Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

OT - Bit of a curly one - bringing herbs into Oz


Cesca

10-Mar-2011
3:06:52 PM

This I know for certain. In the US (and possibly other countries too), natural doctors cannot get funding for clinical trials. However, medical doctors can. Gee, I wonder why....?

Natural doctors in the US can get clinical funding IF they train to become an MD - but most natural doctors aren't willing to do that because it would take many years of expensive study of techniques they aren't happy to apply in the first place.

So, natural doctors tend to end up using things like websites and patient testimonials to spread information about the work they do. This doesn't make that information unreliable; it simply shows a lack of funds for research. When you consider the vested interests and lack of high quality randomised evidence in some medical 'research', it would seem that relying on first-hand patient testimonials isn't a bad thing at all.

Big pharma does indeed have serious dollars to play with. As far as I am aware, its biggest spend goes on marketing. Yet a natural doctor can run a highly successful practice on almost word-of-mouth alone. Funny, that.


tnd

10-Mar-2011
3:13:03 PM

On 10/03/2011 Cesca wrote:
>This I know for certain. In the US (and possibly other countries too),
>natural doctors...

I'll tell you what, sport, unless they have a MD or a PhD in something, your "natural doctors" may be natural but they aren't doctors.


Sabu

10-Mar-2011
3:29:48 PM

Could you explain what a natural doctor is and their relevant training / background? I'm interested because if there is a considerable difference between their training in clinical research and that of an MD's then it is no wonder why they have differences in funding.

Also relying on first hand testimonials is not a statistically reliable form of evidence. How can you criticise medical research yet say that? While there are vested interests in medical research it does not mean their findings, procedures, ethics, underlying research and everything else that goes into a human clinical trial are invalid or flawed.
There is a monumental amount of research required before anything is allowed to be tested on humans let alone approved for the general public. And this is for a very good reason.

kieranl

10-Mar-2011
3:41:13 PM

On 10/03/2011 Cesca wrote:
>Natural doctors in the US can get clinical funding IF they train to become
>an MD - but most natural doctors aren't willing to do that because it would
>take many years of expensive study of techniques they aren't happy to
>apply in the first place.
>
Are you sure of the reason for not getting funding? Clinical trials are usually run by Health organisations in conjunction with Univerities or medical research facilities. To actually get in a position to try to organise a trial you've got to become associated with one of these organisations. Next you've got to get some cred. First you'll need your medical degree or a top science degree and then a masters or PhD on top of that. Then you do some post-doctoral fellowship stuff. Now you might be starting to get the cred to put up a research proposal without being laughed at. And there's still ethics committes and all other sorts of minefields to negotiate even if you can get a funding body interested.


Andrew_M

10-Mar-2011
3:45:23 PM

Regulatory approval in Australia for this sort of thing - ie "herbal extracts" etc is actually very very murky. I come from a hard science background but at one point I somehow got involved quasi-pharma-type company and had to deal very similar issues - particularly TGA guidelines. It was a long time ago, but if I remember the rightly extracts from plants come in under a different classification than manufactured "drugs" - something more akin to foodstuffs.

To make a claim that something has an effect (ie is a "drug"), you actually need to take it formally through a registration procedure that costs mega huge bucks (preclinical trials, then phase I-IV clinical trials). For herbal extracts, so long as you don't make official claims they can be sold pretty much without restriction. However, there it is entirely possible that these herbal extracts CAN have biological (ie "drug") effects, it's just that they haven't been PROVEN do do so (and be safe) via this process. In fact, that was my biggest concern at the time - the company management always wanted to push the envelope - and some of these extracts could potentially have significant biological activity, including major side effects - particularly if they were highly concentrated.

There is actually a whole mainstream branch of drug research called Ethnopharmacology, which looks at cultures all around the world and what traditional remedies they use, sees if these remedies actually work, then to tries to isolate the active ingredients. Just two historical examples: aspirin started as a traditional extract of willow bark, and the most effective antimalarial drug that exists at the moment was originally a traditional chinese herbal remedy for malaria - artemisinin - it is still made by extracting from the herb.

