[pt. 4]
>>Aspirin is aspirin because of its molecular structure. a drug is
>>defined by the exact structure of its parts, NOT from its source of
>>origin.
>I ADD: Okay here you are trying to fit the paradym of Allopathic
>medicine (AMA) into a mold for natural medicine."
Let me get this straight. Because I mentioned a basic FACT (aspirin is
aspirin regardless of origin), that means I am trying to fit a "paradym"
of allopathic medicine into a natural medicine mold??? That is a
monumental stretch! How about just saying I was pointing out aspirin
is aspirin regardless of source? That was ALL I was trying to say.
My personal paradigm is NEITHER "allopathic" nor "natural." Why?
Because I simply don't care; they are actually the same once you
understand both "sides" are feeding chemicals to biological organisms in
order to cause specific biochemical effects. All I want is something
that works, and my vote always goes to that which is the most effective.
So, I refrain from chewing willow bark because taking an aspirin tablet
is simply more effective (and better on my teeth). That choice is
determined not by a belief in allopathic medicine, nor a disbelief in
herbal medicine, but simple, all-American efficiency.
>Allopathic medicine and natural medicine are two very different
>theories:
>allopathic medicine seeks to aleviate the symptoms; natural medicine
>seeks a natural remedy to retrain the body to take over for itself and
>heal. It works at the "cause" of the illness.
The characterization of allopathic medicine as only desiring to alleviate
symptoms is rather simplistic. Symptomatology is the study of the
science of clinical signs, and most doctors (veterinary and human) are
well trained to diagnose disease based on visible (or reported) symptoms.
Still, that in NO WAY suggests all they want to do is alleviate symptoms.
They set fractures, remove cancers, repair traumatic injuries, and many
other procedures that directly CURE problems.
>Many people do not understand that natural medicine only seeks to come
>up with a remedy to stimulate the body at it's causative site to repair
>itself and to attain homeostasis. After that is accomplished the remedy
>is withdrawn.
Oh, you mean like when a vet gives a drug to a ferret for a specific
ailment, and then stops it when the problem is cured?
You claim the herbalist desire is to "come up with a remedy to stimulate
the body at it's causative site to repair itself and to attain
homeostasis." So, what herbal remedy mimics smallpox and stimulates the
body to repair itself and attain homeostasis? How about West Nile virus?
You don't like viruses? Ok, how about Trichomonas? Salmonella? Mad Cow
disease? Adrenal disease? Heartworm? Hyperestrogenism? A blocked
bowel? Ferrets are extremely sensitive to zinc poisoning; how can herbal
medicine, as you describe it, train a ferret's body to repair itself from
metal poisoning?
If "natural medicine seeks a natural remedy to retrain the body to take
over for itself and heal," then PROVE IT WORKS! If your statement is
true, then you should have independently verified, reproducible evidence
that has withstood the test of falsification. So, you have a choice;
prove effectiveness, or drop the subject.
[pt. 5]
>In no way are our remedies called "drugs." Natural remedies are made
>very differently from allopathic or AMA drugs. "Drugs" are often
>synthesized and made from parts of plants yes, but there are additives
>in them also. These additives can also cause side effects."
This is a simple concept. An "allopathic or AMA" drug is nothing more
than a reactive chemical agent, such as aspirin, bound into some medium
of transport, such as alcohol, water, oil, talc, gelatin capsule, or some
other material. The medium of transportation is nothing more than a
means to insure the first dose contains the same amount of medicine as
the last dose. Herbal medicines do not use purified medicines, instead
using unprocessed natural materials. These unprocessed materials
(leaves, stems, roots, etc.), also serve as the medium of transportation.
Think about it for a moment. AMA medicines are essentially
highly-purified, reactive chemicals that are transported into the body
via pills, syrups, elixirs, etc. Herbal medicines are non-purified
reactive chemicals that are transported into the body in much the same
way. So, what is the difference (besides regulation, purification, and
testing)? The only difference is the legal definition; herbal remedies
are defined as supplements, and AMA medicines are defined as drugs. But
are they different? What is the intent behind giving an AMA medicine?
What is the intent behind taking an herbal remedy? Regardless of the
legal definitions, if the intent is the prevention or curing of disease,
and the act is administering a reactive chemical that effects biochemical
systems, then THEY ARE SYNONYMOUS!
>>The use of the word "herbal" is a synonym for "drug," but for the
>>uneducated, it sounds benign. That is extremely dangerous.
>I ADD: We were asked to change our sign from "Natural Pharmacy" to
>"Conley Farm Herbs" because the pharmacy board said I was not dispensing
>drugs. I repeat "Herbs are not drugs in any way shape or origin.
