A new law being pushed in Canada by Big Pharma seeks to outlaw up to 60 percent of natural health products currently sold in Canada, even while
criminalizing parents who give herbs or supplements to their children.
I'm not a big proponent of herbs, supplements, vitamins, colloidal minerals, homeopathy, or anything that relies on anecdotes and testimonials over clinical studies, etc., but then again, my approval isn't necessary, is it?
Personally, I try to eat right and within reason, do some exertion activity each day, and then figure we're all gonna die of something...
I don't mean to conduct that debate here.
Bottom line: who owns your body?
This is the logical extension of the War on Drugs, which provides the template for the War on Guns, which is a targeted objective in the greater War on Freedom. As we see, it's happening in Canada, it's happening in Europe, and it's happening here.
And while the cover story is one of enlightenment, protection and health, we all know that somewhere at the end of the thread we'll find money and power and control trumping self determination.
[Via DONE! SEO]
4 comments:
Thank you for recognizing the War on (some) Drugs for what it really is.
I know some people think I support drug use because of how much I hate the Drug War, but I don't. I simply know that I own my own body and if I wish to destroy it with drugs OR hamburgers, that is MY business alone.
Amen
David, sadly the "clinical studies" aren't really anything more than anecdotes and testimonials. It's just that the testimonials are given by people with some letters after their names about effects they have seen on other people.
My family and I have worked in that field and it is terrifying.
OTOH, the following story on MSN seems to be leading to a push for weight or diet regulations, probably in line with the proposed national health care system.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/Advice/WhatIfNoOneWereFat.aspx
Gregg, I wouldn't go as far as that in dismissing clinical trials--and I too have worked in the pharmaceutical industry--and was licensed by the California State Board of Pharmacy with a CGMP exemption certificate to oversee the manufacture of a prescription drug. And I'm well aware of major failures resulting in tragedy, recalls and lawsuits.
It's part of the progress of science--what we understand today is supplanted by knowledge we gain tomorrow. In any field.
My argument is merely that the scientific method is more likely to yield reproducable results than any other method. That such testing is not done with non-pharmaceuticals is because there is no incentive--no patent--no market lock to make it worthwhile for anyone to invest in the studies--for efficacy, for contraindications, for you name it. As a result, you don't have a standardized way of evaluating these things. And you don't have as many assurances in place to guarantee consistency across the producer spectrum.
I'll not argue that the right Laetrile cocktail won't cure cancer--just don't expect me to buy into that argument based on the reliability of those making Internet claims, typically no more than a first name and last initial.
We sometimes get frustrated because what we were counting on fails. Medicine is really in its infancy--and what we know now--advanced as it is compared to when I was born, when my father was born, when my grandfather was born, will seem as primitive as bleeeding and leeches (on the comeback, btw) 50 years from now. Many mistakes will be made along the way. But the slow progress that provides for tremendous advancements--look at stuff we're on the cusp of--will come about because people performed rigorous observations/scrutiny/documentation/analysis/data compilation/etc., found trends and came up with approximations. And then found a whole 'nother set of factors and sometimes blended them in, sometimes started from scratch.
This, of course, presupposes the experiments and observations are not tainted or suppressed by political pressure and greed, which is a different argument than my postulate: that is is better to test, observe and document than not to.
Colloidal silver at least, is backed up by clinical trials, they just haven't much new with it since penicillin was invented. The only side effect I'm not aware of any work done is on liver absorbsion.
Most other "natural" products have hundreds of years of actual use, if not the precise clinical studies done today. And almost all modern medicine came from someone isolating the key chemical in the herb, and finding a way to synthesize it.
There's plenty of acedemics to do research that big pharma wouldn't be interested in, but the inaction is evidence of the accusation that big pharma has taken over the health industry.
Post a Comment