Hard News: An unexpectedly long post about supplements and stuff
147 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Shouldn't that be "If science can't provide answers to some health issues then few things can" . . . or perhaps "If science can't provide answers to all health issues then nothing can."
Either way, it reads more like a statement of faith than an objective truth.
Isn't the urge to keep on 'looking and finding more answers' inherent in human nature?Salicylic acid, as a primitive but effective precursor of aspirin, has been in use since BC. Modern science's role was to analyse why it worked, and then to further develop its effectiveness.
I'd suggest that elevating science to the status of a beneficial entity is simply the flipside of attaching a quasi-mystical 'naturalness' to alternative remedies.
-
Based on your logical falacy, if "science" can't show how or why something works, then it simply doesn't work.
Yeah, right.
Science is omniscient, I'd always suspected as much after being brought up on a cerebral diet of Dr. Who, Star Treck and Lost in Space.
LOLScience isn't a bunch of guys with white hair and white coats jealously guarding what is and isn't true - it's a system in which you attempt to objectively and impartially determine whether or not something you believe is actually true or not.
To take homeopathy, lot's of people <i>believe</i> it to be true but when subjected to impartial observation it fails every clinical trial it's subjected to.
Science isn't a way of deciding <i>why</i> something works, although you can come up with an explanatory hypothesis and then attempt to falsify it - it's a way of objectively determining whether or not something works at all.
To take another example, people used radiation therapy to treat cancer patients for decades before they knew about apoptosis, tumor supressor genes and the actual molecular mechanisms of the treatment - but they were able to scientifically determine that it really worked.
-
Science is a process, not a belief system.
-
It's a shame I've come so late to this thread, and that I have such limited time today to get stuck in, because I've been following this for a very long time, I've actually read the legislation (note to Russell - there are only about 1,000 pages to get through when you count the bills and the draft rules currently on the table).
The fact that so many commentators go on about "traditional Maori healers being exempt" is frankly an indication that the overall thrust of the bill is still eluding them. ALL PRACTITIONERS ARE EXEMPT. It's Products - hence the bill's name - that this legislation applies to. As in, what you buy on shelves.
As a professional health practitioner this would be all very well and good from my point of view. Now the products consumers use have to be prescribed products, ha ha, by me. Lovely for my business, and gives these effective products the respect they deserve (although when used correctly they are SAFE).
HOWEVER. How the hell am I going to source locally grown lavender / manuka / thyme essential oils??? WHo the hell would bother to harvest and produce these in our robustly healthy land from now on, if this bill gets through?
(Note: a simple petri dish lab test will prove the microbial efficacy of these essential oils; yes it is chemistry not quackery! Try it for yourself! Very simple).
A crying shame that access to our own abundantly growing herbal bounty will be reduced.
Why will it?
The manufacturing costs and bureaucracy.
Like I said, I don't have much time today, but put it this way: why WOULD you distil lavender oil on your farm if it means you're suddenly looking down the barrel of a $20,000 annual audit, compliance paperwork, box ticking, agents turning up unexpectedly to twiddle with your gas / liquid chromotographer...
You might say I have a vested interest. Yes. I love using New Zealand lavender oil. Manuka grows nowhere else - the best is from the East Cape and they might be alright up there - my source calls itself a pharmaceutical so maybe they can attract some big dosh - this would give them a global monopoly I would say.
Because nobody else will be able to afford to invent, innovate, distil, extract plant essences without being SLAMMED with costs and compliance.
I'll have to import products for my practice and business that grow quite happily here! What happened to supporting Kiwi-made?
Aromatology is an art as well as a science. I have enormous belief in NZ's potential to lead the creative field of natural cosmetics and therapeutic products that we can promote as honestly being GOOD for you.
My products straddle the cosmetic / therapeutic interface, and this legislation simply gives me reason to DUMB DOWN the information I give to consumers. Heaven forbid I promote their therapeutic properties - more trouble than it's worth!
So are consumers better off, information-wise?
Deeply ironic.
I already asked MedSafe (the government's official info source on this issue) about the NZ Herald article: they have no idea about its genesis and they can't verify it either way.
Is this the sort of information-flow that we as stakeholders will have to continue to put up with?
Thank goodness olive and avocado oils are food, therefore exempt from this bill - because dare I say it: they are good for you too.
-
Here is a case of lead poisoning from a *natural* remedy:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5131a3.htmIt is sometimes asserted that because people (e.g. in tribal societies) have taken traditional remedies over an extended period of time without apparent ill effects then that proves the harmlessness and efficacy of those remedies without the need for trials. The flaw in that argument is that in a society without adequate (bunny rabbit tested) treatment, people will typically often be ill and will die young. This can disguise the health problems caused by (for instance) eating lead.
