Interesting example of alternative-health marketing

[Darth Servo]

The problem is the media hyped it up as a "miracle cure" (like every new drug or diet) and this added to the controversy of one trust denying the drug to someone.

thats a recurring theme. The media over hypes things in their eternal hunt for headline news and then the scientific community gets blamed for it. Its Piltdown man all over again.

People are stupid, there's no denying that,

I've been saying that for 15 years.

and not everyone can afford to go to med school and get that MD.

About 99.99% of the population doesn't have the grades or brains to get into med school and of those who do, its still a crapshoot.

So it is up to the medical community to properly explain how and why things are done as they are done.

Ah, but that isn't exciting enouh to watch. Most people will say "yawn, time to change the channel"

Antibiotics for the flu? No, because viruses aren't alive and antibiotics are of limited use thanks to bad prescriptions.

Slight nitpick, its not because virii aren't alive (the jury is still out on that one) but because antibiotics explicitly target chemical mechanisms unique to bacteria. Antibiotics are just as useless against fungal infections as viral ones.

Is all surgery risk free? No, even routine procedures can end fatally if an unforseen complication arises.

All one needs to do here is point out that the same can be said for crossing the street.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Slight nitpick, its not because virii aren't alive (the jury is still out on that one) but because antibiotics explicitly target chemical mechanisms unique to bacteria. Antibiotics are just as useless against fungal infections as viral ones.

Slight nitpick part deux: it's viruses, not virii. My habit of correcting people on that stems from my curmudgeon of a microbiology professor. The same one who explained the antibiotics thing which I oversimplified here. As an aside, viruses are considered pseudo-life by many, only coming alive when hijacking a cell, but that's only similar to a computer being taken over by rogue code, which doesn't make a new computer by itself. It is correct though, that specifically antibiotics work only on bacteria because the drug works on unique quirks of their physiology, just as anti-fungals and anti-parasitics work on their intended prey (the latter, of course, being harder being eukaryotes like ourselves, so as with cancer, it's a case of killing them faster than the drug kills us).

All one needs to do here is point out that the same can be said for crossing the street.

I doubt anyone would listen, personally. That's why I said "viruses not being alive", as opposed to "bacteria are built differently" because then you get people asking more dumb questions or simply ignoring everything said.

[Broomstick]

Anti-depresssant drugs have been a major public-relations catastrophe for the pharmaceutical industry. Not only is there mounting evidence of their long-term ineffectiveness, but they have been linked to numerous bizarre incidents including mass-murders.

That's because of a quirk of depression most people are unaware of.

One of the major symptoms of clinical depression is a lack of motivation - the depressed might have a desire to kill themselves or others, but lack the energy/motivation/impetus to actually commit the deed. When a person starts to come out of that deep, depressive state sometimes the energy comes back before the nasty impulses leave. In fact, the risk of suicide is highest during the early part of recovery, not when the person is in the deepest symptoms.

So, in a sense, the fact that SSRI's have been linked to a certain number of bizarre acts, suicides, and murders is actually as sign that they do relieve some symptoms of depression. It's just that folks don't understand that the pills aren't an instant fix, nor do they cure all problems, and they certainly do have a variety of side effects. Including relieving symptoms in a less than desirable order.

[Justforfun000]

You demonise alternative medicine because it doesn't make you big bucks for the drug firms! Wrong, they are discriminated because they just don't work, and those that do, the drug firms lap up and sell anyway.

That isn't really accurate..You can't patent natural substances and they have found that in some cases involving herbals, you NEED the entire herb profile in order to have it produce the results. They have tried to isolate compounds and use them separately, but they ended up being ineffective. Conversely, they also discovered that they still needed those constituents in high enough percentage quantites for the herb to work in the studies, hence standardization was born.

I do believe both St. Johns Wort and Gingko Biloba are both examples of this, but it's been awhile.

