Corporations can't patent natural ingredients & make big bucks off them. They usually try to create a chemical version of it with modifications so they can patent it.

Omega 2, pharaceutical companies can and do patent such items all the time. White willow bark (the active ingredient in aspirin), digitalis (fox glove), magnesium sulfate (epsom salts), quinine (quinaquina plant) and statins (natural soil products) are but a tiny list of such items. The "modifications" of which you speak simply ensure that what they then sell has a standardized strength and is not adulterated by anything else.

This is basic, basic science. Why are you ignorant of basic science? Or is it simply that to you, as well as to far too many others, "science" is a four-letter word?

Show us the bodies. Alternative medicine is safe. Compare that to the hundreds of thousands that die at the hands of conventional medical doctors and the social system that comprised it.

If you want to be fair then those should also be prosecuted. The only thing left would be CAM.

Robert, the Hylands teething tablet homeopathic remedy is an example of what can happen when these things aren't manufactured under the same regulations as your 'typical' pharmaceuticals (and I am NOT saying that the GMPs are always adhered to perfectly in traditional pharma). The belladonna was not diluted enough and babies had signs and symptoms of anticholingerenic tox.

Fortunately, no babies died but many got sick. Of course Hylands encouraged parents to look for other sources of the offending agent and stated that their substances are generally too dilute to cause harm (which usually is true). There have also been a slew of 'male enhancement' supplement recalls; they contain an undeclared viagra derivative. You probably know, from all the commercials for this class of drug, that certain classes of men should not take these substances.

There is no good reporting system for homeopathic medicine adverse events; I would absolutely love to see one.

I am not condoning the actions of ignorant parents who make stupid decisions. However, homeopathic medicine does work for people who use it properly.

I suffered from severe, debilitating migraines. I tried [for years] to deal with them via conventional medicine, only to get worse. I was sick of the Rx cocktails that my doctors kept prescribing. It wasn't until I saw a holistic nutritionist [who treated me with homeopathics] that I became better. I have not yet had a migraine anywhere near what I did when using Rx meds! My quality of life is a million times better since being off meds!

It goes back to the individual...you need to do your research and be informed, whatever path your choose.

flutterby

Studies have shown that when used for pain such as headaches, placebos are effective 50% of the time. As placebos are very safe, studies are now being done to try to find out how to select those patients most likely to benefit.

Wow. Are we getting the double, triple, quadruple doses of propoganda from our government or what???

Kind of like the "food safety bill"... just IN TIME we get a "report" from "intelligence" that terrorists are going to poison the food supply...

Then, before rolling out naked body scanners.. we get the "underwear" bomber... No coincidence the Naked Body scanners are sold by a company ran by the former head of homeland security under Bush....

I mean you couldn't write this stuff any better.

Let us not forget that, thanks to Big Pharma, the FDA is not willing to even evaluate the validity of the statements regarding the intended benefits of natural/homeopathic remedies. Don't misunderstand, I am all for an effective herbal remedy, but the fact that the FDA won't even evaluate them - much less approve the ones that are proven to be effective - makes doctors wary of prescribing or recommending them over a pharmaceutical drug with questionable chemicals.

Wall of J

The FDA can't evaluate herbal, 'natural' or homeopathic remedies. Congress saw to that. It wasn't Big Pharma that lobbied Congress to block giving the FDA juristriction over 'natural', Homeopathic and 'Nutricudical' products, the lobbying was done by companies that market 'alternative' medicine.

If you are interested in studies, check out Germany's Commission E, the German "FDA" for herbal products.

A good text for beginners is Herbs of Choice. It is formatted like Drugs of Choice. You look up the malady and the herbs commonly used, their dosage, side effects, and the results of any studies will be listed.

Darthdon, that makes no sense. Why would the makers of these products not want their products evaluated by the FDA if they're certain they have the benefits they advertise? I hope you'll forgive me for sounding a little naive there, but it seems to me the homeopathic industry (for lack of a better term) would like to put themselves in a position to compete with Big Pharma for doctor recommendations and even prescriptions - it would be more profitable for them.