As to the whether the OP is actually wasting her time taking herbal supplements? Who knows - the fact that they are sold as "remedies" rather than "drugs" only means that they haven't been tested for safety and efficacy. Theoretically they could actually be doing harm...


vwills

10-Mar-2011
4:33:39 PM

Oh dear, mountainz hosts glen and cesca have strayed into the robust opinionated chockstone and got a bit defensive when everyone on Chockstone is just being their normal pig headed, hyperbolic on line selves. Chill out dudes. This forum is a bit different from yours without the nice touchy feely elements. Sometimes a bit over the top, sometimes in the gutter, but often good for a laugh.

Duncan

10-Mar-2011
5:22:35 PM

On 10/03/2011 Andrew_M wrote:
>Regulatory approval in Australia for this sort of thing - ie "herbal extracts"
>etc is actually very very murky. I come from a hard science background
>but at one point I somehow got involved quasi-pharma-type company and had
>to deal very similar issues - particularly TGA guidelines. It was a long
>time ago, but if I remember the rightly extracts from plants come in under
>a different classification than manufactured "drugs" - something more akin
>to foodstuffs.

Aren't they referred to as nutraceuticals? I seem to remember there was a medium sized company that went bust 5-10 years ago after it was found that they weren't fulfilling regulatory requirements for making that sort of thing? The TGA does have some form of regulations in place anyway.

>To make a claim that something has an effect (ie is a "drug"), you actually
>need to take it formally through a registration procedure that costs mega
>huge bucks (preclinical trials, then phase I-IV clinical trials). For herbal
>extracts, so long as you don't make official claims they can be sold pretty
>much without restriction. However, there it is entirely possible that these
>herbal extracts CAN have biological (ie "drug") effects, it's just that
>they haven't been PROVEN do do so (and be safe) via this process. In fact,
>that was my biggest concern at the time - the company management always
>wanted to push the envelope - and some of these extracts could potentially
>have significant biological activity, including major side effects - particularly
>if they were highly concentrated.
>
>There is actually a whole mainstream branch of drug research called Ethnopharmacology,
>which looks at cultures all around the world and what traditional remedies
>they use, sees if these remedies actually work, then to tries to isolate
>the active ingredients. Just two historical examples: aspirin started as
>a traditional extract of willow bark, and the most effective antimalarial
>drug that exists at the moment was originally a traditional chinese herbal
>remedy for malaria - artemisinin - it is still made by extracting from
>the herb.

In Sydney, I know UTS and UWS at least are pretty involved in traditional Chinese medicine research.


Andrew_M

10-Mar-2011
5:56:40 PM

On 10/03/2011 Duncan wrote:

>The TGA does have some form of regulations in place anyway.

Yes, you are right, though some of it was a bit open to interpretation from memory. It seemed that in practice a lot of things slip under the TGA radar. It's only when bigger companies get involved, or a product causes major side effects problems that serious scrutiny happens and the sh!t hits the fan.

>In Sydney, I know UTS and UWS at least are pretty involved in traditional
>Chinese medicine research.

And at Usyd.


Cesca

10-Mar-2011
6:55:55 PM

On 10/03/2011 Sabu wrote:
>There is a monumental amount of research required before anything is allowed
>to be tested on humans let alone approved for the general public. And
>this is for a very good reason.

Oh, how I wish this were true. If it were true, many people would not be disabled right now/have poor quality of life as a result of the side effects of medical procedures. And yes, I know, there's always a chance things can go wrong with surgeries...but some surgeries are known to have consistently high rates of adverse side effects, yet prospective patients are never told this pre-op and often only hear the horror stories of other patients by searching online (sometimes after their own surgery, when it's too late for the info to be helpful). I know this, because I helped set up a support group in NZ for people living with debilitating side effects from a surgery that is widely offered by surgeons in NZ, Oz, the US, Asia, South America, Canada, Europe, and backed by numerous medical insurers. There are many support groups worldwide for people living with the results of this supposedly 'safe' and 'miraculous' surgery.


ambyeok

10-Mar-2011
7:04:52 PM

On 10/03/2011 Cesca wrote:
>There are many support groups worldwide for people living with the results
>of this supposedly 'safe' and 'miraculous' surgery.

