I just want to say that I would never not use conventional medicine for my pups. I have had so many different conditions over the years with my own pups and also my fosters and I have never been let down by conventional medicine. The vets I use only suggest what is tested and proven to be successful...they do not use or suggest anything that is not proven to work for whatever condition we are dealing with. There is not a snowball's chance in that hot place down under that I would risk them to treatments that sound good but have no real proven track record.

I have seen so much on the internet about holistic cures for heartworms for instance that are not proven to work. People let their fears of the conventional treatment put their pups at risk with unproven treatments. Any medicine and/or treatment has risks and that goes for holistic ones. The problem with the later is that there isn't the proof of the success and not the same information that is given with the standard ones. People are given the list of side effects for one and not the other and that in my opinion is the problem. I am happy that the FDA is considering overseeing this. Cannot come soon enough.

I have two pups with lymphangectasia and one with protein losing nephropathy. Basically, diet is key in lymphangectasia, but often they need medications...prednisone being one. My Cookie was on prednisone for a very long time...about two years. She needed it! They gave it and tapered it as soon as they could and monitored her closely. No harm done. She is alive and well now and it is 3.5 years after diagnosis. Would herbs have worked? who knows? But the bottom line I would not try to find out since I know the other treatment works. Not ever going to take such chances with my babies. My Olivia is on two blood pressure meds, Ursodiol for her gall bladder and a restricted diet for her PLN and she is doing great! For some time she was on denamarin for her liver. As I said, I believe in mixed treatments, but not substitutes.

I won't take such chances with my own health either. Steve Jobs did that and we all know what happened to him. He later regretted making the choice to go holistic.

I am not saying that there are not some holistic methods that may have some use. I am just saying that I don't believe they should be used as a substitute for what is tested and proven.

This will be very interesting and is going on right now.
Homeopathic Product Regulation: Evaluating FDA’s Regulatory Framework After a Quarter-Century

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public hearing to obtain information and comments from stakeholders about the current use of human drug and biological products labeled as homeopathic, as well as the Agency’s regulatory framework for such products. These products include prescription drugs and biological products labeled as homeopathic and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs labeled as homeopathic. FDA is seeking participants for the public hearing and written comments from all interested parties, including, but not limited to, consumers, patients, caregivers, health care professionals, patient groups, and industry. FDA is seeking input on a number of specific questions, but is interested in any other pertinent information participants would like to share.
Date

April 20-21, 2015

Time

9:00 am to 4:00 pm

Location

FDA White Oak Campus
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Bldg. 31, Room 1503A (Great Room)
Silver Spring, Maryland 20993

Public Participation

Registration and Requests for Oral Presentations: Registration for in-person attendance and oral presentations closed at 5 p.m. EST on April 13, 2015.

Streaming Webcast of the Public Hearing: FDA will provide a live Webcast of the hearing. Information about how you can access a live Webcast will be located at Homeopathic Product Regulation.

Federal Register Notice
Submit Comments to the Public Docket
White Oak Campus Visitor Information
Agenda

The agenda (PDF - 105KB) is now available.

Contact Information

CDERhomeopathicproduct@fda.hhs.gov

Homeopathic Product Regulation: Evaluating FDA?s Regulatory Framework After a Quarter-Century

You did mention herbs

Huh??

Ever research how many MILLIONS of people die from your "safer" medicine? I'd encourage you to do this before making a blanket, generalized statement like this. Imo, this can be a very dangerous opinion to ascribe to if you really believe this.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: EXACTLY. Any of us who've spent 2 minutes working in the medical field have a responsibility to be honest about just how many people die and/or have severe side effects from these "safe, scientifically tested" meds every single solitary day. Let's not pretend that the FDA isn't a colossal mess, as it has been for decades, that is actually run by former drug company executives!!! If that's not a racket - a serious conflict of interest entity - then I don't know what is. "Scientifically tested" and "approved by the FDA" does NOT = just plain safe. It means it's safe for a majority and that's an important distinction to those in the minority who either die from the drug or have severe / debilitating side effects.

Well said in that yours is a balanced view of the pros/cons of approved medication as it pertains to the masses and the minorities. It is important to be well-informed re: any medicinal option with respect to efficacy, side effects and risk vs benefit analysis.


It is important to remember that marketed medication is tested under rigorous conditions before approval (hence some of the long approval times for meds like Alzheimer's etc) but cannot take into account every potential eventuality in every individual circumstance. Also, we have to admit that research is funded by pharmaceutical companies so there is a conflict of interest to a degree. (Arguably, a large degree in some instances).


However, the danger with some 'natural' or 'holistic' alternatives is that the research there can be even more limited.


Therefore, it is important to make evidence based decisions and one can only do this by researching on the basis of empirical research conclusions AND personal circumstance.


For example, NSAIDS (like ibuprofen) are said to be just as effective as morphine in pain relief. This is great! A 'proven' pain reliever, which is cheap and easily obtainable by the population. However, further research shows that NSAIDS should not be used by certain populations i.e. those on other medications or who have co-morbidities such as gastritis, for example. Therefore, although this particular 'proven' medicine is great for the MASSES it can have dire consequences for the minority.

Exactly. Not only is holistic or natural medicine more limited in research, there is often NO research. And no oversight.

