Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think some are making more of this than it really is, I have not read too much about it but it seems the EU is going to have the same regulations the US has had for years, if you are going to claim a drug does something in particular you need to show testing(proof) it does what you claim it does and your manufacturing is regulated.
In the US if you listen close or read the tiny type they say '[Whatever] is not intended to prevent, treat, or cure, any disease or defect'(or something like that).
Something simple like Aspirin CAN say it is a pain reliever AND can help with some heart problems because there has been many years of testing to show this.
It’s more about the licencing. Many of these medicines have been used for thousands of years already, but have to be proved to work now.
On the subject of Aspirin, there are other uses for that, but I am not allowed to advise you, due to it not being “licenced” for that use, and it’s not for any treatment of illness of any kind. (It’s not actually anything to do with health at all).
Except it's not entirely true (not surprising, since one of the links is Rense, the Conspiracy Theorist's Treasure Trove).
EU isn't banning all herbal medicines. It's just requiring that they be licensed, IF they make medical claims. So if they don't make medical claims, they're fine just the way they are and can continue to be sold. If they DO make medical claims, they have to be licensed and subject to the same scrutiny as any pharmaceutical drug. Or, they can remove their claims from their labelling and advertising. Or, they can accept being banned.
Sort of like how it's done here in the USA. They can say "Vitamin C is an essential nutrient, and we're selling it." But they can't say "Our Vitamin C will cure your cold." That - is illegal. Selling Vitamin C is legal. Telling people that it's an important nutrient is legal. Claiming that it can perform specific medical functions is not legal, unless it is proclaimed a pharmaceutical. THere are pharmaceuticals, and nutritional supplements. Nutritional supplements are not subject to the same criteria, but also are not allowed to make medical claims. EU is attempting to follow the same guidelines, so idiots who don't know better don't get duped into injecting Essense of Snake Dung into their veins just because some supplement quack claims that it'll cure his bunion problem.
I think it's great. Get rid of the snake oil salesmen...
Except it's not entirely true (not surprising, since one of the links is Rense, the Conspiracy Theorist's Treasure Trove).
EU isn't banning all herbal medicines. It's just requiring that they be licensed, IF they make medical claims. So if they don't make medical claims, they're fine just the way they are and can continue to be sold. If they DO make medical claims, they have to be licensed and subject to the same scrutiny as any pharmaceutical drug. Or, they can remove their claims from their labelling and advertising. Or, they can accept being banned.
Sort of like how it's done here in the USA. They can say "Vitamin C is an essential nutrient, and we're selling it." But they can't say "Our Vitamin C will cure your cold." That - is illegal. Selling Vitamin C is legal. Telling people that it's an important nutrient is legal. Claiming that it can perform specific medical functions is not legal, unless it is proclaimed a pharmaceutical. THere are pharmaceuticals, and nutritional supplements. Nutritional supplements are not subject to the same criteria, but also are not allowed to make medical claims. EU is attempting to follow the same guidelines, so idiots who don't know better don't get duped into injecting Essense of Snake Dung into their veins just because some supplement quack claims that it'll cure his bunion problem.
What is the point in selling something, if no one is allowed to know what it's for?
That’s a bit like being allowed to buy groceries, but banning cookery books, I’m sure that’s to come!
herbal medicines having to substantiate any health claims they make can only be a good thing. sure, it adds to cost, but this would be more than recouped in the sales they would make by having demonstrable clinical benefit in illness.
Judging by the majority of the responses, you agree wholeheartedly with loads of rules and regulations.
You must all be very well insured!
The poor quite often can’t afford the over inflated prices of “conventional medicine”, (I say conventional because that’s what most believe it is), so without any alternatives, they will just have to suffer.
Well consider this situation. You have leukaemia, and all conventional medicine has failed, you also have six children to support, your relatives are already deciding which children they can take when you die. Would you try the herbal medicine that a wise relation offers? Of course you wouldn’t, you don’t trust it, you want it tested and licenced first.
Would you want to know if an illness you have could be treated, and even cured, well sorry, I’m not allowed to help you, the EU want a bribe of £100.000 for each of my herbs, to allow me to advise you on which will treat that.
Mr and Mrs Herb can’t afford to licence every herb they sell, so they will no longer be able to help, and will be joining the Unemployed, in a search for meaningless, valueless, “Employment”.
