It's my understanding that in Europe,Asia and many other parts of world, herbal remedies and natural medicines are widely used to treat many illnesses, with equal or better results. But here in the US it's illegal to prescribe that type of treatment because of FDA drug regulations. It seems the only type of medicines were legally allowed to prescribe can only be purchased from pharmacuetical corporations at extraordinary costs.

Look at all the commercials on TV literally pushing drugs onto the public. I get a kick out of the possible "side effects", worst that the afflictions their trying to treat. Want to talk about drug dealing, turn on your TV.

I Had to move this quote over from the "POT" thread as I thought it was appropriate here. Hope your Mom recovers. I only wish my Mom could have had an alternative to the standard cancer treatment that did nothing but inflict pain.

Another sad fact in this whole issue is that governments (in North American anyway) are going to bankrupt themselves paying for these pharmaceuticals over the next 20-30 years.

__________________
Jason Priest
1999 E430
1995 E420 - retired
1986 420SEL - retired

Almost all pharmaceuticals are derived from plant, animal, or Monera. There is a course taught in some schools of pharmacy called, "pharmacognosy." It is a course in learning about the natural sources of drugs for therapy. I worked in the vicinity of Iquitos, Peru while in grad school on an NIH funded survey of certain plant families for drug screening. I don't think we ever found anything of consequence but that would be nice to find out that something we collected in the Malpighiaceae or Hippocrataceae or one of the other families had some benefit to somebody.

It stands to reason that the raw form would still have some measure of efficacy. Also, in general we like to target a chemical to a disease. But I could easily imagine that a combination of chemicals in a natural product may have a synergistic effect.

I have read that Pharmaceuetical companies fund medical schools, and text books basically buying the medical schools to teach their students/doctors to become drug pushers for pharm co's.

__________________
'87 924S
'81 280SEL

Sold ->

81 300SD -
93 300E w/ 3.2
85 300D-
79 300SD
82 300CD
83 300CD - CA
87 190E 5 spd
87 Porsche 924S

"..I'll take a simple "C" to "G" and feel brand new about it..."

I find traditional Chinese medicine to be very useful for chronic pains/discomfort...i.e. dry coughing, phlegm constantly stuck in your throat, etc...

__________________
1995 black pearl/black Mercedes-Benz E420 :

As far as I'm aware, your doctor can prescribe bed-rest. That's as natural as it gets.

What's not allowed is advertising that a drug is good for certain ailments where there is absolutely no evidence or studies backing up the claim. Many of these so-called natural drugs work just as well as sugar pills for the intended uses.

And they're still drugs. "Natural" does not mean "safe."

Yes that might true. But how about focusing on the many natural ones that are effective, as there appear to be many that do work just as well or better? Or is the FDA only concerned about approving drugs that are high cost, high profit? When was the last time the FDA tested a natural low cost treatment and approved it or use? It appears to me that if the pharmaceutical companies can't make big profits on a treatment, they consider it not legitimate. It's all about big money first, public benefit last.

I'll read that last word as "illegitimate." Yes, I agree that this problem exists. But note that the alternative-medicine world is making a lot of money without any studies that could confirm or deny the effectiveness. I suspect that the latter would hold more often, especially with homeopathic remedies. I realize that you haven't directly addressed homepathic dilutions, but these are often put into the same bag as all the others.

Yes that might true for some remedies. But how about investigating the many natural ones that are effective, as there appear to be many that do work just as well or better? Or is the FDA only concerned about approving drugs that are high cost? When was the last time the FDA tested a natural low cost treatment and approved it or use? It appears to me that if the pharmaceutical companies can't make big profits on a treatment, they consider it legitimate.

Google FDA and Garlic, Soy, Ginseng, wheat germ, Omega 3 ect ect ect

Yes, I know they exist, are they being prescibed by physicans as an alternative to pharmacueticals for treatment or as a suppliment?

Absolutly a good example is Omege Brite for treatment of depression.

Here's a clue: You don't need a prescription to consume those items.

Not perscribed as a persciption, but for retail purchase of a couple bucks. For the person who can self diagnose remedies for their ailments thats great. How about the people that seek professional advice and treatment, would the same remedies be seriously be considered as treatment vs the perscription drugs? I doubt it. I think physicians here(US) solely rely on traditional pharamceutical medicines. I mean when was the last time you went to the doctor and he perscribed anything else but drugs? 2 or 3 or 4 different perscriptions at once. Thats what their trained and encouraged by their drug reps. to do, dispense expensive drugs. After all, the drug reps. give pretty good perks to hawk their wares. I'm not knocking the doctors, I'm just questioning the system we have in the US.

I remeber a few years ago I had a chest/head cold, the doctor gave me 3 different perscriptions. Went to the pharmacy with my perscription plan(cigna) and they wanted $230 bucks cash in addition to insurance, I nearly drop over. Seems the drugs weren't generic or covered for whatever reason. So I dropped the cough medicine and decongestant ones and just got just the antibiotic. Seems I didn't need the other 2 anyway.