142,637 registered members			Login/Register   Logout
Home Health Topics Features/ Opinion Health Calculators Health Clinics Find a Professional Medical Q&As Discussions Online Video Vaccination Tracker Rate My Hospital Welcome to irishhealth.com (3 Sep, 2010) Quickfind - Take me to - Child Vaccination Tracker Contact Us Discussions/Your View Downloadable Health Resources Features/Opinion Find a Health Professional Health Calculators Health Clinics Health Topics Health Website Links Home In Case of Emergency Irishhealth Site Search Medical Dictionary Medical Q&As News On-line Polls Online Video Resources Patient Support Groups Podcasts Rate My Hospital Site Map World News Home Herb 'as effective' as anti-depressant

Herb 'as effective' as anti-depressant

[Posted: Fri 11/02/2005 - www.irishhealth.com]

By Deborah Condon

The popular herbal remedy, St John's wort, is as effective at treating moderate to severe depression, as a commonly prescribed anti-depressant, the results of a new study indicate.

Until 1999, St John's wort was available in Ireland over-the-counter. However from January 1, 2000, it became prescription only. This decision, by the then-Minister for Health, Brian Cowen, angered users of the herb and health shop owners alike. An estimated 75,000 Irish people used the herb in 1999 alone.

Mr Cowen made his decision based on advice from the Irish Medicines board, which expressed concern over a number of issues, including possible side-effects and the possibility of the herb interacting with prescribed medicines.

For the purpose of this study, a team of German researchers compared the effects of a specially manufactured extract from St John's wort with paroxetine, which is a type of anti-depressant found in, for example, Seroxat.

The study involved 301 patients, both male and female, all of whom had some form of depression. The participants, aged between 18 and 70, took either the drug or herbal extract over a six-week period.

At the end of the trial, 50% of those who had taken the herbal extract found their symptoms in decline, compared to just 35% of those taking paroxetine.

Furthermore those taking the herbal extract suffered less side-effects. Altogether there were 269 adverse effects reported among the group taking paroxetine, compared to 172 in the herbal group.

The most common side-effect reported by both groups was stomach disorders.

The researchers said that they support the use of St John's wort as 'an alternative to treat depression' and would like to see more research in this area.

Speaking to irishhealth.com, a spokesperson for the Irish Medicines Board said that St John's wort 'remains a prescription only product. The IMB cannot comment on any plans to make the product available over-the-counter in the near future'.

Details of this study are published in the British Medical Journal.

Anonymous   Posted: 17/02/2005 15:47

Tell ussomething we don\'t know. In my opinion, GP\'s for themost part know so little about the herb that they are unwilling to perscribe it.

Anonymous   Posted: 17/02/2005 16:51

Amazing that just after the study showing the benefits of St. Johns wort had more effect and less side effects than prescribed medication that the IMB banned it from over the counter. If people realised the benefits of John\'s wort and the side effects of the likes of Seroxat, the big Pharmaceutical boys would lose money, after all this is what it is all about .The earth has an abundance of herbs, all God given, all free.

RCAM(VJK16578)  Posted: 17/02/2005 16:53

Royal College of Alternative Medicine (RCAM) is currently aware of well over 100 Alternative Therapies which are far more safe and cost-effective than their Orthodox Counterparts: But who on earth at the Ministry of Health is actually listening to all of this Highly Eclectic News ?

Anonymous   Posted: 17/02/2005 19:42

When my son asked about the possibility of a prescription for St. John's Wort, his doctor told him it was unavailable, so it appears that one cannot obtain it either by prescription or over the counter.

Anonymous   Posted: 17/02/2005 22:33

AMEN! to Anonymous at 16:51! Perhaps Rennies should be prescription only as they interfere with antibiotics. Aspirin can cause you to bleed to death. (Read up on the side effects of aspirin sometime. Scary stuff!) Alcohol can make you forget your birth control pill. Pharmaceuticals and insurance companies are running the medical BUSINESS. Doctors are frightened, overwhelmed and too lazy to do anything besides listen to the lines fed to them by pharm reps and insurance companies. They get taught in medical school that they are God. I found out recently that the legal definition of malpractice is not bad practice, but rather it is diverging from the accepted methods and procedures of one's peers! I haven't looked it up to verify, but I believe it! Sheep. No wonder they are afraid to try anything different or new. I am dismayed and disheartened, the more I find out. I get my St John's Wort in the US. It can also be obtained without prescription across the border.

Anonymous   Posted: 18/02/2005 08:19

Does any one know if it's still possible to order this by post or via the web from large UK health stores?

Anonymous   Posted: 18/02/2005 10:28

It's so laughable how the decision to make this herb "prescription only" is couched in concern for the consumer regarding side effects, blah,blah. Pharmaceutical companies are not that altruistic and the government obviously bowed to the pressure for purely economic reasons and maintaining the status quo of power in the hands of the medical profession. Do they think we're stupid??

Anonymous   Posted: 18/02/2005 11:27

Even though St. John's Wort has been shown to be affective it would seem that there is a legitimate reason to make it prescription only. So it's probably the case-as the first poster mentioned-that doctors don't know enought about it. In my experience of using Seroxat it did take more than 6 weeks to get the full benefit from it so it would be interesting to see a study with a longer time frame.

Anonymous   Posted: 18/02/2005 12:03

It IS available on perscription. It's seems that your son's doctir is either uninformed or unwilling on that score.

Helen(HelenSP)  Posted: 18/02/2005 14:04

St. John's Wort is available in the North of Ireland. I buy mine every 2 months in Newry in either Sainsburys (own brand) or in health stores. The government saw how popular this herb was and knew they could make money out of it.

oliver(WGP19185)  Posted: 18/02/2005 14:36

i think that it might be beneficial to list the side effects of St.Johns Wort and SEROXAT so that comparison could be made

Anonymous   Posted: 18/02/2005 22:16

QUOTE \"Does any one know if it\'s still possible to order this by post or via the web from large UK health stores?\" .......... Yes, it is possible, though difficult, because it is illegal for us to receive any prescription drug sent from mail order. You have to find ways around it. Take a drive/train to Newry like HelenSP does (or get someone to pick it up for you when they go). The government eejits bowed to the \"superior knowledge\" of the professional pharmaceutical expert educators. ;-) I think they DO think we are stupid.

liam(lcollins)  Posted: 19/02/2005 23:33

the side effects of prescriptin drugs are far more serious than that of st.johns wort, if the IMB can get away with banning this , then what next, watch your vit.c. and the likes they will all be banned , like they are doing in the uk.at the moment.talk about democracy, and free choice. the government is acting to gag the press, at the moment, this is only the start, we the people are being led up the garden path, and before long we will be sheep, doing as we are told by the high and mighty for our own good. do as your told we know best do not step out of line,to do so would be bad for your health.......

Anonymous   Posted: 21/02/2005 16:27

Information on Paxil.... The following is from the manufacturer\'s webpage. \"Important Safety Information: _________ Prescription Paxil CR is not for everyone. Don\'t take with MAOIs or thioridazine. Paxil CR is generally well tolerated. As with many medications, there can be side effects. **************Some of the side effects may include infection, nausea, diarrhea, dry mouth, constipation, decreased appetite, dizziness, sweating, tremor, sexual side effects, injury, yawning, weakness, insomnia, abnormal vision or sleepiness.***************** __________Paxil CR is approved only for adults 18 years and over. In some children and teens, antidepressants increase suicidal thoughts or actions. Whether or not you are taking antidepressants, you or your family should call the doctor right away if you have worsening depression, thoughts of suicide, or sudden or severe changes in mood or behavior (for example feeling anxious, agitated, panicky, irritable, hostile, aggressive, impulsive, severely restless, hyperactive, overly excited, or not being able to sleep), especially at the beginning of treatment or after a change in dose. __________Don\'t stop taking Paxil CR before talking to your doctor since side effects may result from stopping the medicine, particularly when abrupt. ***************Symptoms some patients have reported on stopping Paxil CR include: dizziness, sensory disturbances (including electric shock sensations), abnormal dreams, agitation, anxiety, nausea, sweating, mood fluctuations, headache, fatigue, nervousness and sleep disturbances.******************** __________Tell your doctor if you are pregnant or plan to become pregnant. Babies born to mothers who have taken antidepressants in the third trimester of pregnancy, including SSRIs such as Paxil CR, have reported complications. These complications, which may appear at delivery, have included difficulties with breathing, turning blue, seizures, changing body temperature, feeding problems, vomiting, low blood sugar, floppiness, stiffness, tremor, shakiness, irritability or constant crying. Tube feeding, help with breathing, and longer hospitalization may be needed. There have also been reports of premature births in pregnant women exposed to SSRIs, including Paxil CR. __________Like many antidepressants, Paxil CR can be present in breast milk so tell your doctor if you are nursing.\" (website: http://www.paxilcr.com/Important_Safety_Info.jsp)

Anonymous   Posted: 21/02/2005 16:46

The ONLY reason (ultimately) that natural products are gradually being controlled by prescription is that they are a threat to pharmaceuticals because they work as well, or better, than the pharmaceuticals (especially in the case of St Johns Wort for mild depression - compare side effects, cost, etc). This takes MONEY away from the pharaceutical manufacturers. They have millions and millions to invest in digging up any problems which can be exaggerated and presented in a very slick and professional way to legislators. The "innocent" lawmakers cower when faced with the well-dressed, well-spoken powerful potential contributors to their campaigns, or opening plants in their constituencies. ANY "argument" presented well (with millions of euro or dollars behind the presentation) can convince people of anything. Look at all the patriotic American parents proudly sending their sons off to Iraq to "protect the American way of life." People who pay attention to their health in an educated way are in the minority. Minorities do not generally affect political decisions. That is the sad truth. Most people (doctors included) are sheep who believe what is told them, if it is presented in a professional and appealing way. Most voters are uneducated about their health and their options, and legislators and pharmaceutical companies know that. Follow the money and the power. The only way to make a difference is to have OUR OWN slick argument to counter the pharmaceuticals. But PR is their life, their job. We have other jobs, and not much money to counter it. I'm very frustrated with it all... and frightened, frankly.

Anonymous   Posted: 22/02/2005 08:58

It's true for Liam, next they'll want to put out iron pills and vit c. on perscription so you can hand out €5 to a GP in order to get thyem or a multi-vit tonic.

John(johnwilliams)  Posted: 22/02/2005 21:17

The lack of understanding of science and scientific analysis in Ireland in amply demonstrated by many of the naive comments on this subject. Has anyone actually read the trial which compares st john's wort to paroxetine? There are a number of flaws in it. I am no expert on double-blind trials it seems that this one was not well constructed. Why was paroxetine chosen when there are other ssri's with a much better safety profile. Would it by any chance have anything to do with the fact that the trial was funded by Dr William Schwabe Pharmaceuticals, the largest manufacture of st john's wort in Europe?