Darthdon, just who is doing the diagnosing? Since you've made no mention in your post about any type of involvement from of health care professional, you must be leaving the diagnostic process to the individuals and/or their caregivers. In other words, people should be using prducts that address their completely unscientific and uninformed self-diagnosis. Nothing is more dangerous than that.

You've DISPROVED your whole argument.

Wall of J

Nevertheless, it is what happened. There are reputable herbal companies, their fear was that herbal products might become restricted to prescription only status once the FDA got control.

rpearlston

Just WHO do you think prescribes over the counter drugs? Your response implies you think they should be banned. I am a Registered Pharmacist. I am often asked to give advice about herbs, vitamins, homeopathic products and OTC's. I am sometimes the only health care professional some can afford, (Pharmacists don't usually charge). Or do you think Pharmacists are not health care professionals?

...their fear was that herbal products might become restricted to prescription only status once the FDA got control

Like Tylenol and Advil, both of which (if I'm not mistaken) are available in prescription strength as well as non-prescription strength? I can believe the FDA was lobbied into not evaluating the statements made by the herbal companies about their products, but I would like to see something that says it was the herbal companies and not the pharmaceutical lobbyists who saw to it.

Wall of J

Wall of J

Advil, (ibuprofen), does have a prescription strength as do many OTC's. While I agree that high dose Tylenol, (acetaminophen), should be a prescription drug, so far it is not.

The Pharmaceutical companies would LOVE to have the FDA evaluate herbal products. Since most herbal companies could not afford the cost of the studies, which typically run into the HUNDREDS of MILLIONS, they would not be able to market their products.

If the basic science shows merit, then the homeo compounds will advance just like other 'traditional' compounds advance.

Darthdon, don't forget about Tylenol with codeine, or Tylenol with hyrocodone (I believe - correct me if I'm wrong - that's Vicodin).

Reputable herbal companies have already done the studies, meaning the FDA only needs to look at the results of those studies, same as is done with Pharmaceuticals. The hundreds of millions figure sounds seriously inflated.

Wall-most of the herbal companies have run small studies, not the large double blind placebo controlled ones that the FDA requires - those are expensive to run. Many of these herbals claim to cure many ailments - and in order to gain marketing clearance from the FDA, you have to prove safety and efficacy in each indication (unless the doctor chooses to prescribe something marketed for one indication for another unproven indication). Adds to the cost of running at least 2 large long term trials. So instead they apply the quack miranda warning to all their compounds.

Wall of J

Get REAL! The products you named are prescription because of the Codeine and Hydrocodone they contain, NOT the Acetaminophen, (Tylenol).

The latest figure , 2009, gave an average cost to bring a drug to market through the FDA at $494 MILLION.

Since herbal companies cannot patent their NATURAL products, they would never be able to recover their investment.

Heather is correct, the studies that have been done do not meet the FDA's standards. (The protocol now is for 3 sets of trials, with Phase III being by far the most exacting and expensive.)

See 17.1 above. If the FDA were willing to evaluate the validity of the studies done on alternative medicines, the medical profession at large would be more willing to prescribe (or at least recommend) them, and Big Pharma would finally have some real competition (thus having a financial incentive to develop something that's not only effective, but safer than what they're currently putting out).

All I can ever do is shake my head in disgust when I see "thoughts of suicide" listed as a side effect for most anti-depressants. I was always under the impression that anti-depressants were supposed to prevent that sort of thing, not cause it.

Many people with depression have thoughts of suicide. Common treatment modalities for depression require anti-depressants as well as more personal therapy with a mental health specialist. The problem is the anti-depressants can bring up someones energy before their mental perception issues have been fully fixed.

To put it simply, many depressed people have thoughts of suicide but because of their disease lack the willpower/initiative to follow through.

