Your thoughts?

[Hilary B]

This has been known about for years (at least five that I've known)

It's all "could" "might" "possibly" "probably" etc etc

Most of it is along the lines of the youre not allowed to buy more than 16 asprins at any one time

This is the same type of thing, the number of tablets in any one bottle will be reduced the strength of certain products will be reduced etc etc

Some stuff may even be taken off the market if they haven't proved that it's safe or beneficial. GOOD. Quite frankly if they can't prove it's safe or beneficial they shouldn't be allowed to sell them.

It is of course necessary to remove anything that is not shown to be reasonably safe (as someone said, nothing is TOTALLY safe) but there are a lot of products which are only 'anecdotally demonstrated effective', and if people choose to use these (once informed that this is the case) why should they be denied that option? Echinacea, High dosage Vitamin C, St John's Wort, not to mention the whole homeopathic range! How many other popular remedies and supplements do they want taken out of circulation?

[Capsid]

There is the problem that treatments are touted to be effective without evidence and innocent individuals consequently have lighter wallets. That's fraud IMO. Anecdotal evidence is insufficient because of the problem of confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another issue is that there are cases where individuals have foregone normal medical interventions in favour of alternative therapies and have become seriously ill or died as a consequence.

[marialittlebzz]

if they can't prove it's safe or beneficial they shouldn't be allowed to sell them.

that's what they claim, or at least, that's the general idea I think. But between the line, one must clearly understand WHO this is gonna help earn a lotta cash !!
If you think of the States for example where Big Pharma company are just starting loosing height on their rocket-like curve of benefit, oh yeah this is exactly what they need : stopping people to have access to CHEAP and NATURAL (brr the two evil words LOL) remedies, making those products "illegal" = dangerous, confusing a bit more the labeling so the real baddies are well hidden....

Well, to me it goes on the line of this "real" democratie we all rely on... I am being sarcastic sorry I can't help it

[LizyDrippin]

There is the problem that treatments are touted to be effective without evidence and innocent individuals consequently have lighter wallets. That's fraud IMO. Anecdotal evidence is insufficient because of the problem of confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

I'm always slightly amused at "officials" be they drug companies or govt. types who say anecdotal evidence is not enough proof that something works.

MOST drug trials etc use anecdotal responses from the patients, to tell if the drugs are working. They may also have some form of testing but that is reliant on the condition involved,


If the "natural" remedies were put through trials in a similar way to drugs I have no doubt they would be able to quantify their anecdotal evidence and pass the "codex" test

[LizyDrippin]

stopping people to have access to CHEAP and NATURAL (brr the two evil words LOL) remedies, making those products "illegal" = dangerous, confusing a bit more the labeling so the real baddies are well hidden....

Alot of the "natural" products aint cheep and what is so natural about distilling something til it's so concentrated that it's the equivalent of hundreds of the original or diluting it to the point where it is no longer traceable

I have alot of time for herbal/natural/etc etc type products, BUT, I also have no problems with them being better regulated and properly tested

[Hilary B]

There is the problem that treatments are touted to be effective without evidence and innocent individuals consequently have lighter wallets. That's fraud IMO. Anecdotal evidence is insufficient because of the problem of confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another issue is that there are cases where individuals have foregone normal medical interventions in favour of alternative therapies and have become seriously ill or died as a consequence.

Far better to oblige people to sell them as 'unproven', rather than ban them altogether (then it isn't fraud). Cases where people have died due to going without prescribed medication in favour of crank remedies are more than unfortunate, but not as common as some straight-jacket orthodox medicine supporters like to make out.
Very few herbal remedies are harmful to the average person, and a lot of them work for some people. I see no good reason to stop people making their own choices, even if their decisions may not actually be good ones.

[Hilary B]

[QUOTE=LizyDrippin;422193]

stopping people to have access to CHEAP and NATURAL (brr the two evil words LOL) remedies, making those products "illegal" = dangerous, confusing a bit more the labeling so the real baddies are well hidden....QUOTE]

Alot of the "natural" products aint cheep and what is so natural about distilling something til it's so concentrated that it's the equivalent of hundreds of the original or diluting it to the point where it is no longer traceable

I have alot of time for herbal/natural/etc etc type products, BUT, I also have no problems with them being better regulated and properly tested

The point is that 'proper testing' requires a lot of resources, and those who have the resources are not willing to carry out tests on anything they don't manufacture themselves. Supporters of homeopathic remedies (as an example) have been saying for YEARS that they would welcome 'proper tests', but no-one with the means to do so will carry out the tests!