Anonymous   Posted: 23/02/2005 19:45

ermmm.... there has been more than one trial, I believe. Dr Schwabe\'s stuff just shows up first in Google. St Johns Wort has been around for hundreds of years. We do not know if any people have died from side effects of it? It has the potential of lessening the effectiveness of some antibiotics (as do many other OTC preparations). That seems to be the big problem with it. I\'m not a medical professional by any stretch of the imagination, but I believe that the negatives on paroxetine listed above were contained on the manufacturer\'s website. Check the link for yourself. Nothing to do with Dr. William Schwabe. I get my St John\'s Wort from the US, bytheway. Don\'t care what Dr Schwabe says. People who ingest preparations in order to improve their health have a responsibility to read the labels, follow the directions and act like adults. We don\'t need pharmaceutical companies looking for restrictions from unwitting lawmakers in order to \"protect us\" from ourselves. If they are really worried, ban cigarettes and alcohol. Look up the side effects, deaths, etc from aspirin, johnwilliams.

Anonymous   Posted: 24/02/2005 10:26

Poorly worded above, re: deaths. I believe there are no known deaths as a result of side effects of St Johns Wort in hundreds of years of use. However there are deaths from many other OTC preparations as well as from pharmaceutical preparations.

samantha(FVA22199)  Posted: 26/02/2005 16:55

I took Prozac for many years and had terrible side effects,was advised that St Johns Wort was the same and that i could swap from one to the other without a break i did this and found it was fantastic without side effects like other anti d's

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 03/03/2005 10:36

In my opinion, St John\\\'s Wort is almost certainly useless. One problem with supplements that claim to \\\"cure\\\" subjective illnesses is the overwhelming importance of the placebo effect. I think it is now on prescription because it IS dangerous. Read Quackwatch on this http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/stjohn.html

Anonymous   Posted: 03/03/2005 11:48

St. John's wort is no more dangerous than paracetamol, in fact much less so as there are many more deaths from paracetamol that St. John's Wort. Why thne is is not bannedin Britain. perhaps big pharmaceutical co's there did not get as upset about it as here. Before you go quoting your favourite website again, consider the hundreds and hundreds of people travelling over the border to get it (and indeed many other perscription based meds far cheaper than here).

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 03/03/2005 13:03

Paracetamol is ONLY dangerous if taken in excess of the stated dose and long term. Water is dangerous if taken in excess so is almost everything. St John’s Wort on the other hand is dangerous if taken in the NORMAL dosage as it can interfere with other drugs THAT is why it’s now on prescription. Each country decides what to allow and what to ban and that applies to everything including drugs. We correctly banned smoking in work places, the UK hasn’t. That doesn’t make us wrong. I do consider the people that cross the border to buy a dangerous and almost certainly useless drug. I think they are very very foolish to ignore the advice of their doctors and the various Irish health agencies. But lets fact it, they are depressed aren’t they and perhaps not thinking clearly and logically. This “big pharma” is a myth. If they could prove St John’s Wort worked and could synthesise the active ingredient they would do so and make a drug of it. There is no known active drug in it. It’s a myth like ALL the other hundreds of useless supplements that make billions for unscrupulous manufacturers. At least in the USA they jail the worst of these guys for fraud from time to time.

Anonymous   Posted: 03/03/2005 15:33

It interacts with other drugs - Vit C interacts with the pill. calcium interferes thyroxine. Even caffeine (found in manyold remedies) interferes with iron. Would you see them all on perscription. Big Pharma don't like it because they can't make money out it, perhaps.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 03/03/2005 16:11

The pill IS on prescription. There is no such thing as "Big Pharma" other than in the minds of conspiracy theorists. The big money being made is by Homeopathic and Food Supplement manufacturers who sell what under EU law MUST BE water for €1,000 a litre. Also by those selling magnetic healing belts and other fraudulent devices. Drug companies have to spend millions of dollars to prove their drugs are safe AND effective. Those selling magic potions don’t. It’s a major loop hole in the law. Unfortunately gullible and sick people fall for labels that contain weasel words like, “believed to help”, “aids in the treatment of”, “natural”, “ancient Chinese”, “no side effects”, “tried and tested for centuries” etc. Recently a friend of mine wanted to “try” a magic potion, he said, “sure what is the harm in trying it for a while”? Of course that’s how these con artists make a lot of their money. People buy these products for a while because they are desperate and the snake oil salesmen clean up. If your doctor doesn’t prescribe it – forget about it. To be sure ask him and then follow his advice. If still in doubt get a second opinion or go to a medical specialist. Do not buy anything that even vaguely claims to cure any illness not prescribed by a doctor. Incidentally Paracetamol is mostly un-necessary. Apparently 60% of headaches are caused by dehydration. Drink a litre of water if you have a headache.

Anonymous   Posted: 03/03/2005 16:55

You miss my point Willima,. Vit C, caffiene and calcium are NOT on perscription. Thankfully I don't suffer from headaches, perhaps becuase I drink 3 litres of water a day. Of course for those who do, this will not cure tension headaches

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 03/03/2005 17:05

You miss my point. The Pill, which is a drug, interferes with lots of things that's why it's on prescription just like St John's Wort, that's why they put it on prescription. Vit C is not a drug, it occurs naturally. If a drug interfered with caffine then it would have to be prescribed as otherwise patients would take it without knowing this and get ill. John's Wort IS dangerous and that is why it is prescribed. It should be banned alltogether however as there is no evidence it's any use.

Anonymous   Posted: 04/03/2005 08:31

William, St.John's Wort is not a drug, it's a herb - and as such naturally occuring. In fact it grows wild.

Anonymous   Posted: 04/03/2005 08:32

In reference to William's postign above. Alcohol and cigarettes are dangerous and many would say fulfill no useful function. Would you have these banned as well?

Andrew(FSC25387)  Posted: 04/03/2005 10:01

The main reason you have products like St Johns Wort being banned for OTC sale is due in my opinion to large pharmaceutical companies who wield a lot of power. In 1989 L-tryptophan was banned for sale, at the same time a big push was made for Prozac. William - to say \"If your doctor doesn’t prescribe it – forget about it\" is idiotic - If your doctor prescribed you methamphetamine for weightloss would you use it? He certainly isn\'t going to prescribe exercise as he won\'t get any money out of that. Next time you\'re in your doctors office take a look at what product posters are on the wall. No doubt they will be Pfizer, Merck or similar, and what ever the next script is that you get, 9 times out of 10 it will be manufactured by one of the advertisers on the wall of your doctor. One of the reasons that a product is prescription only is that the drug and parmaceutical companies, and hence the government get to profit. Currently the government doesn\'t profit from Vit C, yet there have been attempts in many countries to legislate vitamins to make them prescription only (Australia, NZ,France). True there\'s a lot of ****, snake water natural remedies out there, but there is a proportionate amount of dangerous prescribed drugs.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 04/03/2005 11:05

"The main reason you have products like St Johns Wort being banned for OTC sale is due in my opinion to large pharmaceutical companies who wield a lot of power". What evidence do you have for this statement? You do agree that dangerous drugs should be banned don't you? John's Worth is dangerous so it should be banned, unless you think that dangerous drugs should NOT be banned because drug companies "have a lot of power". I would agree to a ban on cigarettes execpt it won't work. If they appeared today for the first time they would be banned. Alcohol in moderation is actually good for you, although I tend to subscribe to Oscar Wilde's injunction, "everything in moderation, including moderation."

Anonymous   Posted: 04/03/2005 12:28

Similar to your view ona cigarette ban, the St. John's Work ban is alos not working considering the hundreds, maybe thousands who buy it over the border to order it from the UK. This is called consumer choice in a free market - like buying cigarettes or buying wine from France and bringing it back home.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 04/03/2005 13:18

Do you believe in the crime of fraud? If you do then you also must accept that a con man cannot be allowed to fool someone into purchasing something that doesn’t do what is claimed of it. If I sell you a concoction that I claim say cures cancer, as some conmen do, but it doesn’t cure cancer. Is that fraud? Is that a crime or should that be regarded as “consumer choice”? People buy supplements, vitamin tablets, homeopathic remedies, magnetic belts and all sorts of other dubious products because they have become convinced that they confer a benefit. Is this not fraud? Where is the line between fraud and “consumer choice”? If a “Big Pharma” company sold a product that they claimed cured something based on shoddy or dishonest scientific tests and this was discovered they would rightly be sued. Why does this not apply to all the other “natural” products that have never been proven to do anything of use? Why is there one set of rules for “Big Pharma” and no rules at all for the snake oil salesmen? Odd isn’t it. Is that what you mean by “consumer choice”? Doctors were struck off recently for mall practice however while they cannot continue with their medical practice, the ridiculous irony is that they can carry on with the practice that they were struck off for in the first place. Daft isn’t it?

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 04/03/2005 13:33

What Anonymous 04/03/2005 08:31 is saying is that if something is "naturally occuring", whatever that means, it is OK then. Is Asprin a drug then? This is New Age Piffle. The concept where if it grows wild it's great and if it's made in a lab it's bad. What is it, bad karma man?

Anonymous   Posted: 04/03/2005 14:04

Of course buying vits or supplements is consumer choice. If course I didn't say that natural is good and lab produced is bad - that is arrant nonsense. I simply said that St. John's Wort is a herb - a natural product. Yes, aspirin or salicylic acid (sp) is a drug. A very useful and beneficial drug in certain conditions and harmful if overdosed. Balladona is a herb - a naturally occuring flower, in fact and a highly dangerous one. I simply meant that you can't nanny-state' legislate of every idiot out there who doesn't have the good sense to tell their doctor what supplements they're taking. Therefore it seems we have legislated to cover the backsides of doctors who are so vehemently anti- everything that doesn't suit their corporate agenda that they force consumers (we are health care consumers) to hide knowledge of any supplements they may be taking because they know their doctor support them or be partners in their healthcare. Therefore, the logic is, if consumers can't get they won't be taking it and therefore won't be in a position where they feel they have to hide the knowledge from a doctor. Of course as we don't live in 'spledid isolation' in the 26 counties, their idiology does not work.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 04/03/2005 16:03

Why mention “natural” if you don’t think it means something? If Aspirin is a drug then so is John’s Wort as aspirin can be got by chewing the bark of the “wild growing” Willow Tree which contains it. A chemical synthesized in a lab is identical in most cases to that chemical occurring in growing plants. Is buying cancer curing snake oil “consumer choice” then? It cannot be argued that ROI bases its laws on what the UK gets up to. I made this point vis a vis the smoking ban already. By banning John’s Wort we reduce dramatically its use and hopefully the Government sends out the message that it is dangerous. Those buying supplements incorrectly think they are good for you because they have been fooled into thinking this. The overwhelming Scientific opinion is that the vast majority of supplements and vitamins are totally useless for the vast majority of people and may be dangerous. One exception I can think of is Folic Acid for women who may get pregnant and a daily aspirin to reduce stroke and heart disease in those susceptible. There is an argument that “consumer choice” should be permitted and allow people to be defrauded, I do not subscribe to that cynical opinion. It IS a function of government to protect the population from scam merchants.