And this surgery is? Spill the beans.


Cesca

10-Mar-2011
7:07:31 PM

On 10/03/2011 vwills wrote:
>Oh dear, mountainz hosts glen and cesca have strayed into the robust opinionated
>chockstone and got a bit defensive when everyone on Chockstone is just
>being their normal pig headed, hyperbolic on line selves. Chill out dudes.
>This forum is a bit different from yours without the nice touchy feely
>elements. Sometimes a bit over the top, sometimes in the gutter, but often
>good for a laugh.

Vanessa, I am curious - ignoring every "pig headed, hyperbolic" comment directed at me, sharing info from the AQIS site, and conversing with those offering helpful info makes me defensive?

As for our "nice touchy feely forum", I recall you being more than happy to take up my time and take advantage of the atmosphere at Mountainz when you couldn't get your forum login to work, and wanted to know more about the Freda Du Faur centennary celebrations and what to do in and around Queenstown. Next time you get in touch, I'll try my bestest to be nasty, mmm'k?

Duncan

10-Mar-2011
7:21:23 PM

Yep, fair play to you, you've dealt with the barrage of arse-hattery with aplomb.


Sabu

10-Mar-2011
7:33:03 PM

On 10/03/2011 Cesca wrote:
>Oh, how I wish this were true. If it were true, many people would not
>be disabled right now/have poor quality of life as a result of the side
>effects of medical procedures. And yes, I know, there's always a chance
>things can go wrong with surgeries...but some surgeries are known to have
>consistently high rates of adverse side effects, yet prospective patients
>are never told this pre-op and often only hear the horror stories of other
>patients by searching online (sometimes after their own surgery, when it's
>too late for the info to be helpful). I know this, because I helped set
>up a support group in NZ for people living with debilitating side effects
>from a surgery that is widely offered by surgeons in NZ, Oz, the US, Asia,
>South America, Canada, Europe, and backed by numerous medical insurers.
>There are many support groups worldwide for people living with the results
>of this supposedly 'safe' and 'miraculous' surgery.

My point was in relation to the development of drugs. It might be different for surgeries (i wouldn't know at all) but drug research as others have pointed out is heavily scrutinised. Of course that doesn't make it 100% perfect, nothing ever is in science but its the best there is.


nmonteith

10-Mar-2011
8:28:31 PM

On 10/03/2011 Cesca wrote:
>Vanessa, I am curious - ignoring every "pig headed, hyperbolic" comment
>directed at me, sharing info from the AQIS site, and conversing with those
>offering helpful info makes me defensive?
>
>As for our "nice touchy feely forum", I recall you being more than happy
>to take up my time and take advantage of the atmosphere at Mountainz when
>you couldn't get your forum login to work, and wanted to know more about
>the Freda Du Faur centennary celebrations and what to do in and around
>Queenstown. Next time you get in touch, I'll try my bestest to be nasty,
>mmm'k?

I don't think vanessa was having a go at you! She was just letting you know that this forum is full of shit-stirrers who will pull apart and dissect anything you put before them. Unfortunately alternative medicine goes into the politics, sexuality and carrot bolt category. Topics that no one will agree on, and that people will defend their sides to the last breath (or keyboard stroke). I'm not sure how your forum works, but Chockstone is like this every day! So don't be nasty to everyone here - and either ignore the posts or keep defending your point of view. To keep in the game you'll probably waste a few days of your life! With 4000+ members this forum can be a little busy sometimes.