Having said all that, I agree with the argument that people should be free to make an informed choice to ingest what they like. Possibly untested remedies should simply be required to carry a cigarette style big warning:
THIS PROBABLY DOESN'T WORK.
AND MIGHT POISON YOU.
YOUR CHOICE! -
BTW, *is* sassafras oil available OTC as a natural remedy in NZ?
Just asking?
-
a simple petri dish lab test will prove the microbial efficacy of these essential oils
I think that Sodium Hypochlorite (aka household bleach) will also effectively clean up a petri dish.
Whether it will effectively kill bacteria in the body in a smaller does than that required to kill you is I think less likely.
If lavender oil really kills bacteria in the body then:
- why isn't it trialed and prescribed?
- why don't bacteria develop resistance as they have against all other antibiotic chemicals?(Incidentally, if it did work, then it should really be restricted to prescription use so that incorrect use *doesn't* lead to lavender oil resistant bacteria).
(Or do these hippy substances not beat the bacteria over the head with chemistry but nicely whisper biochemically at them to go away?)
-
No Rich - I've never come across sassafras oil for general sale - and I'm an oil dealer.
-
Manuka grows nowhere else -
While manuka is the NZ name for Leptospermum scoparium, it's also native to southeast Australia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptospermum_scoparium -
yeah but would you put sodium hypochlorite on your skin and still have a good day?
big difference eh rich.
essential oils ARE prescribed in France - by bona fide medical doctors no less - and I can prescribe you some too if you really really want.
you tell me the answer to your other big question - fascinating topic.
-
Hey Joe; good point.
If you can find an Australian producer of leptospernum scoparium essential oil who's still in business - hell I'll give it a go!
-
If science can't provide answers to some health issues then nothing can.
Once again, this is just pure twaddle.
It comes down to how you define "answers".
Surely an "answer" is a solution to some health problem.
And you seem to be asserting that if science cannot provide the solution, it does not exist.This assertion is not based on a scrap of "evidence".
Just your blind faith. -
My products straddle the cosmetic / therapeutic interface, and this legislation simply gives me reason to DUMB DOWN the information I give to consumers.
Interesting - I wonder how that would interfere in the labelling requirments for cosmetics under HSNO, or would they be different types of information that are being required? (I'm not sure what labelling requirements are outlined by other legislation and am as such curious to find out).
-
BIG WARNING - Don't mix herbs & meds - St John's Wort and happy pills don't mix!
Apparently you can OD on Poppy Seed Tea as well.
The USA FDA have warnings for Kava, Comfrey & aristolochic acid as nephrotoxic, hepatotoxic, and carcinogenic (i know what that last one means).
John -THE ETHICS OF SCIENCE a book by David Renik may be worth a gander as science isn't a value free zone.
JUNK SCIENCE - Dan Agin is well worth a gander too for all those dodgy white coats falsifying results.
These are all quite rational in there approach which therefore strengthens good science (Buffalo Theory).
White Coats used to be the uniform of the securty crew casing me & my Kirkwood intermediate mates at Canty Uni riding our BMXs through the Library building, down the steps and past the pond. Oh what fun we had.
-
If you can find an Australian producer of leptospernum scoparium essential oil who's still in business - hell I'll give it a go!
You're the expert Eleanor, but from my fleeting experience as a consumer the Manuks oil available in Oz all seems to come from NZ.
-
Once again, this is just pure twaddle.
If this bill passes, no-one will be able to produce certifiably pure twaddle due to high compliance costs.
-
Isn't Christine Rankin going to run for Mayor of Auckland?
Maybe we should go back to the old law that lunatics can't run for public office?
-
So who would that leave us with?
-
stephen walker: how do you know an answer really is an answer? Science is the method for establishing that.
If I have cancer, and have given up all hope, and you shine pink light on me, and I get better, was pink light the answer? I'd say science is another name for the methods we use to assess the pink light solution. In that sense, without science there are no answers - or at least, no answers we can trust as likely true.
-
Interesting - I wonder how that would interfere in the labelling requirments for cosmetics under HSNO, or would they be different types of information that are being required?
Hey Scott - it depends on the language I use to promote the products. So the label can say "reduces signs of ageing", but if I say something therapuetic, it automatically falls under the therapeutic regulation and the product needs a license etc. If I had more time I'd find you the rule about the interface.
As a professional health practitioner, after consultation I can prescribe skincare that "reduces the chance of a recurring attack of shingles" for example, as well as making your skin look great. ;o) This will not be jeopardised - except, as I said, by reducing the supply of locally-sourced ingredients I can access, or at the very least making their cost pretty prohibitive, because of the exhorbitant manufacturing compliance costs.