Andrew(FSC25387)  Posted: 04/03/2005 16:55

This post seems to be dragging on somewhat. William you seem to have some sort of personal grudge towards the vitamin and supplement industry. Do you come from a background associated with the manufacture of pharmaceutical drugs by any chance? In any case, it seems the most danger with St Johns Wort is in its interaction with prescribed drugs. But on it's own it is safe. And yet many prescribed anti-dep's on their own have some major side-effects. And when mixed with St Johns Wort even more so. So is it a problem with SJW or with the anti-deps? I come from a background in sports nutrition where the use of effective supplements is huge. The use of creatine being one of the most effective and powerful supps around. There's 1000's of natural supplements derived from foods, herbs and weeds that can have profound effects safely and to discount them for what's available from the doctor is missing out on some of the earth's finest natural resources. There are some dubious ones also, and I know I'm not going to convince you to the good ones, however it will be a sad day when the governments of the world outlaw all natural remedies in favour of man made drugs.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 04/03/2005 17:50

I’m a programmer with no connection whatsoever with “Big Pharma” as the conspiracy theorists call them. There is no evidence that St John’s Wort does anything. There is no known proven active ingredient in it. Any “evidence” is anecdotal. The type of condition it treats is hard to measure. This is typical of many CAM type treatments. Pain is another example. All very subjective. You mention that in sports supplements are important. But I am also aware that golfers are big fans of magnetic belts for back ailments and that is total nonsense so referring to sport as proof of effectiveness is a poor example. I vaguely remember reading that many supplements used in sports have no evidence of effectiveness either and it is possible that many individuals make a good living fooling athletes into thinking that their supplements, magic potions and all sorts of mind games work. There is little evidence that they do. To say, “it will be a sad day when the governments of the world outlaw all natural remedies in favour of man made drugs” is to make a common logical error. Whether weeds and plants are any use is not the slightest bit relevant to whether “man-made” drugs are effective or not. There is little or no connection. Man made drugs are based on Scientific research and therefore are proven to work and not to be unacceptably dangerous or they cannot be sold. If supplements are useless, and they mainly are, then that’s the end of the matter. Whether they are safer than drugs or less costly or “natural” is all totally irrelevant, other than to fool people with the notion that these useless plants and weeds and overdoses of trace minerals are good for them because they are “natural”. All this talk of natural is really related to paganism and magic. The worship of the Earth Goddess. The day the governments outlaw all this international billion dollar fraud I will celebrate.

Anonymous   Posted: 07/03/2005 09:21

William, yon choose to ,iss my point yet again. St John's Wort was not banned, it's simply not available over the counter. Your GP (provided he's bothered to inform himself) or a registered medical herbalist will perscribe it or you can get it over the border or in the UK. Your point about it being restricted because it interacts with other drugs is simply not valid. Vit C interacts with the pill, yet it's not perscription only. Alcohol interacts with calcium absorbtion yet no-one is suggestiong we should have to get it from the doctor and caffiene interferes with iron uptake yet is freely available in many OTC cold remedies

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 07/03/2005 10:34

We are going around in circles here. The government decided to make St John’s Wort a prescription only “drug” because it interferes with other prescription drugs and that it was believed to be dangerous. The pill is prescribed for the very same reason. If a drug interferes with another drug or can be dangerous in certain circumstances it can be prescribed but one has suggested, as you seem to, to prescribe the food. Lots of things interfere with Calcium absorption. The hypocrisy of the “natural drugs” movement and its new age followers is obvious. When you buy St John’s Wort or any other manufactured product you support the industry that produces it. But for some reason people have got it into their heads that one set of manufacturers is to be preferred over the other. It’s a brilliant marketing ploy by the fake medicine people. One of the major reasons that “alternative medicine” is generally harmless is because it contains no active ingredients. It IS for the EFFECTIVE active ingredients that one should buy a drug and not because it is useless YET harmless. Homeopathic “medicine” BY EU LAW cannot contain an active ingredient. Therefore it is perfectly safe AND utterly useless. There is one danger and that is that ill people will depend on these useless and fake remedies and get more ill because they haven’t taken a proper drug or attended their local GP. There have been cases of people dying because they relied on “natural” remedies and stopped taking their life saving medical drugs. Furthermore there are confidence tricksters (I’ve seen their adds posted up in Post Offices) selling Homeopathic ‘flu remedy and this has the danger of encouraging vulnerable people to abstain from the effective recommended medical ‘flu vaccine and take the useless Homeopathic one, catch the ‘flu and DIE. Here is an excellent and balanced article on John’s Worth that is worth reading. http://www.psych.org/public_info/wort.cfm

Anonymous   Posted: 07/03/2005 10:46

William, you have diliberately missed my point. I was NOT talking about food being on perscrition. I was asking by Vit C. (tablets or liquid) are not on perscription since they interfere (for example) with the absorbtion of the pill. Why do you prevaricate?

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 07/03/2005 13:06

I have never been accused of prevarication! Vitamin C is a substance that occurs in oranges for example. So if we had a manufactured drug that clashed with Vit. C, such as the pill (and I take your word it does) then we can either prescribe oranges or the pill. They choose the pill. John’s Wort is not in the same category as oranges as it is sold as a manufactured drug. The fact that it is gathered for manufacture from a plant is irrelevant on all levels. As the article I referred to points out there is no proof of John’s Wort being any use and that it is safe, therefore it should be prescribed. Medically qualified doctors should decide, the same as they do for all other drugs, whether or not to prescribe it for their patients.

Anonymous   Posted: 07/03/2005 13:53

Vit C is, AS I SAID, in tablet or liquid form is also sold as a manufactured drug

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 07/03/2005 14:41

Other than the fact that large doses of Vitamin C are of no use and may be dangerous according to a new study, why would you insist on prescribing Vitamin C in pill form if it is also available in oranges? It wouldn't achieve much. Anyway your point is irrelevant, you are bringing in what Gaye Byrne used to call the "...but what about the ..." argument. If John's Wort is dangerous then the government are obliged to protect people by either prescribing it or banning it. If the new big study being undertaken shows John's Wort is useless or dangerous then it should be banned. There are dozens of these supplements available and virtually none of them have been shown to be of any use. They all use weasel words to get around the law governing making misleading claims, e,g, "believed to aid", "as part of a calorie controlled diet", "some research has shown", “helps”.

Anonymous   Posted: 07/03/2005 14:51

High doses af vit C are regularly recommended for patients recovering from cancer and those with heavy sports-training regimes - as an immuno booster. Aspirin and paracetamol can be dangerous too. Would you put them all on perscription??

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 07/03/2005 16:22

You say “are regularly recommended” by whom? See here for an article about Vitamin C and cancer cure claims http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/c.html Here’s an excerpt from it, “The results were noteworthy. About 25% of patients in both groups showed some improvement in appetite. Forty-two percent of the patients on placebo alone experienced enhancement of their level of activity. About 40% of the patients experienced mild nausea and vomiting, but the two groups had no statistically significant differences in the number of episodes. There were no survival differences between patients receiving vitamin C and those receiving the placebo. The median survival time was approximately seven weeks from the onset of therapy. The longest surviving patient in this trial had received the placebo. ***Overall, the study showed no benefit from vitamin C***.” Can you refer us to any published study that supports the claim that high doses of Vitamin C are of any use to athletes? If you cannot then you have no evidence that high doses of Vitamin C are of any use. The only people claiming they are of use are those profiting from the sale of these chemicals. In France where I lived you cannot buy pain killers except from pharmacies and I would tend to agree with that. Far too many people take pain killers when they should not be and many people are addicted to pain killers. I think there should be a internet based database in Ireland linked to all chemists and doctors and all those taking pain killers should have a set of central records updated when ordering pain killers so that those overdosing or becoming addicted can be identified. Joe Duffy ran a series of programs where he interviewed those addicted to pain killers and it was quite disturbing. A friend of mine takes Solpadine every day even though he has no pain. Your last sentence anyway is more “…what about the…” type of argument. Drugs whether derived from plants, such as dock leaves, daffodils or gnats wings, frogs legs or otherwise or synthesized in labs must be controlled if they are dangerous. In my opinion they should be banned if they cannot be shown to be useful and safe. Otherwise ill people are conned or endangered. Do you not agree?

Anonymous   Posted: 07/03/2005 16:52

Vit C, is recommended by doctors to many with immuno-suppression not as a cure for cancer as your much touted website would have us believe. You say many people are addicted to pain-killers? DO YOU HAVE ANY PUBLISHED CONTROLLED STUDIES WHICH CAN PROVE THIS?

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 07/03/2005 17:49

See here for a study done that confirms previous studies about the misuse of over the counter drugs http://www.pharmj.com/pdf/papers/pj_20020209_otc.pdf In particular read the conclusions. If you doubt me read some harrowing stories here of people addicted to Solpadine http://www.solpadeinehelp.org.uk/ Everyone should eat a well balanced diet and I am sure serious athletes do and of course Vitamin C is essential but taking extra vitamin especially mega doses is wrong an un-necessary. Regarding taking extra Vitamin C, see what this sports/medical website says http://www.medicdirectsport.com/athletictraining/default.asp?step=4&pid=62 (an extract below) “Athletes can help themselves by eating a well balanced diet that includes adequate carbohydrate, protein and micronutrients (see Table 2). Consumption of carbohydrate drinks during training is recommended, as this practice appears to attenuate some of the immunosuppressive effects of prolonged exercise, provided that exercise is not continued to the point of fatigue. Ensuring sufficient carbohydrate intake to restore glycogen stores on a daily basis will also minimise the stress hormone response to training. Although deficiencies of certain vitamins (e.g. A, C and E) and minerals (e.g. iron and zinc) are associated with impaired immune function, the dangers of excessive over-supplementation of micronutrients should also be recognised. ***Many micronutrients given in quantities beyond a certain threshold can reduce immune responses, impair the absorption of other micronutrients or have toxic effects***. Hence, in general, supplementation of individual micronutrients is not recommended. Athletes should obtain complex mixtures of micronutrients from increased consumption of fruits and vegetables. A well balanced diet sufficient to meet the daily energy requirement with a single daily multivitamin supplement is recommended”. WG Quite frankly there is no evidence that anyone eating a well balanced diet needs extra vitamins. Its a myth perpetrated by those that manufacture them.

