Interfering bastards.

I agree with them. Lots of alternative medicine sucks and is harmful. And there is something to be said for the fact that if the pharmaceutical industry has to comply with the law and get things tested, then so should the alties.

But, of course, it would be far better if both weren't regulated. If you want to kill yourself with untested alternative medicine, then go for it. The cynic in me is saying "natural selection at work".

The worst solution is what the current government are doing - letting alternative medicine in to the NHS. It's bad enough that we have to subsidise healthcare. It's even worse that we have to subsidise pseudoscientific healthcare like homeopathy and acupuncture and the rest of the superstitious nonsense of the army of modern witch doctors.

Slightly off-topic, but my first thought on seeing the quote was to think of so-called "organic" foods, which are just as likely to contain harmful chemicals as foods produced by companies that are deemed to be too large.

Acrylamides, for example, occur whenever you bake starches at higher than a certain temperature. But the scare literature only ever mentiones potato chips and french fries....

Tom Morris writes:

"It's even worse that we have to subsidise pseudoscientific healthcare like homeopathy and acupuncture and the rest of the superstitious nonsense of the army of modern witch doctors."

Or, for that matter, some of the treatments advocated by those unable to distinguish between proper scientific scepticism and profound, blinkered, ignorance.

NIH Consensus Development Program

Tom, I agree with the "natural selection" idea.
I take great exception to the fact that I will be unable to obtain whatever supplements I choose to take because some scumbags in pharmaceutical companies don't want me to. Not happy about this nonsense at all.

Yes gravid I agree we should all be free to buy what wish and indeed free to be as idiotic and gullible as we wish.

WE have "alternative" - meaning "pretend" medicine on the National Health now because Cherie Blair and her ilk love this New Age crap. Massages to scrub out "bad karma". Next year, you probably won't have to go to Mexico for your fake "Ancient Mayan rebirthing ceremony". You'll be able to get it in Huddersfield. Crystals and magic circles, too. God, there really is one born every minute.

I don't know why the big pharma companies want government interference in alternative medicine. Why would they want to share their market domination with anyone? It's exactly what would happen. Alties would have to combine and organize the way the drug companies have in order to navigate and survive in the bureaucracy. I tend to think this would afford them the opportunity to really get their fingers into the multi-trillion dollar western health industry.

GCooper: If by acupuncture you mean simply sticking needles in to people, then it does have clinical benefits. Your link: "Placement of a needle in any position elicits a biological response that complicates the interpretation of studies involving sham acupuncture."

If by acupuncture you mean a complex Chinese system of medicine relying on the metaphysics and philosophy of "qi" and energy lines and all that jazz, then no, I remain very much sceptical.

Now, if you want all the lovey-dovey metaphysics, the free market can certainly provide you with that either in a church/temple or an acupuncture clinic.

Winzeler:

Isn't small pharma's actions (compare the size of the pharmaceutical companies to the size of Big Government before using the pejorative phrase "big pharma", please!) the typical and predictable strategy of an established player trying to use the government to raise the price of entry into a field?

I'm not suggesting that the drugs makers are in any way virtuous; I'm just pointing out there's a bigger fundamental problem in that we've given the state the power to let the drugs makers do these things. And yet, if you suggest the state shouldn't have such power, most of the people who scream about "Big Pharma" would be the first to howl in protest.

Tom Morris writes:

"If by acupuncture you mean simply sticking needles in to people, then it does have clinical benefits."

And quantifiable therapeutic benefits, which means it does not deserve inclusion in the smug: "... superstitious nonsense of the army of modern witch doctors."

Fine. Exclude it from my smug category. But I think you'll find that when you say acupuncture to most people, it's more than simply sticking needles in to people. It includes all the "qi" and spiritual stuff. Which has no place in a hospital if I'm being forced to pay for it.

Tom Morris writes:

" Which has no place in a hospital if I'm being forced to pay for it."

That's fine. As long as you're willing to consign much back and spinal surgery and all pyschonanalysis to a similarly capacious wastebin of questionable 'mainstream' therapies.

It's not just 'alternative' medicine that has its quacks.

Verity- "Ancient Mayan rebirthing ceremony"-marvellous! I hate that new-age whale song, swimming with dolphin crap also.

I do like to purchase whatever people want to sell me though- free market and all that etc. I am most annoyed that it will become illegal to buy 1000mg vitamin C tablets much the same if they outlawed red smarties IMHO. No logical argument, just because they can. Wankers.

If large pharmaceutical companies can admit that their products may not work for a large percentage of users (http://www.saga.co.uk/health_news/article/883428F3-23F8-4939-9820-15C944DE7F8B.asp?bhjs=0
) then who is to say that practices such as acupuncture are a nonsense?

Yes, gravid, I also want to be able to buy vitamin pills to the max if I feel like it. And can, as I live in a free country. If I down vitamins with too much enthusiasm and get sick, I can PAY to go to a doctor to diagnose me. If the doctor thinks it's serious, I can PAY to go to hospital and be treated. Or the insurance policy that I took out of my own free will pay for it as long as I maintained my part of the contract by keeping the payments up.

But if you get sick from your overdose, the NHS will have to treat you, and therein lies the rub. The NHS does not like treating people. Especially people who took their health care into their own hands.

OTOH, "swimming with dolphins", as though they were gurus, for god's sake, is stupid, but it gets better in "birthing (I hate that word) with dolphins".

Why?

Can anyone tell me why they think dolphins would stay congenial in a pool they had been corralled into, and have all this placenta and blood in their faces and a bunch of women standing overhead shouting "Push"? Don't you think the dolphins would get irritated? I know I would.