I can see no logical explanation for the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies, but they DO often seem to work, including on animals who obviously do not get placebo effect (and even if that were all there is to it, if it works, why get too upset about how?)

[Capsid]

I'm always slightly amused at "officials" be they drug companies or govt. types who say anecdotal evidence is not enough proof that something works.

MOST drug trials etc use anecdotal responses from the patients, to tell if the drugs are working. They may also have some form of testing but that is reliant on the condition involved,


If the "natural" remedies were put through trials in a similar way to drugs I have no doubt they would be able to quantify their anecdotal evidence and pass the "codex" test

Double blind placebo controlled trials overcome this problem wher neither the patientor the investigator knows if they got the drug or the sham placebo. And the patient is often not asked to report on their condition but rather on measurable physical responses.

[LizyDrippin]

Double blind placebo controlled trials overcome this problem wher neither the patientor the investigator knows if they got the drug or the sham placebo. And the patient is often not asked to report on their condition but rather on measurable physical responses.

Only if the condition can be measured by physical tests.

[MrsC]

Do you know what always makes me stop and think is why people in these remote areas of the rainforest and such like have no access to modern medicine and only have the use of herbal remedies. The elders in these respected groups live to a grand old age. In my opinion, it is the fact that the basics which have been on sale for the past god knows how many years will no longer be available unless on prescription, it doesn't make sense. I believe that people should have the choice to use either herbal/modern medicine as they see fit. You tend to hear more stories about people who suffer reactions to modern day medicines (I myself suffered anaphalytic shock (sp)) in 1995 to a modern medicine and there are lots more I am allergic to than herbal medicines. It strikes me that they are always trialing some drug or the other for lots of todays diseases, if you're talking about the difference between life and death then why not trial the herbal remedies also? I constantly hear advetisements on the radio etc for 'human clinical trials' they even pay your expenses, that poor bloke who had a terrible reaction (can't remember his name) was all over the front pages of the daily papers. The only way to trial a drug is 'on humans' yet we have been taking herbal remedies for years, is here not enough evidence to support herbal remedies? At least all of the ingredients are natural.

[selfraising]

My only real concern are the number of so called herbal remedies available online. I'm sure some of these are bonafide but am concerned about all the rest that could have god knows what in them. Just feel more regulations should be in place, particularly for the online herbal drugs.

[Growem]

Do you know what always makes me stop and think is why people in these remote areas of the rainforest and such like have no access to modern medicine and only have the use of herbal remedies. The elders in these respected groups live to a grand old age.

Really? Can you quote some specific numbers and links to them online to show these grand old ages of rainforest people?

[MrsC]

Really? Can you quote some specific numbers and links to them online to show these grand old ages of rainforest people?

Yes, I could post to links to videos etc etc of people who have spent time living with these people and showing how they live and the elders etc. Would you spend the many hours watching these though and research this out of the confines of video/online etc though? With the greatest respect, re - codex alimentarius - have you looked outside the 'Codex' official website? If you have then I respect you for that, if you want figures/links re- any of the above posts, then I will gladly add them. Thanks for your time spent in replying to this thread

[Growem]

If you have watched the videos and complied the evidence why don't you provide it for all of us to see? I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one who would appreciate it. I do want figures and links, as I asked before. I can accept that you are right if you provide more proof. I have looked at the other websites given here, but they are big on conjecture, small on facts.

[Alison]

Alison, I think the argument over fluoride in tap water is another issue really. As I said, doing a search of the Codex website, I couldn't find anything about them wanting to put fluoride into all the tap water in the UK.

Growem, I personally don't think Alison is arguing over the point of 'Flouride' in tap water, she is merely giving 'her thoughts' and her opinions. Feel free to look into it and further than the official 'Codex' website. Personally, we all have different ways of growing on here and we all listen to and research what other people say in many different forms, whether that be internet, books or talking to a fellow gardener

I wasn't stating that the Codex site was talking about drinking water, but was raising the issue that it is being considered for a large percentage of the country and whilst I can quite happily avoid bottled water, I can't avoid the tap stuff.