Anonymous   Posted: 08/03/2005 12:03

William, you quote an artice, apparently to support your hypothesis "A well balanced diet . . . with a single daily multivitamin supplement is recommended”. then proceed in the very next sentence, to contradict it "Quite frankly there is no evidence that anyone eating a well balanced diet needs extra vitamins"

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 08/03/2005 13:15

I'll let others read the article and the other links I gave and draw their own conclusions. The body needs traces of these minerals and vitamins and gets that from a well balanced diet. Obviously if you eat no fresh food then you would not get Vitamin C., however the solution to that is to eat fresh food and not to eat Vitamin C tablets. There is no evidence that taking in more than what is necessary is of any benefit whatsoever. There have been many studies that have shown this and I linked to some of them. The only possible benefit of taking a multi-vitamin is to doubly ensure that the daily recommended dose is ingested. For someone eating a balanced diet this is almost certainly a waste of money and will confer no benefit. This argument is similar to where some people take more of a medication on the mistaken belief that more must be better, it isn’t. The body will only use what it needs, any extra is simply wasted and excreted. People take high does of vitamins and supplements in the mistaken belief that overdosing on these materials is of benefit. There is no known reason why this is so, there is no evidence that it is and there is abundant scientific research that shows it isn’t. Now carry on eating useless supplements if you wish, the only people who benefit are the shareholders in the companies that manufacturer them and advertise them and the unscrupulous pharmacies that sell them.

Anonymous   Posted: 08/03/2005 15:53

William, are you therefore implying that the writers of the sports article you originally quoted have a vested interest in the profits of the sale of multi-vits?

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 08/03/2005 18:40

To some extent that sentence re the multi-vitamin tablet runs completly against what they said up tp then, which is why I suggested the only reason might be to doubly ensure that one got enough vitamins. But we could apply that logic to lots of things and end up washing our hands 50 times day.

Anonymous   Posted: 09/03/2005 10:39

so you would see vit c withdrawn from the market to prevent people from using their own judgement to doubly ensure their bodies are getting what they need

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 09/03/2005 11:26

The man in the street's "judgement" about medical matters is almost useless, that's why we train doctors. The same applies to the man in the street's opinion of flying aeroplanes, nuclear power, astronomy, physics and ever other discipline. Proof of this is the fact that so many people buy billions of dollars worth of useless supplements, Homepathic "medicine" and take vitamins.

Anonymous   Posted: 09/03/2005 11:44

Are you implyign that a gerneral (that's just it - GENERAL) practitioner knows more about one's entire body than the person who's been living in it and wioth it for 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 years? Why then do doctors get it wrong. Also what makes you think these silly statements you claim as facts amount to anythign more than your own opinion. Unless of course you are a member of the medical community - which you claimed not to be.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 10/03/2005 11:53

A GP would know 1,000 times more about the workings of the human body, including your own, than the "man in the street”. Possibly a majority of “the men in the street” think that there are “energy channels” in the body which when tweaked with needles cure illness. A similar number think that water has the “memory” of a long diluted away active ingredient that prevents the ‘flu and such nonsense. Many incorrectly think wearing a copper bracelet eases arthritis or magnetic shoe insoles eases pain. Our major supermarkets and pharmacies cynically sell these useless devices. Of course Doctors get it wrong if they didn’t they would be Gods. I’m a computer programmer, and I know far more about computers and software, including your own, than the "man in the street" which is why I’ve a job. The reason "why the man in the street" is conned so easily out of his money is because they know so little about these matters and ignore the advice of medical & scientific experts. They DO think they know about the workings of their own bodies better than doctors and THINK that snake-oil cures them, they are totally wrong. QED

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 10/03/2005 13:02

Here\'s a little something that just popped into my email...\"A 2001 article in the journal Nutrition which claimed that vitamin and mineral supplementation had improved the mental function of elderly patients has been retracted by the journal\'s editor. The 2001 article was written by Ranjit K. Chandra, M.D., a prominent immunology researcher who retired after 30 years of work at Newfoundland Memorial Hospital and now lives in India and Switzerland.

Anonymous   Posted: 10/03/2005 13:02

I'm not sure how much you would know about my computer system - I'm a senior analyst but that's not the point. If general practitioners were so sure of their diagnosis so often they would not seek back-up from pathologists, lab technicians and a plethora of consultants. You admit that folic acid supplements have a function, yet this did not come to light, within the general population until 15 or 20 years ago. Science is not finite therefore is it not also possible that other vitamins, minerals or trace elements also have a valuable function, as yet undiscovered?? Incidentally, your use of abbreviated latin does absolutely nothing to strengthen your hypothesis.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 10/03/2005 14:45

Diagnosis, which of course is not an omnipotent matter, is much better carried out by a doctor than “the man in the street”, would you not agree? Are you suggesting that every patient that presents himself to their GP be given a complete and exhaustive and expensive battery of tests? Let’s be practical here. The GP's function is the first port of call and he calls in more focused experts if needed. Self medication is dangerous, generally wrong, subjective and results in many people taken incorrect actions not to mention wasting their money. I’m sure there are other currently undiscovered drugs that we will take in future but until a drug or supplement is proven to be of use and safe, it shouldn’t be taken. It’s a waste of money and could be dangerous. This is the accepted scientific & medical position on the matter. The fact is that the vast majority of supplements and minerals that people take are useless to them and have been shown to be useless. The only people they benefit is those making money from silly people. My QED comment was to make the point that I had proved your point wrong about “people knowing more about their bodies than doctors”.

Anonymous   Posted: 10/03/2005 16:07

Are sayign that a woman who had a baby with Spina bifida 20 years ago was better off for not taking a b vit complex before and after conception - because afterall it wasn't proven to be effective at that point?? Think about it?

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 10/03/2005 20:38

That point about Spina Bifida is absurd. What you are saying is that someone should have taken a drug/supplement before we knew it had a useful effect. If that logic is correct then we should all ingest thousands of different chemicals in the hope that one of them might cure someone of something that they subsequently wouldn’t then have died of? Time is a bitch, it flows the wrong way.

Anonymous   Posted: 11/03/2005 08:31

It is far from absurd William, I people had been taking a B vit complex including folic acid, then spina bifida would have been avoided. You cannot say for that there aren't undiscovered properties of other vits or minerals that prove highly beneficial so why not give the discerning consumer the choice. Rather than goign into Nanny mode with regard to drink or cigarettes or sweets or a take-away from the local chippie, we assume people are responsible enough to use common sense - why do you not want to do the same when it comes to supplements?

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 11/03/2005 14:12

Would you please think about the implications of the point you are making. One supplement, Folic Acid, has now been shown to be of benefit to one cohort of people, pregnant women, and you are suggesting that we ingest all the other hundreds of supplements on a daily basis, not to mention the new ones been touted every week, on the off chance that another one of them may help some other cohort. For starters it isn’t possible, our stomachs aren’t big enough, furthermore eating that much crap would probably kill you. As regards the common sense of the man in the street, \"No one in this world, so far as I know...has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.\" (H.L. Mencken). On that basis lies the huge profits being made selling people useless supplements and homeopathic and other magical cure-alls. There is a growing epidemic of obesity in Ireland. The government have to do something about it if the common sense of the people is not sufficient. You suggest allowing \"common sense\" to continue to result in a large proportion of the population to be defrauded by unscrupulous manufacturers and retailers, I

william(billyralph)  Posted: 11/03/2005 18:46

Dear William having read some of your comments I can see that you have a keen interest in medical matters and probably are of the reductionist's view of the world so as a GP it is touching to hear you praise the knowledge base of GPs but you are sadly misguided in your lack of faith in the 'average man on the street' and his belief in what's good for him.You are also very misguided on the the evidence base for such treatments as acupuncture and homeopathy.So if 'the man on the street' wants to treat himself initially well and good, most people know when they are really ill and come to see their doctor eventually and a sizeable minority of them will not be helped by their doctor either.Health and illness are tricky areas to define for anybody including doctors.

william(billyralph)  Posted: 13/03/2005 08:22

Saying that herbs can cure depression is as meaningless as saying that orthodox antidepressant cure depression.Underlying both of those statements is the assumption that depression is a biochemical imbalance and not the complex interaction between a human being and their environment,their relationships and ultimately with themselves,not to mention the roles poverty,discrimination,powerlesness and culture play in the overall dynamic.People in a state of 'depression' need a little more than just a chemical,herbal or otherwise,to correct them.The chemical approach is ideal for pharmaceutical companies,time-strapped GPs,and resource scarce health services but the reality is that you can't do mental health on the cheap.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 13/03/2005 11:12

I put forward some evidence to support my position that self medication by “the man in the street” is often wrong, dangerous and mostly a complete waste of money, St John’s Wort for example. Here’s more. I read recently that 60% of headaches are caused by dehydration, yet punters normally take pain killing tablets instead of drinking water. A glass of water costs nothing and pain killers can be addictive and can damage the lining of the stomach. Further killing the pain does nothing to solve the actual problem, a lack of water. What evidence have you for the points you raised, or am I being “reductionist”? If you are a GP and think that Homeopathy or Acupuncture work then you must have been asleep in your science classes. Which is probably why in Ireland doctors are in future to be trained first as Scientists by obtaining a primary Science degree and then as doctors. The only argument one can put forward for Homeopathy is that magic potions work. Your point that people “know” when they are seriously ill is nonsense. I could give loads of examples where this is a dodgy statement. I recently thought I was dying when I was just suffering from mild food poisoning. You can self medicate for heartburn when you’ve got heart disease. Cancer can be detected by a “reductionist” chemical analysis of the blood when the “man in the street” has no symptoms.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 13/03/2005 11:20

Here's an extract from this link http://www.skepdic.com/deaddocs.html "Dr. Wallach makes his claims (....that all diseases are due to mineral deficiencies, that everyone who dies of natural causes dies because of mineral deficiencies, and that just about anyone can live more than one hundred years if they take daily supplements ....) about minerals despite the fact that in 1993 a research team from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, reported the results of a 13-year study on 10,758 Americans which failed to find any mortality benefits from vitamin and mineral supplements. The study found that even though supplement users smoke and drink less than non-users, eat more fruits and vegetables than non-users, and are more affluent than non-users, they didn't live any longer than non-users. The study also found no benefit from taking vitamin and mineral supplements for smokers, heavy drinkers, or those which chronic diseases." More reductionist facts I'm afraid. Unless this study was flawed it sounds pretty persuasive.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 13/03/2005 11:55

Sorry to post 3 times on the trot but this post concerning St John’s Wort is from a university researcher in "..the pharmacology of depression.." is of interest. "I’ve never understood the widespread belief that if a drug comes from a plant the it must be better for you than drugs which have been specifically developed to treat an illness. In actuality, St John's wort is a very "dirty" drug (i.e. it has many other effects as well as the intended one, which is likely to be caused by the variety of chemical compounds it contains and the fact that these are likely to each have their effects on the body). This is especially evident with the marked increase in activity of liver enzymes it causes, and the resultant reduction in the effect of oral contraceptives, anticonvulsants, cardiovascular treatments and antivirals among others. I often wonder about how many epileptic seizures and unwanted pregnancies have resulted from people thinking that because St John's wort is a "natural" drug, it has no adverse effects.” Full page of posts on a recent SJW study. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38356.655266.82v1#96414

Anonymous   Posted: 14/03/2005 08:43

William, Folic aciod is not just of benefit to pregnant women, it is of benefit to every single foetis conceived - and so should be taken by all women of child-bearing age. 20 YEARS AGO WOULD YOU HAVE CONSIDERED IT TO BE IN YOUR DEFINITION OF 'CRAP'.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 14/03/2005 11:39

Tut! Tut! No shouting please. I never used the word crap. I have clearly answered your point re Folic Acid. Please go back, read my reply to your post on Folic Acid and reply to the points I raised, e.g. are you advocating that everyone should ingest every possible chemical, supplement and plant on the off chance that one of them may in future be discovered to be of benefit?