-
Elenor
Can you please specify what you mean by professional health practioner? -
I'd say science is another name for the methods we use to assess the pink light solution. In that sense, without science there are no answers - or at least, no answers we can trust as likely true.
yes, but effectively, what you are saying is that if a solution cannot be "expalined" or backed up by "science" it is not a solution, just a coincidence. but, unfortunately, science is only about empirical observation and probabilities/correlations extrapolated from such.
what I'm saying is that science cannot claim to have a monopoly on the solutions. scientific consensus is constantly changing, which kind of suggests that science only has a modest grasp of the big picture. and that silly absolutist statements are as faith-based as anything else.
-
My perspective is that standards would be a good idea - but I feel compelled to comment on this thread from the perspective of someone whose 'exotic' quacky foreigny remedies are being, perhaps, oversimplified as all a pile of dried tiger penis...
I only go to homeopaths or Chinese traditional medical practitioners who are also qualified in the Western medical system. ie my mum, my aunties, and the other practitioners of bioenergetics, acupuncture etc who are *doctors*, *physiotherapists* or *nurses* who have learnt their practice from *doctors*.
It's a false dichotomy to characterise the 'healing' industries as hippies on one side and positivist machine-cutters on the other, and it's always disappointing to see it portrayed that way. There's a huge area within the official academy devoted to complementary medicine, and the NZ Medical Council has been known to give formal specialist degree status at least one doctor who is highly respected, effective, and advanced in Eastern/alternative medical practice and the training thereof in New Zealand. Their official specialist status, eligible for ACC claims? The vague field of 'Internal Medicine'.
This isn't to say that qualified homeopaths etc who aren't doctors are all quacks - basically, I just know a lot of doctors. But basically, Western medicine is adopting far more Eastern or 'traditional' methods than people realise. When it is adopted it gets stripped of its 'exotic'/'quacky' status and everyone forgets where it came from - hence, you get people thinking acupuncture is perfectly kosher while the bioenergetic method used in homeopathic analysis is loony-tunes, although they are actually rooted in the same medical theory to figure out what is wrong with you. Ultimately, good scientists should know that science is an expanding body of knowledge, not a complete one. For example, Western science has concluded that acupuncture can be effective, but does not have the language to explain why. There are some things that are yet to be explicable within the terms of Western Science - that doesn't mean the fairies magicked them so - some of us are just waiting. But in my view, that's why going to a doctor/medical practitioner with twice the skills can be a good bet when no-one else can figure out what's wrong with you (but you don't want to miss the possibility that you have meningitis or a broken arm).
I am also one to be suspicious of culty hippy exoticised astrological vendors of Vedic miracles - I'd much rather go to an Western-qualified Indian doctor who also happens to specialise in Vedic medicine if I was interested in Vedic stuff - there are probably quite a few, given that there certainly are in for the Chinese. Chinese traditional medicine and physical energy practices such as acupuncture and wushu are of course, all stolen from the Vedas anyway.
Basically, my points are: yes, just because it is 'exotic and foreign and traditional' doesn't mean it will work, and if it is being sold on its traditional natural exotic mysterious spiritualness, you should probably run a mile and/or test for arsenic; but just because some nong with a bindi/tiger-penis fetish is making an exoticised mockery of of my medical heritage, doesn't mean my medical heritage is all nonsense. Like I said, even the Medical Council knows it isn't.
-
Qualified aromatherapist (through IFPA http://www.ifparoma.org/)
This makes products created, blended or compounded and prescribed to my clients exempt from regulation.
Some - but not all - natural products for skin application deserve wide access; this legislation will indubitably impede that greatly. I believe there is a paucity among really good OTC products for skin conditions that don't include steroids & all sorts of creepy things with lovely initialised euphemisms. But that's my opinion, because I see effective, safe results often in my clients and that's very satisfying.
I have to go but hope I've introduced some pertinent issues relating to this legislation. It's pretty damn complex and on the whole, it sounds as if most of you have a hell of a lot of reading ahead if you actually want to get to grips with it.
Otherwise, the kneejerk stuff and the opinions will potentially swirl on forever. Plus the ridicule of natural health practice by outsiders with little clue about it. I care very much about how growers and producers in this country will be affected.
Read the legislation: it's in the detail.
-
You're the expert Eleanor, but from my fleeting experience as a consumer the Manuks oil available in Oz all seems to come from NZ.
This puzzles me too. Apparently 75% of Comvita's range is already on the shelves in Australia, so presumably they've gone through the approval process already.
I can see how small producers might be put in a hellish position, but it doesn't seem that most of the products here will be yanked in five years' time. Or have I missed something?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.