Herbal medicine has a great deal of potential to it as they have had numerous significant studies on quite a few products, but as Mike mentioned earlier, once you get to a certain stage that requires much larger and longer studies in order to get the "proof" needed, you are talking about a shitload of money.

Also there are idiots out there that end up doing a great disservice to the industry by designing poor studies that use ineffectual dosages and/or unstandardized products and then declare the substance "worthless" when they fail to get results shown in other studies.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That isn't really accurate..You can't patent natural substances and they have found that in some cases involving herbals, you NEED the entire herb profile in order to have it produce the results. They have tried to isolate compounds and use them separately, but they ended up being ineffective. Conversely, they also discovered that they still needed those constituents in high enough percentage quantites for the herb to work in the studies, hence standardization was born.

That doesn't stop drugs companies from selling the herb as is, just like any alternative medicine shop. If they can, they are quite capable of extracting the active ingredient and patenting the formula of the drug. Besides, your argument is flawed given genes can and are patented. The issue is not as black and white as you think, and it was a big subject in my bioethics classes.

Herbal medicine has a great deal of potential to it as they have had numerous significant studies on quite a few products, but as Mike mentioned earlier, once you get to a certain stage that requires much larger and longer studies in order to get the "proof" needed, you are talking about a shitload of money.

Also there are idiots out there that end up doing a great disservice to the industry by designing poor studies that use ineffectual dosages and/or unstandardized products and then declare the substance "worthless" when they fail to get results shown in other studies.

You don't even need proof for most. The reason alternative medicine even exists today is because people in bulk just don't have that good a grasp of science, and folklore along with hostility against megacorporations feeds this craze. The girl I mentioned before with homeopathy could only give me anecdotal evidence of it working and openly denied the studies showing it to be a crock. For those types, you may as well bash your head on a brick wall, because they'll lap up the newest ancient or new age remedy as if thr BMJ hailed it a supercure. They will likely find out the hard way that what they take may not necessarily be all it's cracked up to be.

[Justforfun000]

That doesn't stop drugs companies from selling the herb as is, just like any alternative medicine shop.

No of course not, but they still won't make NEAR the profits they would if it was theirs alone.

If they can, they are quite capable of extracting the active ingredient and patenting the formula of the drug. Besides, your argument is flawed given genes can and are patented.

But they can't extract the active ingredient. They work in synergy with the entire ratio of constituents. At least that is what they were saying seemed to be the case in the studies they had conducted.

I may not have said the prohibition correctly. I don't recall exactly what the wording is, but I know the basic essence is correct....There must be a reason why the genes don't fall under this. I'll have to search a bit on this and get back to you.


<blockquote>Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 4:00 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justforfun000 wrote:


That isn't really accurate..You can't patent natural substances and they have found that in some cases involving herbals, you NEED the entire herb profile in order to have it produce the results. They have tried to isolate compounds and use them separately, but they ended up being ineffective. Conversely, they also discovered that they still needed those constituents in high enough percentage quantites for the herb to work in the studies, hence standardization was born.


That doesn't stop drugs companies from selling the herb as is, just like any alternative medicine shop. If they can, they are quite capable of extracting the active ingredient and patenting the formula of the drug. Besides, your argument is flawed given genes can and are patented. The issue is not as black and white as you think, and it was a big subject in my bioethics classes.

Quote:
Herbal medicine has a great deal of potential to it as they have had numerous significant studies on quite a few products, but as Mike mentioned earlier, once you get to a certain stage that requires much larger and longer studies in order to get the "proof" needed, you are talking about a shitload of money.

Also there are idiots out there that end up doing a great disservice to the industry by designing poor studies that use ineffectual dosages and/or unstandardized products and then declare the substance "worthless" when they fail to get results shown in other studies.

You don't even need proof for most. The reason alternative medicine even exists today is because people in bulk just don't have that good a grasp of science, and folklore along with hostility against megacorporations feeds this craze. The girl I mentioned before with homeopathy could only give me anecdotal evidence of it working and openly denied the studies showing it to be a crock.