Anonymous   Posted: 14/03/2005 12:55

Shouting?? William, re-read your own post. You did indeed use the word crap. Of course I am not suggestign that everyone ingest chemicals. I'm suggesting that we all use our common sense and knowledge of our bodies, as the gp above is in line with, to judge for ourselves whether we need a particular vitamin supplement or minerals or a multi-vit with iron etc.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 14/03/2005 13:36

Touché I did use crap, but I didn’t say Folic Acid was crap. I said that eating hundreds of chemicals daily was eating crap. Eating excessive iron can be dangerous as well. So you are saying that women’s “common sense” and “knowledge of their bodies” told them 20 years ago that eating Folic Acid, if they were not eating a balanced diet, would help protect their children from Spina Bifida? A person’s “common sense” or “knowledge of their bodies” would never predict that Folic Acid would help reduce the incidents of babies being born with abnormalities. If you are *not* saying that we should eat all the supplements there are on the off chance that one may prevent some illness, which ones do we eat & which do we avoid? How does “you body know” which ones to eat or not to eat? Furthermore what happens to your argument if one of these untested supplements which contain hundreds of chemicals does what Thalidomide did and causes abnormalities in babies? Ironically John’s Wort reduces the effect of the pill and this would mean a woman that should not have children for health or other reasons could get pregnant.

Anonymous   Posted: 14/03/2005 14:19

Yes, I am saying that for some, not all or even many their “common sense” and “knowledge of their bodies” meant that they took a multivit containing the B group vits including folic acid when tryign to concieve and during pregnancy, to ensure their baby had the best chance of a good start in life. Really, how likely do you think it is that taking iron fro heavy periods until you can have the problem sorted out will result in ferous tocixity, anymore than taking vit c, when you're underthe waether in Winter - due to poor eatimg, stress or whatever, will have the same effect as thalidomyde.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 15/03/2005 12:18

There has been a study recently that showed that large doses of Vitamin C was bad for you. You are making a lot of claims with no supporting evidence. How did the women who got pregnant “know” that taking Folic Acid would be good for another person, their unborn child? Folic Acid is only of use, of interest, of benefit to a foetus in the first 3 weeks and before the mother even knows she is pregnant in most cases. This is before the child’s brain has developed so it certainly cannot “know” that it needs Folic Acid to help develop its nervous system. So how does the mother? What is the information pathway here? I referred you to a large 14,000 person 13 year study that showed no benefit from taking supplements. You ignored this post. Why? Are you simple ignoring any facts that you cannot answer. What does ”under-the-weather” mean? Do you think that if you are tired that instead of sleep you should take a pill? Do you think there is a pill that helps cure the ‘flu? Do you suggest that eating badly, say McDonalds fast food every day, is fixed by pill popping? You seem to be a big fan of pills and un-natural solutions to simple problems. I mentioned Thalidomide to point out that taking untested chemicals has two possibilities; one that it might do you good and two that it might do you harm. What’s wrong with insisting that those claiming magic results for their products, suchas St John's Wort have to prove it before they can endanger the public? (Where is the "GP" gone to? Why hasn't he replied to my last post.)

Anonymous   Posted: 15/03/2005 14:24

I was not referringto unnaturally large doses of vit c, I was talking aboutb a multi-vit supplement, which many women attempting to concieve, would take. I'm not suggestign the we should take multi-vits as a cureall for lack of sleep, not was I referring to poor eatign as visting McDonald every day. There are periods in everyone's life due to stress, pressure, personal trauma when they will be unable to get proper sleep and may not be eating properly (skipping meals or unbalanced meals) - which may well lead them to feelign under the weather / below par/ not 100%. I'm sure William that you are very wrll aware of what I mean by this, regardless of the expression used. Or if you have never experienced this, your are either - lying (which I'm sure you're not) / not livign in the same reality as the rest of us or you're a truely unique phenomena!

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 15/03/2005 17:05

I never skip my very balanced diet. I've never heard of a study that showed that taking vitamins helped conception, can u refer us to a study? I would never pop a pill to solve "stress, pressure, personal trauma when they will be unable to get proper sleep". Sleep is cured by sleep, stress is relived by removing the cause of stress or learning to live with it and I have no idea what pill would cure "personal trauma".

william(billyralph)  Posted: 15/03/2005 17:38

Well William I can well imagine that you thought that you were dying when you had food poisoning but most reasonable people actually know when they are unwell.You seem to be able to quote statistics and so called research but you show absolutely no understanding of people or the human condition.As for homeopathy and acupuncture perhaps you would like to do a search or two in the British Medical Journal or the Lancet-both journals I'm sure will meet your exacting standards before dismissing out of hand these treatments.As for the study of science by doctors,they perhaps study too much science in medical school and spend not enough time on communication and negotiating skills.Perhaps you are right about me being asleep in science class,it was the meaningless dry content that put me to sleep.From your know-it-all,pontificating stance you are either a bombastic professor of surgery or an armchair wannbe expert-either way thank God you don't see real patients.

John(johnwilliams)  Posted: 15/03/2005 21:54

Having read all the contributions to this debate I am astonished at the number of contributors who claim that GPs know nothing about herbal 'medicine' just because the doctors will not issue prescriptions for them. Has it occured to these people that (a) doctors know plenty about them and know that these products do not work. Doctors also have to bear in mind that if something goes wrong (especially in this litigenous society) they wouldn't stand a chance in court when their prescribing is measured against 'best practice' if they had recommended these non-medicines. Another group of health professionals - pharmacists - have a legal duty to protect the public from the abuse of drugs and medicines and to give advice on appropriate medicines. How can they do this when on any pharmacy shelf one can see the quack medicines prominently displayed? They (the pharmacists) cannot claim ignorance. They study Pharmacognosy (the study of medicinal extract of plants) in university. They are leaving themselves open to litigation on 'duty of care' grounds if a client of theirs suffers ill effects from the consumption of quack medicines. The sooner all the health professionals spoke with one voice and condemned the sale of voodoo 'medicines' the better for the health of society.

Anonymous   Posted: 16/03/2005 10:43

William, I was NOT saying that vits help one to concieve or that pills cure lack of sleep or personal truama(if you don't know what this is and have never experienced family rows, difficulty with teens or berievement, then I envy you, truley). I suspect you are deliberately misinterpretign me. I said that many women would take a multi-viut while attempting to concieve and into their pregnancy to give the unborn baby the best start in life and that people experiencing periods of stress, poor eating habits, lack of sleep would take vits or supplements to ensure their body was getting what it needed and to counter the worst ravages of what they were experiecing until they get over that period in their life. Perhaps you need a simple example to highlight this for you. A vegetarian woman is experiencing very heavy periods due to a temporary medical condition. These are leaving her feeling tired and drained. So she takes iron and vit b supplements to replace the iron lost, until the problem has been overcome.

Anonymous   Posted: 16/03/2005 10:46

So John Williams, you admit that GPs not perscribing herbal remedies is an exercise to cover themselves

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 16/03/2005 11:21

To the “GP”. I clearly showed examples when people are unwell and DO NOT know it. I DID think I was dying, I was wrong. People often get frights when they get harmless pains because they think they have got a heart attack. Your assertion that people can diagnose themselves *accurately* is obviously wrong and I think I have clearly shown this. I DO understand fully why people THINK that Homeopathy and other magic can cure them, I’m a Skeptic, we are well aware of this phenomenon, are you? You can read books on the subject. Have you read any of them? You might learn something about why people actually believe and want to believe in magic, even intelligent people. Maybe I know far better than you the actual “human condition”. I know why people are so easily fooled, you can see why if you read the many comments on this thread. You missed my point re doctors needing science training. They ARE going to make them study Science so that they WILL fully understand the scientific principals because it is obvious that there are far too many qualified doctors dispensing quack medicine because of their ignorance of science. I’m disappointed that you think Science is dry; unfortunately it is a common misconception. I find Science utterly fascinating, amazing (just read up on Quantum Mechanics and String Theory), enlightening, satisfying and enormously important. Medicine is the application of Science in the same way as Engineering is and to be an obvious opponent of science, as you appear to be, and to be a practicing doctor is quite frightening. As for your pathetic name calling, which is never acceptable on threads, there are plenty of names I could call you but it doesn't help enlighten anyone. It induces temper tantrums in those doing it and causes stress and should be avoided as I previously pointed out.

Anonymous   Posted: 16/03/2005 11:52

I must say, I found the GP's attitude both enlightening and refreshing. He acknowledges that patients know their own body and is willing to be a partner in their wellness.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 16/03/2005 12:45

Taking supplements does not “give the baby the best start in life”, eating a balanced diet, avoiding alcohol and not smoking does. Eating supplements does absolutely nothing to counteract the effect of a family argument. Vegetarians do not easily get a balanced diet, especially their children. In my opinion vegetarianism is a quasi-religion. We are not naturally vegetarians. If a doctor prescribes iron tablets for a woman, that is perfectly sensible. For all women to take iron tablets would be wrong, possibly dangerous and a waste of money. You again have ignored the 14 year, 13,000 person study from the US. How do you explain its findings? This clearly shows no appreciable benefit to eating multi-vitamins or supplements. You seem to make a major mistake like many people do. You are aware that one can be deficient in iron, you read that Vitamin C is essential and then jump to the totally erroneous conclusion that taking all these supplements and all the other herbs and extracts is good for you and increases longevity. This is totally wrong and has been shown to be. If I had to make an estimate I would say that 99%+ of all the supplements and vitamin tablets eaten are a total waste of money and confer no “aid”, “help” or benefit whatsoever on those wasting their money on them. All the scientific studies are on my side. To put it another way; if you analysed all the hundreds of pills on sale in some chemists and supermarkets and medically analysed all the people that took them, only a TINY fraction of all the supplements on sale do any good at all to anyone ever and only a TINY fraction of those taking THAT tiny fraction get any benefit. In fact it’s quite likely that those TINY number needing particular supplements at a particular point in their lives are not even taking the right ones but the other useless supplements as people buying these supplements only buy a small percentage of those available anyway. To give an example, it’s possible that a tiny percentage of people ARE iron deficient but are taking Ginsing, Ginko or Glucosamine.

