Natural Health Guide

[Crushdepth]

Since we had a few words both for and against conventional and natural medicine, here's a site that may be of interest. It takes a look at some of the more common natural remedies, the scientific evidence available to support both their benefits and risks.

Natural Health Guide. The source is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

[Sheryl]

Thanks for the link, it's a very useful reference that seems unbiased and well-informed .

[awakened]

Since we had a few words both for and against conventional and natural medicine, here's a site that may be of interest. It takes a look at some of the more common natural remedies, the scientific evidence available to support both their benefits and risks.

Natural Health Guide. The source is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Thank you.

Interestingly they state 'Currently around 80 per cent of the world's population relies on herbal and complementary medicine.'

The alternative therapies section was disappointing and very light on content. I did a quick search for 'Ayurveda', 'Ozone', 'Bioenergetic' and no results. 'Homeopathy' is also summarily dismissed. This suggests a narrow 'mainstream' site which does nothing to inform the consumer, or provide a fair hearing, for many therapies which allopathic medicine has labelled (rightly or wrongly) 'quack' therapies.

Reading some of the comments, for herbs, such as Ginseng, I'm puzzled. The comments are always something like 'haven't been verified' or 'mixed results' or 'preliminary studies show'. There's always an element of doubt sown in the readers mind.

These herbs have been around for millenia. Yet the medical establishment is still in doubt? Why? The drug companies and research establishments create and test something like 200,000 drugs and get FDA approval in a relatively short time frame and yet when it comes to herbs and tonics we are still getting 'reports suggest...' and 'there is not enough information'.

The following statement offers some encouragement for those who doubt the claims of 'unscientific' herbal sites ...

'However, more and more research is being done on herbal medicines. The University of Sydney's Herbal Medicine Research and Education Centre is compiling a comprehensive herbal database of evidence-based herb-drug interactions for both consumers and medical professionals, which should help to make choosing herbal medicine easier and safer. Another good source of scientific information about herbal medicines (and other treatments) is the Cochrane Library.'

One other curious find was 'The Climate Change Diet'. If this isn't propaganda I don't know what is. The reasons for spiralling food and fuel prices have everything to do with politics and speculation. Manufactured hysteria about climate change becomes a self-fulfilling event when you 'spook the herd' and people start hoarding. This should more appropriately be called the 'Oil-Price-Rise Diet' or 'The New Designated Stock Market Bubble After The Dot-Com and Housing Bubbles Burst Diet'. But I guess it doesn't have the same ring to it.

I am sure this site has its place but it's less comprehensive than I have seen elsewhere and seems just a little too industry-friendly.

[Crushdepth]

The site does not claim to be an comprehensive overview of alternative medicine (how could it?). It provides an assessment of a limited number of commonly used things. I'm not sure that I would agree about a 'relatively short time frame' to register a new medicine. It takes years of intensive research and the documentary requirements are quite horrendous.

Edit: Ozone??

[awakened]

The site does not claim to be an comprehensive overview of alternative medicine (how could it?). It provides an assessment of a limited number of commonly used things. I'm not sure that I would agree about a 'relatively short time frame' to register a new medicine. It takes years of intensive research and the documentary requirements are quite horrendous.

You posted 'Since we had a few words both for and against conventional and natural medicine'.

I took this to mean the site would provide scientific clarity on those areas we had 'had a few words' about. I guess I gave this more weight than it merited. My apologies.

I read recently that the FDA was moving pharma drugs through the approvals process in 18 months to 4 years. In the context of herbs that have been around for millenia or even just the last 50 years, is it so wrong to see this as quick? It's why I said 'relatively'. I also included 'research establishments' who I believe are able to publish studies in advance of approvals and as stand alone studies, which they would also be able to conduct 'relatively' quickly.

I can see this paragraph was poorly written. Again, my apologies

Perhaps I can ask the question another way. What do you believe the reasons are for the lack of clarity with regard to the efficacy of herbal remedies? Especially when 80% of the world's population rely on them and many pharmaceutical drugs are derived from herbs?

[awakened]

Edit: Ozone??

I have been researching Ozone and Hydrogen peroxide treatments, which it's claimed are common in Germany. I

have read a couple of books, seen some adverse articles and would like to know more.

[Crushdepth]

I don't know, but conventional medical research on nearly anything seems to conflict like crazy too :-)

I suspect most have not been intensively studied because they aren't treated as prescription medicines and so there is no legislative requirement to prove their effectiveness. Maybe the economics of the research and development don't work out (too cheap/abundant/not patentable/registration cost way too high) for a pharmaceutical company to bother with. Or maybe, once an active ingredient has been identified, purified, put in a controlled dose pill and licensed we stop thinking of it as an alternative medicine?