Your statement "In no way are our remedies called 'drugs'" is very
interesting. Of course not! If they were, then herbalist claims would
have to be proved, they would have to be tested, and they would be
regulated by the FDA. Calling them supplements and the like obfuscates
the intent to use them as an alternative medicine. As for why you never
call your remedies "drugs," it is NOT because the herbal industry doesn't
like the term (even you frequently call them medicines), but because they
are NOT ALLOWED BY LAW to use it. Actually, it happens all the time,
and when it does, government agencies all over the world shut down the
practice. Apparently, because you admit you can no longer use the term
pharmacy, it has even happened to you in some small way.
You can dance around definitions all you want. When it serves the cause,
herbal supplements become "medicines," but when trying to evade federal
regulation, then "herbs are not drugs in any way shape or origin." If it
looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, swims like
aduck, and poops like a duck, then it is probably a duck. Quack, quack!
[pt. 6]
>I ADD: Right here, however a responsible practitioner will have a copy
>of the German Commission E, commissioned by ta-da - The German Govt.
>It came out in 1999 I think."
In 1978, the German Ministry of Health established an expert committee
(Commission E) to study herbal medicines. The findings were published
as monographs over a series of years, and many herbal publishers have
selectively translated and published many of them. That SAME commission
lists more than 120 herbal remedies that have NO value, but are still
widely used by American herbalists. Beware of using a reference I own
and have critically reviewed.
>Actually one can get a fair assessment of these wonderful remedies by
>studying them in an herbal school; not just a course in med school,
>taught by AMA people."
Your prejudices are showing. If herbal remedies have value, I don't =
have to go to a herbal school and become indoctrinated in their dogma to =
recognize the benefits.
>Plus you have to see the herb in it's habitat; feel the herb; and work
>with it to fully understand even a bit of it's mystery.
Inside EVERY herbal remedy is a reactive chemical compound that causes
some sort of effect. In ephedra, it is chiefly the alkaloids ephedrine
and pseudoephedrine (used to manufacture crack). In tobacco, it is
nicotine. In agrimony, it is tannins and flavonoids. In belladonna, it
is alkaloids, chiefly L-hyoscyamine, atropine, and scopolamine. We are
talking about reactive chemical agents, nothing more (and you insist
these chemicals are not drugs). Mystery my ash bark and leaf.
>And 2,000 years of Chinese medicine can't be wrong; neither can the
>remedies produced by the indians which allowed the colonists to thrive.
MILLIONS of Chinese died of the plague in 1904-1908, and MILLIONS more
of the influenza outbreak in 1917-1919. It is estimated by some
anthropologists that up to 90% of the Native American population was
killed by disease (measles, smallpox, tuberculosis, plague, yellow fever,
typhus, typhoid, etc., etc., etc.). How can you explain that in 1900, up
to 50% of all children contracting measles died, yet today, in western
nations prescribing to western medicine, the death rate has dropped to
just handful per year? I'll tell you what; why don't we both snort some
anthrax. I'll take a Z-pac and you can use herbals.
>>One major difference is that modern medicines are regulated to dosage
>>and purity, but herbal compounds are not.
>Not true. It's not only picking the right remedy; it's picking the
>right dosage. And purity.....well....sha.....I grow my own; make the
>remedy or the flower essence; and only my hands touch these in a sterile
>environment."
<sigh> Phytochemicals ARE NOT deposited uniformly within any particular
part of a single plant, nor are levels homogenous between individual
plants. Don't be foolish, any person on this list KNOWS some apples are
sweeter, some asparagus is more flavorful, some lettuce bitterer than
others. That is because there is VARIATION in the deposition of
phytochemicals within individual plants. One leaf may have more or less
of the chemical agent than another. Unless you have some magical way of
determining the EXACT variation in the deposition of phytochemicals, then
you have NO WAY to predict EXACT dose. Phytochemicals ARE NOT deposited
uniformly, so it is IMPOSSIBLE to create uniform dosage.
You should read medical history. This problem helped spur the
development of modern pharmaceutical practices. Doctors simply needed to
know one dose was equal to another. The distilling of chemical agents,
the regulation of purity and quality, and a standard method of weights
and measures are ALL designed to insure uniform dosage. Unless there is
some magical method of dose divination I am unaware of, it is impossible
for ANY herbalist to guarantee ANY particular dosage. If you can, then
PROVE it!
I am not going to comment on remaining parts of the rebuttal because
they are already discussed. I want to emphasize my original post NEVER
suggested herbal remedies lacked value. I was discussing herbal use in
ferrets. There is no doubt some plants contain powerful phytochemicals
that can have extreme effects on biological systems. Eat the wrong
mushroom and die. Run naked through a stand of poison oak and wish you
would die. I myself use herbal remedies! The point is, herbal remedies
are "natural" substances that are given to treat, prevent, or diagnose a
disease or to lessen pain, and THAT, my friend, defines a drug. Using
unregulated, untested, unpurified drugs in a ferret is animal
experimentation. If it caused harm, it would be animal abuse. PLEASE,
never, ever, use ANY drug, herbal or not, without the supervision of a
licensed veterinarian.
Bob C
[Posted in FML issue 3933]
|
