Corona688

This is probably true IMHO... drug companies are driven more by money and patents than helping people. The formula/chemical/whatever you take, and the measureable results it produces, would probably result in some very interesting biomedical research, if anyone was so inclined...

What Corwin's saying may have a grain of truth, but he's twisted it so far it's become a lie. the I'd like to se homeopaths do research, remove someone's inflamed appendix, or set their broken leg. The Evil Conventional Medicine Conspiracy(tm) is there for a reason.

Corwin

Gotta love how somehow *I'M* apparently the one that's twisting my arguments.... oh well...

Veil of Fire

Corona: You're making Corwin's case FOR him... you realize that, right? By rejecting it out of hand?

***
Vorkosigan:

"Here in Taiwan Chinese medicine is accepted to a certain extent by the government, which pays for some treatments. I cannot ethically recommend it, most of it is untested and much of it simply silly. However, Chinese medicine stores are great places to buy cheap spices in bulk."

So let me get this straight.

There's enough evidence to convince an OFFICIALLY ATHEIST country, with the largest population in the world, that these work, so much so that they FUND it, but it's still not enough to convince you? That's just as fundamentalist a veiw as anything Billy Graham ever said.


[edited for phrasing]

[ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: Veil of Fire ]</p>

Dr Rick

Pharmaceutical companies in the United States and most of the developed world operate in a modified free-market economy, and so it really shouldn't come as a surprise that, just as automobile, cola, and computer companies are driven by a desire to obtain profits, so they are, too.

Approximately 30 % of all prescription drugs and 60% of all over-the-counter medications are herbally derived. The desire for profit compels pharmaceutical companies to explore every avenue of potential drug development; they each know that if they don't, their competitors will. Many medications on the market (ie. cyclosporine, derived from fungus ) or under intense study (ie. silymarin, derived from milk thistle) have come to us through the research efforts of pharmaceutical companies exploring "alternative" therapies.

Most large pharmaceutical companies, similar to many other large companies, are publically-owned and traded. They must compete for capital against the automobile, cola, and computer companies, so if they are not profitable, investors will invest in other ventures and leave pharmaceutical research unfunded.

Unlike the unregulated food "supplement" and alternative medication markets, US pharmaceutical companies must prove to the satisfaction of the FDA that their products are effective, safe, and pure before they come to market, greatly increasing the cost of product development.

[ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Corwin

However, to get back to the original point of the thread... homeopathic medicines? Aren't suppliments. They're legally medications and are federally regulated.

[Edited to add]

Yes I know this doesn't apply to all altmed. Just the original thread topic.

[ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: Corwin ]</p>

Corona688

How can I reject what he's said? He has given me nothing to reject. He has been asked repeatedly to give published evidence, specifics, whatever; but hasn't. The real argument hasn't even BEGUN yet, oh boy.

tronvillain

Of course, if the FDA required homeopathic remedies to be proven effective in order to remain marketable, homeopathy would rapidly go extinct. Homeopathic remedies enjoy recognition because when the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was written in 1938, a homeopathic physician wrote in recognition of the products listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia, but that doesn't mean they do anything. They are barely regulated because homeopahtic remedies don't contain any active ingredients, though one thing homeopaths apparently get in trouble for is selling remedies for serious illnesses over the counter.

Oh, and we've all been pointing out the placebo effect, but of course there's the natural progression of disease and remission to account for too.

Valmorian

[/b]

I love this. Are you intentionally trolling here? You DO realize you commit an ad hominem the very sentence before you ask him to avoid them?




If the "alternative" medics can't seem to produce results that would allow them into "mainstream" science, quack is the proper word for them.

As many have pointed out here, homeopathy could QUITE EASILY make it into mainstream medicine, if it actually WORKED.

You COULD just show some real indications that homeopathic medicine is at LEAST as effective as "conventional" medicine for those ailments they both treat. Instead you point to some nebulous shadow conspiracy of medical researchers. Yeah, real credible.

Valmorian

Eh? Are you suggesting that any decision made by a Government is correct? I suppose you support the "remote viewing" funding done by the U.S. Government as well? Does that mean there's something behind it?

It's the evidence that should speak, not the number of people who believe it.