Gavo

10-Mar-2011
9:07:07 PM

Them's fightin words!!


vwills

10-Mar-2011
10:14:01 PM

Hmmm, and I was only trying to be friendly and warn you that people bait big time on chockstone and there are some chocky experts in this (you know who you are) who can make any topic degenerate into a flame war. So you shouldnt take things too personally on this forum. I think you are being defensive if you find that objectionable.

I actually kept skipping over this thread because I presumed it was Macca on his cannabis platform for the NSW election. I havent had the time to read through all the posts.

To put it on record when I said mountainz is touchy feely it wasnt to ridicule or denigrate that website. I have found it useful and the vibe is completely different from chocky, and a pleasant one, with most people knowing each other to some extent from the hills. Thus people tend to show more respect, helped by the moderation, and although the debates can still be robust they dont usually degenerate into bawdy name calling witticisms.

Sorry that help is required to log in initially and that I actually asked questions related to climbing and posted conditions reports on mountainz. I thought that was what climbing forums were for. But I now see that climbing forums are there to vent some spleen, and mount personal attacks often made much worse by the ability to reply immediately and press send.

By the way, WW&S is actually a nice guy and you would probably enjoy climbing with him. However his favourite herbs are hops.


ajfclark

10-Mar-2011
10:33:54 PM

On 10/03/2011 vwills wrote:
>by the ability to reply immediately and press send.

Maybe we need this: http://xkcd.com/481/


vwills

10-Mar-2011
10:36:43 PM

On 10/03/2011 ambyeok wrote:
>On 10/03/2011 Cesca wrote:
>>There are many support groups worldwide for people living with the results
>>of this supposedly 'safe' and 'miraculous' surgery.
>
>And this surgery is? Spill the beans.

I would be guessing bariatric surgery. (Surgery for obesity). If only they had eaten less in the first place.
Though perhaps it could be circumcision :)

Now theres 2 further topics for the chocky alumni to sink their considered expertise into.

One Day Hero

11-Mar-2011
1:05:42 AM

On 10/03/2011 glenn wrote:
>
>To confuse homeopathy
>, which has no scientific basis
> with naturopathy (the practice of supplying nutrients to the body,
>increasing exercise, reducing stress, and other techniques that can in
>many cases be "alternatives" to drugs and surgery to improve health)....
..........which also has no scientific basis!

Most of the concepts of naturopathy are mainstream, in
>that even your traditional GP will tell you to do some exercise, stop smoking,
>reduce the crazy hours you are working, sleep more, cut out caffeine, and
>eat better.......

...........but then naturopaths get all wacky, claim to be able to cure all sorts of shit which they can't, and get people doing the wierdest shit!

The major difference between naturopathy and "conventional
>medicine" is that most naturopaths have a much better knowledge of nutrition
>and the effects of stress than other practitioners.

Where does this knowledge come from? How was it worked out?

>a naturopath has thorough knowledge of, for example, how nutrients
>(or lack of them) affect a wide range of health issues, including mental
>disorders, and what the adverse affects of caffeine and other stimulants
>(such as those in chocolate) have on the nervous systems of many people.
>
How do they know all this stuff? Are there published studies, which conventional medicine is ignoring? I'm not just gonna sit here and let you diss chocolate without backing it up!

>and I say this as a scientist,

What sort of scientist? Human geography is not a science, sociology is not a science..........if you're a geologist (probably 50% of climber-scientists), I reckon that your field is so far removed from the one you're spraying about, that it doesn't really lend any cred.

>So to answer your question Wetty, herbal supplements are allowed in because
>of the substantial scientific basis for their effectiveness. Nutrition
>is, after all, a pretty logical concept.

They let herbal supplements in cause it keeps the kooks quiet, and the stuff mostly doesn't do any harm (other than redistributing wealth from retards to liars)..........they let the Ab Circle Pro in, do you reckon that means its proven to produce cutness?

Nutrition is a logical concept, a lot of naturopath bullshit is so far from logical its hilarious.......one has nothing to do with the other.

widewetandslippery

11-Mar-2011
11:25:37 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jKlPyNZkGo&feature=related

Great natropath clip

There are 78 messages in this topic.