Once patients start taking Anti-depressants their energy and initiative will increase as brain chemistry is corrected. This happens sometimes before the therapy effectively deals with the suicidal thoughts and hence it becomes necessary to carefully monitor these patients during treatment to prevent suicide as their energy increases

I hope that's not what they teach in medical school.

i'm glad things are better for you luvenia. i had lymn desease qnd still have it because i didn't find out i had it till a year and half later. i went to 10 doctors who didn't know what it was. finally i found a doctor who is both conventional and homeopathic.he pulled me through using mostly homeopathic medicine.like isaid i still have it but not to the degree it was.i went to him 15 yrs. ago.he still practices in NewYork City

i do not believe this story. i think it's aload of crap printed by the government and the drug companies to bad mouth homeopathic remedies.propaganda, to say the least.with many of the homeopathic medicines the one thing you have to find out is if they would interact with conventional drugs,which perhaps someone would really have to be on.that's about the only question.

Here's what I don't understand about the posts that I'm reading - the article was in an Australian medical journal and was a study done in Australia by, among other things, reviewing the medical records.

WHy is everyone here complaining about the FDA and what the US government will and will not allow? There was nothing in this study that had anything to do with the US?

That's called reading comprehension, folks. IF you don't understand the term, try using a dictionary. That is, if you know how to use a dictionary.

That's the level of scientific ignorance, or lack of reading comprehension, and refusal to accept fact, that anyone with so much as two brain cells with a synaptic connection can very clearly see in these posts. Worse yet, it's not necessary.

You're right Stan, it doesn't. But the pharma industry is supposed to report results of their larger clinical trials regardless of the results. Agree there is some room for improvement, especially for negative/ambiguous results.

Good to know, Bill. There should be a standard reporting scheme for all homeopath manufacturers with plans for analyzing/reporting data to look for trends.

Taking plain Organic Apple Cider Vinegar cures acid reflux. I know from EXPERIENCE. The same way I KNOW for a FACT that all of the homeopathic remedies I've been taking for years and years WORK when chemical meds DID NOT and even made my conditions WORSE. I am no longer on pain meds, muscle relaxants, anxiety meds, anti-depressants OR arthritis meds. I have NEVER, EVER had a reaction to a homeopathic remedy. Neither have my children, neither have my pets nor has ANYONE I know in the homeopathic community.

You people who are not PART of this community and don't understand HOW or WHY these remedies work need to shut the hell up. You are under this mistaken idea that EVERYONE who takes alternative remedies knows what the hell they're doing. WELL THEY DON'T ! It takes years of STUDY to know how to prescribe a remedy accurately. Most of us go to NATUROPATHS or HOLISTIC MDs who sure the hell know what they're doing and what is and isn't safe AND the appropriate dosages to take and how to take them.

What you people FAIL to realize is that homeopathic/natural remedies are NOT a "one size fits all" drug like conventional pharmaceuticals. ONE homeopathic remedy can be used for NUMEROUS different symptoms depending on that person's HOLISTIC make up. Natural medicine does not treat symptoms like allopathic medicine. Allopathic medicine does not CURE. Allopathic medicine is basically a bandaid that never addresses the root cause of the problem.

People who have not studied the different fields of natural medicine... homeopathy, ayurveda, Traditional Chinese Medicine, etc haven't a CLUE of how to administer a remedy properly. No one should EVER treat themselves without having a FIRM and EXTENSIVE knowledge base of the Materia Medica.

Most KNOWLEDGEABLE people in the alternative community KNOW which companies are reputable and which aren't. Almost EVERYONE trusts and uses Hylands, Boiron, Newton's, Nelson's/Bach and others. These companies are VERY well known and do extensive research studies and have very strict production methods.

You people are blinded by the fly-by-night companies that come in pushing crap like Hoodia and other gimmick fads.

So... like I said... unless you have ACTUAL EXPERIENCE and KNOWLEDGE of homeopathy and alternative medicine, if you're not a legitimate researcher/scientist... you have nothing to say of any interest or validity.

Thank You

I've been corrected. Can't get em all right...