Endometriosis

[lesa]

um, you're wrong.

Can you elaborate?

Do you mean the evidence? I personally feel there are evidence and I have found several research articles on many of them but some physicians will not recommend them because they feel they are not proven to work like prescriptions drugs. After all the pharmaceutical industries sometime use their power to influence how some physicians prescribe/recommend treatment.

I see this A LOT! I mean A LOT lol.

[ecojeanne]

Certain herbs may help greatly but can be controversial and many physicians cannot/will not recommend them because of the lack of evidence based medical info on them.

a lot of research is funded by pharma companies because they can afford it. its in their best interest to discredit natural therapies....now i agree not all herbs are good as far i can tell...i'm no expert so i can't really say whether all natural therapies work

[starbuck]

You're too feminine Starbuck! That's all!

I am! I am woman, hear me bitch!

[ecojeanne]

put it this way i would take a herb quicker than a pharma pill given the choice

[Cain]

put it this way i would take a herb quicker than a pharma pill given the choice

Herbs do not have to comply with the FDA. They don't have to go through the same rigorous testing procedures that medications do. Take what you want, but for someone that claims to be so skeptical of everything, you sure are taking peoples words for it when you take an herb that didn't get test for eight years.

[ecojeanne]

Herbs do not have to comply with the FDA. They don't have to go through the same rigorous testing procedures that medications do. Take what you want, but for someone that claims to be so skeptical of everything, you sure are taking peoples words for it when you take an herb that didn't get test for eight years.

cnn reports that drug reactions kill an estimated 100,000 a year...i'd rather take my chances with something that is natural

and i have come accross that figure many many times from articles and books

[Cain]

cnn reports that drug reactions kill an estimated 100,000 a year...i'd rather take my chances with something that is natural

and i have come accross that figure many many times from articles and books

You're looking at a study that was done a decade ago.

Fine, don't take the medications. All medications have side effects and these studies are including allergic reactions and things like GI bleeding.

But if you think that taking HERBS is better, go for it. Sure, it's natural, but does that mean that everything natural is now healthy? Herbs aren't regulated. There is no extensive research and control done on herbs to show that they do what they claim to.

But believe what you want. At least medications are regulated and heavily tested.

[Cain]

Also, a lot of the deaths were preventable. It's including deaths due to over medication.

[starbuck]

put it this way i would take a herb quicker than a pharma pill given the choice

If you had diabetes would you not take insulin? If you had asthma, would you not breathe in an inhaler when your throat closed up?

I think herbs are fine, but your mistrust of pharmaceutical companies shouldn't keep you so close-minded that you don't even consider man-made drugs that will help you.

[ecojeanne]

i did say 'quicker'. i would go for natural therapy first before i toxify myself with drugs as the very last resort...somehow i don't believe that will ever happen...there is way more evidence out there that i have read and studied that shows pharma just doesnt care about anything but profits...they rush drugs out and then people die and they take them off the shelves when its too late for some people...it shouldnt be about the bottom line...again that goes back to my opinion on corporations...anyway here is a more up to date statistc for you not that it will make any difference to you...

26 October 2006

Every year 700,000 people in the USA need emergency out-patient hospital care following an adverse reaction to a prescription drug. Of these, 16 per cent are admitted to hospital for surveillance.

(Source: Journal of the American Medical Association, 2006; 296: 1858-66).

[Cain]

i did say 'quicker'. i would go for natural therapy first before i toxify myself with drugs as the very last resort...somehow i don't believe that will ever happen...there is way more evidence out there that i have read and studied that shows pharma just doesnt care about anything but profits...they rush drugs out and then people die and they take them off the shelves when its too late for some people...it shouldnt be about the bottom line...again that goes back to my opinion on corporations...anyway here is a more up to date statistc for you not that it will make any difference to you...

Sure, if by rush you mean 8-15 years.

[ecojeanne]

Sure, if by rush you mean 8-15 years.

when i say 'rush' i mean they haven't researched and tested it properly... thats why they have to take them back off the shelves...length of time means nothing if they haven't tested it properly

[Cain]

when i say 'rush' i mean they haven't researched and tested it properly... thats why they have to take them back off the shelves...length of time means nothing if they haven't tested it properly

Each drug goes through four phases of testing, with an increase in population happening with each test.

It costs the pharmaceutical company one billion per drug in research and development. What more do you want?

[ecojeanne]

Each drug goes through four phases of testing, with an increase in population happening with each test.

It costs the pharmaceutical company one billion per drug in research and development. What more do you want?

To be honest, its not good enough, if people are going to die, how do you explain this example:

Drug manufacturer Merck knew one of its drugs was killing Alzheimer’s patients – but hid the fact from regulators for several years. The drug, the COX-2 painkiller Vioxx (rofecoxib), was finally taken off the market in 2004 after it was found to cause heart attack.

Industry commentators reckon around 60,000 people may have suffered a heart attack after taking the drug, and, earlier this year, Merck made a $4.85 billion settlement to victims’ families to end the largest civil suit in legal history.

The drug was originally intended for arthritis sufferers, but the company also thought it might help Alzheimer’s victims. But in initial trials, Merck hid the fact that the drug was killing patients – a fact that was lost in papers handed to America’s drug regulator, the Food and Drug Administration, in 2004.

Internal papers reported 34 deaths among the 1,069 Alzheimer’s patients taking the drug, and yet the studies sent to the FDA said there were 11 ‘non-drug related’ deaths.

(Source: Journal of the American Medical Association, 2008; 299: 1813-7).

[Cain]

Look, there will always be side effects and immoral activity. It doesn't mean that's the norm.