You have to know where to look. There are good studies out there for many products. Just as an example, check out this company and their research. They have some very promising clinical studies on humans for many of their products:

http://www.aor.ca/about.php

For the record, I have serious doubts about homeopathy and no interest in it whatsoever. The premise with it is way too out there in my opinion, so I don't disagree with you there.





The issue is not as black and white as you think, and it was a big subject in my bioethics classes.

[Darth Wong]

That doesn't stop drugs companies from selling the herb as is, just like any alternative medicine shop. If they can, they are quite capable of extracting the active ingredient and patenting the formula of the drug. Besides, your argument is flawed given genes can and are patented. The issue is not as black and white as you think, and it was a big subject in my bioethics classes.

Ultimately though, they may not want to bother doing the research for any of this. There are certain kinds of illnesses that the drug companies are interested in, ie- those for which there is a strong market demand. That's why there's so much research into brain-altering and penis-enhancing drugs; that's where the money is. Same goes for weight-loss drugs. The cost of clinical studies and the manufacturing R&D for pharmaceutical-grade versions of whatever the active ingredient(s) are in a particular herb may not be justifiable to them, unless the herb has some kind of profound effect on a serious health problem.

You don't even need proof for most. The reason alternative medicine even exists today is because people in bulk just don't have that good a grasp of science, and folklore along with hostility against megacorporations feeds this craze. The girl I mentioned before with homeopathy could only give me anecdotal evidence of it working and openly denied the studies showing it to be a crock. For those types, you may as well bash your head on a brick wall, because they'll lap up the newest ancient or new age remedy as if thr BMJ hailed it a supercure. They will likely find out the hard way that what they take may not necessarily be all it's cracked up to be.

The other reason alternative medicine even exists today is when people go to the doctor and are told that all their tests come back fine even though they feel like shit. Like it or not, there are certain areas where the medical community just hasn't done enough work, and doesn't appear to be interested in doing more. So whether it works or not, people are going to explore alternatives, because the medical community is quite frankly giving them jack shit. Look at Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

[Broomstick]

It is possible to derieve benefit from herbs and other "natural" or traditional remedies. In order to get beneficial and consistent results, however, it's a LOT of work.

I dabbled in herbal cures at one point. I did a lot of reserach, slogged through a lot of metaphysical bullshit, and did get some results. However, the lack of consistency in results was a pain in the ass - it was hard to get consistent supplies, consistent dosages, etc. Unless I wanted to take up farming my own herbs and taking on what amounted to at least a part-time job it just wasn't going to give me good, consistent results.

Which had a lot to do with why I went back to buying Sudafed instead of screwing around with Ephedra which, in addition to the beneficial compounds, has some with undesirable effects like pounding heartbeat and elevated blood pressure. The pseudoephedrine in Sudafed (and yes, both ephedrine and pseudoephedrine were originally refined from ephedra) comes in a convenient, consistent dose with predictable effect.

The US Health and Human Services has sponsored some research and some meta-analysis to investigate herbal claims of effectiveness. Problems encountered include, as mentioned, poorly designed trials, "evidence" based on anecdote, and problems with consistency of purity, dosage, and effect.

My father, who worked as a pharmacist, is old enough and entered into the profession long enough ago that he remembers the days before modern pharmaceuticals, when pharmacists (or "chemists", as our British friends so accurately describe them) were expected to be able make various common drugs from raw ingrediants. Although he has a LOT of unkind things to say about today's "Big Pharma" companies, he has an equally good number of things to say about modern medications. We moved from herbals to modern manfacturing for a REASON.

Also - most of these New Age idjits either aren't aware, or deny, that many "natural" and "traditional" remedies are toxic. Some ayurvedic medicines, for examaple, contain mecury which is Very Bad for you. Prior to antibiotics there were a few legitimate uses for mecury, but we have much better medications now and in any case, such things were never for amateurs to play with.