Anonymous   Posted: 16/03/2005 14:30

Are you objecting to vegetarianism (many who practise it aren't the slightest bit religious and to call it a quasi religion is, in my view, nonsense) because you can't counter my simple example of a vegetarian woman who is experiencing very heavy periods due to a temporary medical condition, taking iron and vit b supplements to replace the iron lost.

william(billyralph)  Posted: 16/03/2005 15:01

Well William I hope you found that little rant cathartic-medicine is not just the application of science it is a bit more more complex than that.Your belief that it is simply that once again highlights the narrow reductionist view that you have taken.At best there are a number of treatments that have been validated 'scientifically' but the vast majority haven't and doctors practice according to what they learned in medical school(this has a very short shelf life),what they glean from professional developement and their own experience and of course they also rely on the scientifically lowest form of evidence 'the expert opinion'.All doctors have vast areas of ignorance but it is how you manage those areas with help from your patients that makes for good medicine not superior scientific knowledge.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 16/03/2005 17:15

I didn’t say whether vegetarians were members of “other” religions more or less than anyone else. I have no idea whether or not they are. I suspect there would be a higher percentage of new-age types who are vegetarians than in the general public. I said that Vegetarianism is a quasi-religious movement. I stand by that. There is no other basis for it. We evolved to eat cuddly rabbits. In fact you are adding evidence to my position by making the point that vegetarian’s diets lack iron. This is to be expected as it is not a balanced diet. I have answered your specific point when I said that anyone suffering from iron deficiency should take iron, but under doctors orders. Why don’t you now address my point that most supplements do nothing, that most of those taking them don’t need them and by self-diagnosing they are probably not even taking the ones they need. Back to the GP. When I make specific points you refer to my post as a “rant”. Why not address or try and refute the specific points I made. All your points so far have been generalisations. Learning from experience and continuing to learn from the latest scientific and medical publications is obviously a good thing, I didn’t say otherwise. What you are supposed to learn in medical school is underlying principals. If you did you wouldn’t espouse Acupuncture or Homeopathy. Nothing has changed since you went to medical school except the evidence for these magic treatments is even less. Science has indeed moved on, Homeopathy and Acupuncture haven’t. Let’s get specific; can you explain how Homeopathy works when it can only be water or alcohol under EU law or maybe whether or not you actually believe there are \"Energy Channels\" into which one can poke a needle?

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 16/03/2005 17:25

Short Dictionary of words & phrases commonly used by pill & gadget manufacturers to fool silly people into buying them: wellness, holistic, natural, aids, helps, believed to, research has shown *, balanced/unbalanced/imbalance, well being, ancient Chinese, used for centuries, no side effects, know your own body, be at one with, toxic, toxins, detoxification, celluloid, stressed by modern living, chemical, metabolism , vibrations, soul, supplement, energy levels, energy pathways, chi, spiritual, effective, minerals, improved mental alertness, pseudo science sounding sound bites, vitamins, cleansing, organic, pure, Royal, herbal, plant extract, Ayurvedic, The Amazon Rainforest or any jungle or forest will do, traditional, purify, fatigue, tiredness, formula, potency, funny romantic south sea island names, funny Chinese names and symbols, Napal, Indian, antioxidant, rejuvenate, vitality, deficiencies in the immune system, boosting the immune system, nourishes, allergies, probiotic, blockages, the manufacturer’s sales people seen wearing white coats to confer a medical or scientific appearance, big words, planet, harmonise, quasi-religious phrases (e.g. all life is interconnected), Zodiac, crystals, crosses, anti-aging, fad diets, busy lives etc.. The probability that a product is a quack fraudulent snake oil can be computed by calculating the number of the above words in the advertisement as a percentage of the total words. Some quack sentences using the above words; Brand X is a natural formulation which may enhance the metabolism, improve energy levels, improve mental alertness, and improve overall circulation. X tea leaf is traditionally used in the ayurvedic tradition as a tonic and blood cleanser, and is considered to be cooling to counteract Pitta (fire element) imbalances. Brand X is a special formulation of 6 natural ingredients that have been traditionally used to support normal detoxification. Homeopathy is a safe, natural, holistic practice that is believed by many to be very effective. [* “In a non-random, non-double blind, clinical trial held in a fake non accredited holistic hospital by those not trained in any scientific discipline, 2 patients out of 6 that used Brand X said they believed that they go better, a bit.] Anyone like to add more?

John(johnwilliams)  Posted: 16/03/2005 22:01

To anonymous of 16-030-05 10.46 (why cant posters use their names?) I did not admit any such thing. If you read my contribution again you will see exactly what I said and I will repeat it in again in simple language. Doctors know that the quack medicines i.e. homeopathy, herbal, chinese, etc do NOT work. If a doctor , knowing these non-medicines do not work and still prescribes them (as recommended by a number of posters on this site) he or she is leaving themselves open to litigation for prescibing at best a useless product and at worse a downright dangerous one. William(Billyralph) misses the point. If the definition of medicine is the actual drug used it is most definitely based on science and to say otherwise is to fly in the face of the expertise of the Irish Medicines Board. I would agree with him that the application and use of these evidence-based medicines requires to take into account more than the science of the drugs used.

Theresa(Theresa15)  Posted: 17/03/2005 05:24

hi lads enjoyed reading ur medico-patient banter,better tan de dail!!b careful though I was on St js w but was also given seroxat by my GP with near disastrus consequences!!

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 18/03/2005 12:01

"I was on St js w but was also given seroxat by my GP with near disastrus consequences!!" is ambigious, could you elaborate?

william(billyralph)  Posted: 18/03/2005 13:44

Well more ranting about scary complementary therapies and more bombastic nonsense about science and the law in regards to health and illness.Quite clearly neither of the critics have looked at the British Medical Journal or The Lancet-both peer reviewd journals of international repute,instead they quote some unreferenced study and self-interest group propaganda ie the pharmaceutical industry.Maybe they would care to stop thinking in such black and white terms-orthodox medicine good/bad,alternative medicine good/bad-again it is a little more complex than that.There are many ways to practice medicine and there are many ways to harm people eg ssris,cox-2 inhibitors,frontal leucotomies,chinese herbal medicines,wrongly placed acupunture needles,over enthusiastic chiropractic manoeuvres etc,etc.Many conditions respond quite nicely to conventional medicine but as many as 30% of patients sent to specialist clinics will not be helped by the 'specialist'.This leaves a large amount of human suffering undealt with by the conventional approach-and its not just a matter of getting the diagnosis right.Non conventional medical approaches can be of benefit to some patients so to dismiss them out of hand is at best ignorant and at worst cruel to patients.I use many of these approaches working in the NHS in the UK,patients are not financially exploited as they do not have to pay for GP treatments and they work.Homeopathic medicines-nobody knows how they work but there again how does lithium work or antidepressants(and don't say the usual it alters seretonin levels etc),so the argument that we don't know how it works therefore it couldn't is rubbish.Many treatments have worked for decades before we understood how they worked and many continue to work without knowing how.Homeopathic medicines can be prescribed in the UK on a GP's prescription and the practice is regulated by an act of parliament.The NHS has 5 homeopathic hospitals and acupunture ie western triggerpoint acupunture not chinese acupuncture is practiced by many doctors in the UK for musculoskeletal pain with excellent and reproducible results-so lets open our minds a little and less of the running off at the mouth until you actually know what you're talking about.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 18/03/2005 14:45

Billyralph has already admitted that he finds science boring and slept in science class as a medical student. That certainly explains an awful lot. The main argument against CAM is not that it’s dangerous, it can be and mainly because people may depend on it and avoid going to their doctor when ill or stop taking their life saving medicine. The main argument against it is that the vast majority of it is totally useless and a con and must be or the most fundamental underlying laws of physics, chemistry and biology are totally wrong. Quoting the Lancet is not good enough, they did after all publish Wakefield’s “results” which they have since withdrawn. Simply publishing does not of course in the slightest mean that a study has any validity or has proved anything. All it means is it was peer reviewed. Alternative Medicine is not medicine, it is abject nonsense. This has no bearing on normal medicine of \"Big Pharma\" at all. You put forward an analogy by saying that because we don’t know how lithium works it means Homeopathy may. This is totally illogical and analogies prove nothing. If a drug is properly clinically tested and proves its worth it can be used without knowing the underlying mechanism. Homeopathy has not been proven to work, it has a nonsensical theory underpinning it that relies on magic and is chock full of ridiculous paradoxes. You obviously deliberately ignored my question; how can Homeopathy products sold in the EU work when BY LAW they cannot contain an active ingredient? There is one hell of a difference wondering how the known element lithium works and how “no chemical” at all can possibly work. How can a drop of water that contains billions of H2O molecules that over cosmological time been in contact with hundreds of different molecules “remember” the one that you want it to remember and forget all the other ones? (Never mind the rather enormous problem that water does not have a memory) Has billyralph even looked into Homeopathy at all? Here’s another question, does billyralph believe Homeopathy works they way its founder in the 19th century suggested and most of its promoters suggest? Please answer this other question you ignored, do you believe the human body has “energy channels”? Is billyralph a priest, a witchdoctor, shaman or an actual medically qualified GP?

william(billyralph)  Posted: 18/03/2005 16:52

Dear William I'm happy to accept all four titles if they help my patients.I haven't the faintest notion how homeopathy works and yes I've read many many books on all types of medicines-orthodox and cam-and have found a lot of nonsense in both.So in my professional life I pick my way through this information and misinformation with my patient's best interest in mind and always attempting to adhere to the principle 'primum non nocere'.What guides your practice? The initial debate began with the assertion that St.John's Wort is as effective as conventional antidepressants well what do you know it is-last weeks British Medical Journal-big numbers,big stats!!! On the subject of scientific medicine and its health benefits where does religious belief,culture and one's relationships come into the complex soup that makes up the concept of health?People who have religious faith or who are in stable relationships or who are prayed for do better when ill-I can't expalin that can you?Herd animals respond to homeopathy-difficult to evoke the placebo response in them ie cows-how does that happen?You have all the answers and none of the humility that it takes to deal with patients.Whether practising orthodox or cam or a combination the most important thing that a doctor should be aware of is not the latest scientific blah blah but his or her own limitations.