Yes, they're mammals, but in normal circumstances, they themselves have an entire ocean in which to give birth, and I'm sure there are swarms of parasite fish drawn to the site to hoover up the leavings.

Just because dolphins have smiley faces doesn't mean they are smiley animals or give a crap about a human baby.

Dolphins have indeed "saved" drowning people by pushing them to shore. Not because they magically understand "people" or "drowning" (they themselves being denizens of the element of water), but because that was the way the person bounced when they were playing with him/her. Equally, some people get pushed out to sea as the dolphins play with them and are never seen again.

Why these bizarre people, who are sustained by air, thought that water mammals, dolphins, with no written instructions, had this instinctive knowledge, plus a desire to help, tells me they are wanty, wanty, wanty misfits. Like Cherie and Tone Bliar believing the Mayas had a "rebirthing ceremony" down "ancient" plastic tubing to represent the birth channel. What the hell is it with these people?

I agree, Ted. I was trying to be satirical. I'm anti big pharma, but mostly because big pharma and big government are in collusion. I suspect the best overhaul the entire health care industry could use is the elimination of the FDA. (speaking, obviously as an American -I'm largely ignorant of such things accross the pond, though I hear it's all worse than here.)

Winzdeler - What is your solution? Drugs that aren't tested? I ask because I think it's a point in the discussion.

Verity:

Could a pharmaceutical version of Underwriters' Laboratories work regarding testing drugs?

Off topic, but anyway...
Verity, I dispute your idea that dolphins don't "save" humans, they play with them. They've got a whole 3 dimenional sea in which to play, why only play by pushing upward? Why tow to shore where the plaything can't be reached? You don't give them enough credit - "saving" is clearly within range of animal cognition, a mother cat will save her kittens. The whole "towing the human to shore" thing though, that gets misinterpreted. It's not that they know a human will drown. It's that beaching is the normal way a sick dolphin avoids drowning. They're doing for a person the exact same thing they'd do for their own kind.

Verity, I will PAY if I need to ( Private healthcare scheme) even though I have to tug my forelock and give the '"guvment" some money on a monthly basis. AS for the US being "free"? I am not inclined to agree with that statement..."goddamned piece of paper" being a phrase which I heard that the President used about the constitution recently.

I would like to see drugs like Pfizer's best selling L*pitor banned or subject to much more testing, especially with older people.

One problem with the nanny state is that it leads people into believing that someone is always watching out for them even when they are not. Many, if not most, people believe that the government (at least in the US) does monitor the safety and efficacy of natural supplements.

Combined with the delusional belief that anything "all natural" can't hurt you, the belief in non-existant oversight makes people gobble down all kinds of stuff with reckless abandon.

I "do my homework" before I take anything whether it be made by a large pharmaceutical company or whether it be made by the high priestess at the local coven. As for the advertising industry working their special magic and using the words "natural" and "organic" well it's caveat emptor time and just remember children, rattlesnake venom is 100% natural and organic.
Go shoot some up for me.

Verity, see Ted's suggestion if you want an answer. I don't see how the FDA is doing much better than nothing at all (i.e. cox-2, Ortho-evra, et al). I pretty much reject main stream medicine, sticking to verifiable alternative methods. Anyone who is capable of due diligence concerning their own health care can combine that with healthy living in general without needing the help and consent of the nanny state, money driven FDA.

Winzeler - I'm not American and don't live in the US, so have no way of judging your comment or Ted Schuerzinger's comment.

gravid says "I do my homework before I take anything whether it be made by a large pharmaceutical company or whether it be made by the high priestess at the local coven".

You take an advanced degree in pharmacology?

That, plus several years of experience with actual cases, is the only way you can make a judgement. The rest of us may not have the time to take an advanced degree in pharmacology and may have to rely on government testing. It may not be great, but no government credentials might be worse.

I don't think the pharma companies are little Mary Sunshines, but I think they are kept in check by governments. Before you write in and say, "Oh, but my wife's sister took blah blah blah and she ..." I think we're lucky to have the pills and shots, and it's a good thing that they underwent lengthy testing even though I don't see big government as a benign figure. But rather that than the pharmas simply putting new things on the market with a song and a smile.

We live in a very complicated, baffling world. We can't all know everything, as an informed person could in the early 18th Century.

Verity, I don't have a degree in pharmacology. What I mean is that I do a bit of research to find out what the expected effects of ingestion/application etc are and what the possible side effects may be. My point being that I do not blindly take anything handed to me or rely on looking for the words "natural" and/or "organic" to induce me to purchase . I would not be here but for the wonders of modern medicine. So I am not totally against pharmaceuticals.

Verity ignorantly wrote:

Winzeler - I'm not American and don't live in the US, so have no way of judging your comment or Ted Schuerzinger's comment.

Could you even bother to have clicked on the link to UL that I gave? The idea of a UL-like organization testing pharmaceutical products would not be relevant in just the United States.

No, Ted Schuerzinger, I couldn't be bothered to click on the link that you gave for two reasons: 1) Obviously, that I didn't indicates that I don't care very much; and 2) I knew if it was something technical or geeky, I wouldn't understand it anyway.

Isn't it outrageous that some may prefer to remain ignorant of things you find interesting and important?

Julian: Does that mean they're murdering someone if they push them out to sea, since that would kill a sick dolphin?

Don't get to have it both ways, after all. If they're morally neutral, they're morally neutral. But if the one is praiseworthy, intentional action, so is its opposite, no?

Verity:

It's much more outrageous that you choose to remain ignorant, yet think you're still qualified to comment on the matter at hand.

I am just not qualified to comment on your link, because I didn't open it. Frankly, the words Underwriters and Laboratories conjoined do not inspire an eager click. I notice no one else has commented.