[mr friendly guy]

The other reason alternative medicine even exists today is when people go to the doctor and are told that all their tests come back fine even though they feel like shit. Like it or not, there are certain areas where the medical community just hasn't done enough work, and doesn't appear to be interested in doing more. So whether it works or not, people are going to explore alternatives, because the medical community is quite frankly giving them jack shit. Look at Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

Just for interest, do these people start turning away from a particular alternative medicine when they also don't do jack shit. Or does the placebo effect make them feel better?

[Justforfun000]

Just for interest, do these people start turning away from a particular alternative medicine when they also don't do jack shit. Or does the placebo effect make them feel better?

Good question. I would assume most do..but there are always stubborn people.

Just as one example, a good friend of mine lived with me as a roommate for years and she was mid 60's with arthritis. She had some really rough periods when she could barely clench her hands together without pain and she was getting really frustrated because she was allergic to most pain medication like tylenol and aspirin. I searched around a bit and had her try Devils Claw to see if it would do her any good. She never went without it once she started. It took about 2 weeks or so, but she thought it was near miraculous. Almost total relief. I was quite surprised myself and never would have expected THAT much of an effect. She actually stopped it once after a few months when she ran low of funds for a bit just to see what would happen, but after a week or so her hands started stiffening up and she could hardly grasp anything.

She used it for years and never had a problem ever again to my knowledge up to her death. However, she had a friend try it who had arthritis as well (not sure if it was the same type however...), and it didn't help her. So that's the other problem. what might be useful for one might be worthless to another.

Now obviously this is an anectdotal story, so it's worthless as evidence, but I know and she knew that the herbal worked. To my knowledge though, that isn't even a particularly researched herb yet. I think most of it's claims are still just traditional.

[Broomstick]

After that anecdote, I'd like to point out that pain is something that placebos can work quite well on, as opposed to other conditions. It may be that her belief in the herb "tricked" her brain into suppressing or counteracting the pain signals she was getting, allowing her to continue to function despite arthritis.

[Darth Wong]

Want more explanation of why people have lost much of their faith in conventional medicine? Pick up the May 29 2006 edition of Businessweek magazine and read the cover story.

The fact is that the medical community has historically done a piss-poor job of following the scientific method, despite its overwrought pretensions to the contrary. So when they complain that alternative medicines are unscientific, people aren't really that impressed. It's like seeing a man whose legs have been cut off below the knees calling another man a cripple because he has no legs at all.

Ultimately, the big problem is that the decisions about whether a particular therapy is useful or necessary in medicine are typically made by the same people who stand to make profit by providing that therapy. So a company develops a new therapy, produces some clinical studies (which it paid for) which suggest that it works, releases it onto the world, and then doctors start prescribing it willy-nilly based on the literature provided to them by the pharmaceutical company (or in many cases, based on consumer demand now that Big Pharma is marketing directly to the end user on a regular basis).

But once those initial clinical studies (once again, paid for by the manufacturer) are done, it takes a looong time before anybody else ever decides to bother following up by monitoring the observed effectiveness of this therapy in broad use. And why shouldn't it? Who has the incentive to pay for this kind of follow-up work? Right now it's just the health insurance companies who want to cut their costs for unnecessary or unproductive therapies, and they risk getting dragged into court every time they challenge the efficacy of a particular therapy because it's assumed they're just trying to cut corners. They could be right, and still lose in court.

[Broomstick]

Right now it's just the health insurance companies who want to cut their costs for unnecessary or unproductive therapies, and they risk getting dragged into court every time they challenge the efficacy of a particular therapy because it's assumed they're just trying to cut corners. They could be right, and still lose in court.

Indeed. My employer (a center that conducts research into evidence-based medicine for both private insurers and the Federal government) is currently fighting three lawsuits that arose out of my department coming to conclusions other people didn't like. I'd provide details, but, of course, since there are legal proceedings going on I can say nothing about any of it.