John(johnwilliams)  Posted: 20/03/2005 19:16

Contributors who think that they have reason on their side when they decry science and evidence-based medicine should read an article in Irish Times (Saturday 19/03/05) by Dick Taverne, author of The March of Unreason. Another book worth reading is Snake Oil by John Diamond, a brilliant journalist with the Observer newspaper who died of cancer (before the book was finished). In it he details the 'cures' for cancer recommended to him by chancers, quacks and even a few well-meaning people. He very sensibly says that you cannot have an 'alternative medicine'. Medicine either works or doesn't work. If it works it is used by doctors to cure people. If it doesn't it shouldn't be called 'medicine'. No rational person could find fault with that statement.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 21/03/2005 10:03

Another illogical analogy from billyralph is that books on medicine contain nonsense, according to billyralph, so books on CAM that also contain nonsense may not be totally nonsense. Whether or not books on medicine contain nonsense has no bearing on CAM whatsoever. “My practice” is that of a computer professional and I am guided by rules as well. I adhere to my rules. I certainly don’t let superstitions interfere with my program design unlike billyralph appears to allow interfere with his professional work. It seems that his religious beliefs are part of his practice. There is no evidence whatsoever that praying for someone makes them better. In fact one “study” published on this was withdrawn after it became well known that the promoter of the study was a convicted felon who made a living conning people. That “study” was also published with the imprimatur of a leading US university. Any analysis of studies that show CAM in a favourable light show that they were all flawed, some so obviously so that one wonders about the objectivity of the promoters. But then again someone with an abhorrence of and lack of knowledge of the scientific method might not spot these flaws. Where are all the artificial legs and eyes in Lourdes? Why are the people who live in Lourdes not any healthier than the rest of France? If billyralph is truly honest with himself he will recognise his limitations in science and let others more knowledgeable in his profession guide him and stop wasting his patient’s money & time and maybe their health on CAM treatments. Can billyralph answer my specific questions? Does he believe that Homeopathy and Acupuncture work the way their discoverers & promoters claim? How many times must I ask? Are there Energy Channels in the body? EU law says Homeopathic “medicine” cannot contain an active ingredient. Any comments on these straightforward questions?

william(billyralph)  Posted: 21/03/2005 13:59

A computer professional,adherence to rules-it figures! Look up the Hit trials on homeopathy.Its membrane theory now not string. Western trigger point acupunture works on a well know physiological principle-the gate theory on neural signalling at the spinal cord level.Energy channels?That's Chinese acupuncture about which I know little. Once again people are more complex even than the most sophisticated of computers. On the subject of patients and money I personally have never received money from a patient,as for wasting their time I let my patients make that judgement. And the same approach is taken by the five homeopathic hospitals in the UK -they also do not charge patients and see thousands of people per year.They audit their outcomes as any NHS facility is expected to do and their figures are very respectable considering the patient group that they deal with ie those people for whom other approaches to their health problems have not helped. I agree with johnwilliams quote that there is actually no such thing as alternative medicine hence the developements in integrated medicine-the attempt to use what 'works' from a wide range of treatment modalities using as much as possible an evidence based approach. Would William like to comment on how medicine could procede on a day to day basis if we were to only be guided by those treatments that have been fully validated using an evidence-based approach.Science is only a tool for looking at some narrow aspects of the world-some very important apects but nonetheless narrow. Many health professionals although guided by some scientific principles use a broad range of world views when dealing with complex human interactions.Science itself is not without its value system and the advance of science is not unaltered by political,cultural and economic circumstances.Again it is touching to hear people live their lives with such certainty that their are 'rules' in tablets of stone that if adhered to will keep us safe.But behind this certainty there is a lack of humility which one can tolerate when one is dealing with machines but not with sick people,because we will all eventually exhaust the limits of scientific medicine and when I reach that point I don't want a scientist standing beside me.At that point I would like a human being who can relate to another human being with compassion.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 21/03/2005 15:27

Another myth from billralph, that using a scientific approach means one lacks compassion. Nonsense. I have greater compassion for patients being conned into using quack treatments than those making a seriously good living from it have, like the Chinese herbalist fined £30,000 in the UK last week for selling banned poisons to her marks, sorry “patients”. Many of whom had to be medically treated for the serious damage it did them. I have compassion for the frail old Irish people who skip getting their ‘flu vaccine and instead go to charlatans for useless Homeopathic ‘flu vaccines. How many have died of ‘flu related illnesses as a consequence? I feel compassion for all those people spending billions of dollars every year on snake-oil of every description. I have enormous compassion for those that have died because they stopped taking their asthmatic medicine and resorted to homeopathic solutions. I have compassion for the children of Jehovah Witnesses who have let their own children become martyrs on the altar of their parent’s superstitious religious beliefs which bans transfusions. Of course billralph will say that that’s their judgement. If I didn’t have compassion and care about the enormous fraud that is the CAM industry I wouldn’t waste my valuable time writing on these threads. I take it then that you do not subscribe to the theory underling Acupuncture but are suggesting by total coincidence that the same mechanism can work but for totally different and unknown & unproven reasons? What a coincidence! You keep making the same logical errors in your comments, “people are more complex even than the most sophisticated of computers”. The fact that “people are more or less complex than computers” is nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not CAM works. There are actually studies that show that people's attitude to their sickness is not relevant to outcomes. Acupuncture is administered for hundreds of ailments and the only studies that have shown any tiny beneficial effect relate to subjective matters such as pain which is easily explained by the shoddy studies where those studied knew they were having acupuncture. You say you let your patients make “that judgement” but they have no training in medical matters and you obviously send them the totally wrong information on CAM, it’s not surprising that they are then easily conned into trying all the sham treatments there are out there. It’s not true to say the Homeopathic Hospitals are not paid, they obviously are paid presumably by the NHS or else they would go broke. Another well worn myth perpetrated by those that claim a spiritual side to reality is, “Science is only a tool for looking at some narrow aspects of the world”. Science can examine absolutely anything whatsoever it chooses to. There are no closed doors to science, no “mysteries”, no realms forbidden and no human behaviour that cannot be examined and ultimately explained by science including why intelligent people believe in magic. Only religious people hold your views. Perhaps you could tell us what area of reality science is banned from investigating? Who decides this, you, the priests or maybe the snake-oil salesmen? Scientists have total humility; they know that all their theories can be overthrown, unlike the dogmatic religious and “spiritual” types who just happen to know they are right for no particular reason except perhaps false logic and well understood errors in thinking. If your last sentence suggests that when science or “evidence based” medicine fails to save someone’s life that they be fooled into thinking prayer or magic will help, then you are unethical and patronising in my opinion. Patients have a right to the truth. You still haven’t answered this question; if EU law states that Homeopathic remedies cannot contain an active ingredient how can they possibly work any better than tap water? [PS Your comment about string theory was inaccurate.]

william(billyralph)  Posted: 22/03/2005 09:31

I would like to thank you William for your contribution to this debate it has certainly challenged me to think about my practice.Unfortunately your last entry has all the zeal of a religious convert so at this point I will gracefully bow out of the debate.

Anonymous   Posted: 04/04/2005 22:38

i have an interseting comment mainly for william grogan regarding his comment "I said that Vegetarianism is a quasi-religious movement. I stand by that. There is no other basis for it." i have 2 children with a metabolic condition called pku. it is one of the tests caried out on newborn babies to determine if they have certain metabolic disorders. my 2 have pku as i said - this is phenylketoneunia - (basically an abundance of phenyl-kenontes which are harmful to the body if they are not removed . in most peopole this is easily done due to a naturally ocurring enzyme found in the body, but in people with pku this enzyme is either missing or in insufficient quantities. phenylalanine is a naturally occurring protien amino acid found in most foods and the bodies enzyme breaks the phenylalinine into another amino acid called thyrosine which is then expelled from the body naturally - the person with pku cannont do this because of the lack of enzyme and over time the phenyl ketones become toxic - they build up and can eventually lead to mental deterioration in severe cases. as a result, people with pku are diagnosed from birth and are put on a protien restricitve diet. in most cases, the amount of protien a person can have is very limited -i think the everage is about 4 to 6 grams of naturally occuring protien a day (mine are allowed 11 grams or 'exchanges' as they are called. this is the way it works - all foods have a protien count - (though some have none) for instance - a medium potato has 1gram protien count (1 exchange) - most fruit and veg are free however - an ordinary pot of yogurt has between 3-5-5.5 grams of protien etc etc. the object of the diet is to restrict the amount of naturally occurring protien a person eats and supplements it with systhetic protien which has all the nutritional values of other foods but without the phenylalinine. i take a blood test fortnightly and send it into the metabolic unit of temple street hospital to ascertain the amount or level of pku in the blood and am advised if i can increase or reduce the amount of natural protien they can eat. now here is the thing - 1 ounce of cooked meat, 1 ounce of cheddar cheese, 1 medium egg to name but some have 6 grams of protien - not much good to anyone limited to only 4 grams per day - hence as far as i know nearly all people with pku lead vegetarian diets...!!...and this is supplemented by over the counter foods/drinks etc gotten only on prescription i might add. oh and both my children have excellent diets, drink plenty of water, lots of fruit and veg - to not lack physically or mentally because of their condition - in fact they probably have better diets than a lot of people..!!!...so is suppose your comment re vegetarians is perhaps wrong - you learn something new every day..!!...

Anonymous   Posted: 04/04/2005 22:53

as far as i am aware folic acid is reccommende dot eb taken for the first month before and for the next 3 months after conception to hel prevent neural tube defects in the unborn child, due to either a lack of sufficient folate or the bodies inability to metabolise sufficient quantities. though i could be wrong

Anonymous   Posted: 05/04/2005 08:47

People should educate themselves by reading one of the books on prescribed drugs and their side effects. They may have a hair raising experience.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 05/04/2005 10:11

I’m sure Anonymous 04/04/2005 22:38 was glad to get that off her chest. However the entire post was irrelevant to my comment. By Vegetarianism I obviously did not mean to include someone on a restricted diet who is ill. As I’ve said before, whether prescription drugs have side effects or not is totally irrelevant to whether or not CAM works. Why can people not understand this basic logic. If a particular plant such as Ginko does not aid memory it has nothing whatsoever to do with the dangers from taking say Paracetamol. One major advantage to synthetic drugs is that they contain JUST the active ingredient, herbs such as St John’s Wort contain a plethora of chemicals and are far more dodgy because of that. Doctors weigh up the dangers with taking drugs against the benefits, as we all do. This point is also missed by many people who seem incapable of weighing up risk in all its aspects. So they smoke (50% death rate) & drink alcohol (5%) and then campaign against phone masts (less than .0000001%). One reason many CAM “remedies” such as Homeopathy & herbs are harmless is that they DO NOTHING, they contain nothing. Homeopathy IS harmless as it’s only water. (Unless like the unfortunate man from Mayo who died of throat cancer you went to a healer instead of your doctor, see the report of his inquest in the Irish Times this morning.)

nod_1  Posted: 05/04/2005 16:48

i think william you will find that the post was entirely relevant to your comment regarding vegetarians as you made no distiction when you said 'there is no other basis for it'. you were wrong but if choose to dismiss the point off hand then away you go....plus...i never said i was a female...!! and its not really geting it off my chest...i was just trying to ilustrate to you the point that no all vegetarins are quasi religious and that passing generalistic commets to that effect are silly. other comments you have made i generally agree with regarding scam artists placbo efects etc with but i might say that perhaps the reason that other people seem to argue with you so much is the somewhat overbearing and dismissive tone that eminates from your posts and your almost continual way of trying to contradict everyone. you attrat more flies with sugar than vinegar as they say. no more comments or dismissions to me please .