Judging by the majority of the responses, you agree wholeheartedly with loads of rules and regulations.
You must all be very well insured!
The poor quite often can’t afford the over inflated prices of “conventional medicine”, (I say conventional because that’s what most believe it is), so without any alternatives, they will just have to suffer.
Well consider this situation. You have leukaemia, and all conventional medicine has failed, you also have six children to support, your relatives are already deciding which children they can take when you die. Would you try the herbal medicine that a wise relation offers? Of course you wouldn’t, you don’t trust it, you want it tested and licenced first.
Would you want to know if an illness you have could be treated, and even cured, well sorry, I’m not allowed to help you, the EU want a bribe of £100.000 for each of my herbs, to allow me to advise you on which will treat that.
Mr and Mrs Herb can’t afford to licence every herb they sell, so they will no longer be able to help, and will be joining the Unemployed, in a search for meaningless, valueless, “Employment”.
Hyperbole and rhetoric. The herb companies will STILL BE ALLOWED TO SELL THEIR PRODUCTS. They just won't be allowed to make MEDICAL claims about them, UNLESS they have done research that proves that these claims are true, and can present the research to the governing organization in charge of ensuring that claims are true.
They can still say "Gunko Blowout is an antioxidant."
They can NOT still say "Gunko Blowout will cure your cancer."
Unless they can prove that Gunko Blowout really does cure cancer.
Now, if you want to take herbal medicines that might, or might not do anything, or might even cause harm to people who take it, just because you don't think the companies should have to prove that their stuff is any good, that's great.
But the vast majority of people who take medicines specifically to treat illnesses, want some assurance that those medicines actually do what their manufacturers claim they do.
herbal medicines are not free, and in many cases they have no proof of evidence. to me, that represents worse value for money than a licensed medicine with proven efficacy.
if, as anonchick points out, a herbal medicine with no clinical data to support it efficacy started making claims about being able to cure leukemia, do you not see any danger/potential harm in that? take your example - someone suffering from leukemia turning to such a medicine because that is more affordable to them, not knowing that herbal medicines can make this claim without good supporting evidence.
the regulation is a good thing. the cries of corruption are an inevitable consequence whenever there is any degree of governance.
For me it's not about proven efficacy, it's more about the opportunity for anyone with some serious illness having information made available to them giving them the opportunity to act more responsibly in having some input in choosing what or which may be more beneficial or offer a better potential outcome.
Funds are not made available to anyone attempting to pursue research into anything other than pharma medicinals, and substantial funds are required to satisfy the establishments criteria. This combined with the establishments view that research must conform to some ideology simply stifles good productive research into possible cures rather than treatments. Treatment should ultimately lead to cure, I don't believe in the majority of cases this is so. Just look at how much funding and donations has poured into cancer research...And many years down the road we STILL have not found a cure. I believe this is because they are not looking, and researchers are bound to some form of conformity to maintain funding, if they attempt to deviate, their funding dries up.
What's needed is a radical rethink and shakeup of how things are done in the 21st century. Natural or Alternative, call it what one will, was around for a long time before pharma entered the arena - and the human species seemed to survive throughout the evolutionary process devoid of such influence. Mainstream and natural/alternative need to work side by side more in an attempt to weed out what is of value and efficacious and what is snake oil, and that requires the releasing of appropriate funding. Research into possible/potential cures died as each researcher died.
People may discredit the likes of Nikola Tesla, Robert C Beck, Robert O Becker, Bjorn Nordenstrom, and others...But I am left to wonder how many people have actually heard their names and know anything about their past research? Nordenstrom failed to document his research because he was more concerned with people than satisfying his peers publishing criteria, Robert O Becker had his funding pulled because he refused to keep his research findings to himself and published regardless of advice not to do so forcing him into retirement {twice nominated for Nobel prize}, Royal Raymond Rife was destroyed by the establishment because he refused to bow down to the establishments wishes and died a broken man.
Discredit as much as makes one feel good, but it does not take the fact away that each of these men experienced ground breaking research...And by and large, none of it has been followed up today, instead each of them,for the most part, are vehemently discredited and considered quacks and there research quackery.
demonstration of efficacy and safety are essential.
just because it may be difficult or expensive to do so is not a reasonable justification.
therapeutic alternatives are fine, and consumer choice is great, but whether licensed medicine, or alternative therapy, products must not make claims of therapeutic benefit which are not proven.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