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 06/04/2005 12:14

I do not regard being medically advised to restrict protein in your diet as being a “Vegetarian”. In all conversation we use words in a way that assumes certain definitions. You are being pedantic. If I love a good steak but get stranded on a desert island with no meat am I now a Vegetarian? Not as far as I'm concerned. As soon as I’m rescued I’ll eat meat again or if a box of Steak & Kidney pies is washed up I’ll scoff them. If your child was cured he may eat meat again. If you are forced into something it changes the situation. I used the word in the sense of a philosophy. Anyone arguing from a position of fact, logic and evidence always comes across as overbearing and dismissive unless they tip toe around the place and fail to get their points across strongly. If I say “Homeopathy is nonsense” I mean that in the strict sense that there is no sense or logig in it. I do not generally reply, and I assume it’s the same for others, to those who agree with me only those that disagree with me, that’s the nature of debate. The philosophy of Vegetarianism is in my opinion a quasi religious position. I thought you attract more flies with bull shit, you certainly seem to attract more sheep. If you agree with my points re scam artists then wade in with your halfpenny’s worth and help stop the fraud. I’m sorry but I cannot respect your request to have the last word.

Anonymous   Posted: 06/04/2005 13:12

As far as I am aware, he condition is incurable, therefor it is unlikely thatthe child be cured. Basing your theoretical position on somehting that's not possible is akin to saying. Well if meat contained no protein then the child might eat it. It's completely hypothetical.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 06/04/2005 14:02

There is no such thing as an incurable disease, just incurable at present, so the theoretical point remains.

Anonymous   Posted: 06/04/2005 14:37

If it is incurable at present, then what you are presenting is a completely hypothetical siituation. No-one can say what the child would decide.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 06/04/2005 15:11

The tins of Steak & Kidney Pie example was also hypothetical. The point still remains, I was referring to Vegetarianism as a philosophy and not as a medically induced necessity. Obviously being sick cannot make you part of a religion. Furthermore the other day I noticed that I only ate non meat food. Was I a Vegetarian for the day? No. Can you be a Vegetarian between meals? No.

nod_1  Posted: 08/04/2005 14:11

pku is a condition more so than a disease.......and no it does not cure itself.........the condition is for life and so is the low protien diet.....he and she could in theory eat meat but it would mean their pku levels would rise to an astronimocal rate and if left like that unchecked indefinitely then they would start to develop mental disabilities. there are people in care who have mental redardation as a result of not having the heel prick done as babies. the test was only developed in the early 60s (i think) they could also eat tiny amounts of meat but whats the point? it uses up too much protien in their daily diet and restricts their diet even further. and with regard alternative therapies etc....my view is that they are terribly unregulated and should be made to carry some kind of professional indemnity insurance and be held accountable ...and until the medical boards can back up any claims of healing by alternative therapists then i would generally keep a wide berth. i would imagine that in the vast majority of cases it is the placebo effect. if doctors are so impersonal as people suggest (on other discussion pages) i would go out of my way to find another one rather than an alternative therapist however...i do believe that people have the right to make up their own minds on whether to go down that route but should be aware of the amount of scam artists etc. it might be a good idea for the department of health to issue information regarding these dangers on leaflet in doctors surgerys. with regard to diet supplements, they only need for people to take them is when a doctor reccommends them. in a recent programme on the bbc ( i think) lifting the lid on the vtamin industry, they found evidence that people who took high levels of vitamin e were as much at risk of developing cancer as those who smoked. so no..i dont think that taking supplements on a daily basis is either good for you or necessary. i would not fault anyone for taking a multi vitamin the the middle of winter to boost the immune system but think it should only be for the very short time. the better option would be for people to eat a well balanced diet. and wiliam.......i have seen other postings by you in the alternative medicine discussion page and you are SO much nicer...!!......

Michael  Posted: 24/10/2005 14:16

I just got my anger about all this out of my system on the thread for the new EU Directive. But really, these guys have got to stop. Just because a medicine or herb CAN cause problems is not enough reason to make it prescription only. It should only be prescription only if an ordinary person doing a check on the net can't figure out for themselves what the smart thing to do is.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 25/10/2005 09:58

Michael, the fact is that the "ordinary person" cannot read the web and figure out the corrrect thing to do. The posts on this thread clearly prove that.

Anonymous   Posted: 09/11/2005 09:45

William, not only some ordinary peolle not figure out the correct thinkg to do ith regard to the herb but in my experience most ordinary GPs can't either - mainly becuase they know nothing (and some don't want to know and dismess it out of hand) about it and some don't care less, preferrign to opt for the more "traditional" anti-depressants which have huge side effects for many and can cause huge problems as well.

karen(kazzap)  Posted: 09/11/2005 10:12

it's all a money racket.

Michael  Posted: 11/11/2005 13:54

William, I thnk your comments about ordinary people illustrate the point only too well. Of course they could work it out. But they (we!) are enmeshed in a disempowering system of regulation based on ordinary people being thick and irresponsible. Who promotes this - doctors and the industry who make money out of it (and who benefit further because disempowered people are less able to counter malpractice). Incidentally, I note how having pointed out a supposed lack of good evidence for St John's Wort, you have repeatedly lept from a (possibly) justified agnosticism on its value to concluding that it does no good. By the way, your view of the drugs we do get given and of medicine in general is very romanticised. Many standard, broadly accepted medical treatments have never been subject to proper double blind tests and continue to be promoted only because everyone does it. It is not only alternative medicine which benefits from the Placebo effect, standard medicine relies on it all the time. Anyway, what is wrong with Placebo if it works ? At the end of the day, you miss the point that we have an IMB (not the 'Government' to which you refer), taking the easy course because the industry will spend money to discredit the IMB if it stands up to them. We also have a Department of Health not going to Brussels to fight directives that furthe disempower people. The few who will abuse a medicine and the (relatively few) really complicated toxicology issues around the very wide range of drugs/herbs etc. people take has been abused to make fortunes for the industry and doctors. All you keep saying is that if a drug will/could interefere with another medicine it should be banned. Apply that logic to life in general and all freedom is gone - in the interests of preventing harm to some. Too big a price to pay for me.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 13/11/2005 14:20

sCAM TOTALLY relies on the placebo and other psychological effects. Medicine has been proven to work and not to be unacceptably dangerous in expensive broad clinical trials. This phrase “empowerment” is part of the advertising campaign by sCAM artists. They push the notion that “you know your own body” and that taking their fake medicines gives you control over your own body. They do this as part of the overall con. All con artists do this. All conned people THINK that they are making rational decisions. By any definition of fraud those conned do not think they are being conned. The “con” word means “confidence”. The con artist takes his mark into his “confidence”. That is what all sCAM artists do, win your confidence by lying to you, including convincing you that they are empowering you.

Michael  Posted: 14/11/2005 10:12

You write "Medicine has been proven to work and not to be unacceptably dangerous in expensive broad clinical trials". For a lot of medical treatments that is often not true. Just because the FDA requires trials for drugs doesn't amount to Doctors only prescribing for YOU a drug that is PROVEN to work for your condition - the reality is far from that.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 14/11/2005 11:39

I'll repeat. Whether or not doctors make mistakes or prescribe the wrong drug (they are human after all) has nothing with whether or not sCAM is any use. They are mutally exclusive events. By all means start a campagin to tighten up prescribing and while you are at it make the availability of over the counter drugs more difficult to get as many people take them un-necessarily and they are dangerous.

Anonymous   Posted: 14/11/2005 14:14

Ah yes, make over the counter drugs more difficult to get. Why not put them on prscription so that you have to go to the doctor for an aspirin. Another €50 in the Dr's pocket - that'll do nicely thank you very much.

William(williamgrogan)  Posted: 14/11/2005 17:33

Let's say that you take headache tablets regularly becuase you have headaches, say €5 per week, that's €250 per year or alternatively you pay €50 to the doctor and he tells you that you need to drink more water. End of headaches and €200 saved in year 1 and €250 thereafter. You have the flu' and skip the doctor and then spend €50 on useless remedies. I could give other examples. I agree €50 is a lot to pay a doctor but NO ONE is complaining about paying sCAM artists. Why not? PS My car is in being fixed and the charge for the mechanic is €100 per hour. These rip off Ireland costs are incurred for complex reasons including a high minimum wage, high taxation, inefficient government, a non socialist economy (thank god for that) and to recompense the doctor for spending 10 years after he left school studying so that he could learn to cure you.

Anonymous   Posted: 15/11/2005 08:22

Willaim, I would be pretty damn silly to take headache ablets every day for so long without investigating the cause. It is either dehydration (up 50% the cause) I need my eyes tested again, Stress Or there is another more serious cause - in which case I see my GP, who refers me to someone who can help. - You see he doesn\'t actually cure headaches, just refers me to a specialist. Nor does he \"cure\" the flu\'. He can provide me with a flu\' vaccine or he can give me anti-virals (provided I attend within 48 hours of the onset and so few people do) or he can recommend something (ususally and OTC meds) which will ease the symptoms. Thankfully I\'ve never had the flu\' - which is amazing seeeing as so many around me seem to complain of catching every Winter.

keen reader  Posted: 11/11/2006 12:48

i was on seroxat which i felt at the time had helped me was on it for two years and developed some side effects on the withdrawal period, im now considering sjw but i am anxious, i have read all the comments and im very undecided

To join the discussion, register by clicking here

QUICK LINKS: asthma | arthritis | psoriasis | crohn's | heart | epilepsy | eczema | osteoporosis | pregnancy | depression | alzheimer | cancer | sex | anxiety | overweight

	About Irishhealth.com | Privacy Policy | Contact us | Why Register? | Make this your home page | Site Map
	Copyright © 2010. All rights reserved. We subscribe to the principles of the Health On the Net Foundation