I agree .. I said that in my post. Note highlighted text above.

I couldn't agree more on this. Whenever I hear the FDA approved of a medical product, it means nothing to me. The ties between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry runs very deep, and the corruption is real and scary between the two. All anyone has to do is a search to see just how bad this has become. The Food and Drug Administration receives more than half of its funding from the drug companies, whose very products it is assessing and approving, this makes for a huge conflict of interest. The FDA also hires former drug company employees and vice versa, this is another conflict of interest when these people have a stock options in the very company they are supposed to police.

We have a false sense of security that drugs go under rigorous testing and are scrutinized for safety before being approved but this couldn't be farther from the truth. Just take a look and some of the drugs removed from the market in the past 10-15 years, were they not tested and approved? The deaths and injuries connected to dangerous drugs that never should have been approved typically go unreported so the public never really knows the frequency this is happening.

This is a quote from a person who worked in the industry.....

According to Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM): 3 “Any reputable journal is at the mercy of what is submitted to it and must choose from whatever comes over the transom. Many studies never see the light of day because their findings are negative. There is a heavy bias toward positive studies, and this negative bias is a real problem. A company may conduct 1,000 trials; if two are positive, they get FDA approval and are published. The other 998 never see the light of day. In fact, half of all study data is never published.”

When our own medical system is listed in the top three causes of deaths in the US there is a huge problem. Recently, there was a study done evaluating the health care system in eleven countries, including the US. The US health care system scored at the bottom in some of the categories. We don't have the best medical system in the world, ours is broken and we are at it's mercy.

There's also the issue of deaths caused by properly prescribed and properly administered drugs, which accounts for 106,000 every year. Personally, I believe this number is actually higher than this because not every death is recorded as such. If this number of deaths were attached to supplements there would be such outrage and a call for tougher regulations, but since it's pharmaceuticals it's chalked up the risk vs benefit equation, even though these deaths weren't supposed to happen.

Many aren't even aware that the pharmaceutical companies have gotten so greedy they are now outsourcing the manufacturing of the drugs we are consuming. Over 80% of them are now being made in China and India. The FDA is not able to inspect these factories, they just don't have the funding to send inspectors out of the country to oversee the quality control standards in these factories, so we are all at risk when consuming these drugs. Some people won't buy a household product made in China or buy a jerky treat for our pets, but we will trust the drugs without question. Some of the questions I'm concerned with are are they putting in the active ingredient? Are they putting in the correct dosage of the active ingredient? Are they putting is toxic fillers?..... Who knows since no one is watching or checking.

I do agree with some of what you have said but I think it is very dangerous to dismiss all drugs on the basis of bias etc. Alzheimer's drugs, MS drugs and even influenza, measles, mumps, rubella and POLO have all benefitted from reduced symptomology, delay in progression or eradicated altogether.


Lots of people claim drugs are responsible for a lot of things negative and dismiss all of the positive which is why some of these diseases, like measles etc. have resurfaced amongst children. A lot of people forget that measles can and DOES kill and inoculations are the reason so many kids have been saved from death.


I think bias is something to be aware of but it isn't the be all and end all in terms of medicinal efficacy for humans or non-human animals.

Something I believe everyone posting in support of unproven medical treatments should read.

Steve Jobs 'regretted trying to beat cancer with alternative medicine for so long' - Telegraph

Well said Misty! It's nice to have not one but two scientists on YT!

I guess I'm trying to say the approval process has gone down a slippery slope. The connection between the FDA and the pharmaceutical company has become broken and what was once a agency looking out for the public's best interest has become one of making money for stock holders. The only reason the pharmaceutic companies would outsource to China and India is for bigger profits, it certainly wasn't for safety or quality. It is a fact the FDA cannot inspect these factories, which puts us all at risk.

If my post gave the impression there are no beneficial drugs on the market that was not my intent.What I am saying is the pharmaceutical companies are manipulating and hiding clinical trials in order to get drugs on the market that should not have been approved. This is not about bias but about deception and fraud, this should never happen. It's also about safety and effectiveness not about whether we have some beneficial drugs on the market. Of course we do have some of benefit but it's the other that are the problem

The concerns about safety and effectiveness, quality of the product and the risks vs benefits ratio should apply to all drugs, whether it be synthetic or supplements and herbs. If we would find it acceptable having tens of thousands of deaths connected to supplements then synthetics shouldn't get a pass either.

But we don't have the number on supplements and herbs and they can have extremely serious side effects when mixed with certain medicines and just on there own but because there is no one regulating and testing them there are no warnings on the bottle. For all we know those numbers could be even higher mostly because you don't know what you can and can't mix them with or side effects. Like I mentioned take a look at st.Johns wart that is some scary stuff but nothing on the bottle about the terrible stuff it can cause and do you have to do extensive research on it to find out. Whether you like the FDA or not there needs to be someone controlling and testing these things just like other medicines. For all anyone knows long term use of these can cause scary stuff to but know ones knows.

Agreed. The FDA is grossly underfunded, and that's one reason they are accepting user fees from pharmaceutical companies. I imagine that once they start testing supplements and herbs, they will be accepting user fees from those companies as well. There DOES need to be federal oversight of medicines--otherwise it would be the wild wild west with snake oil salesmen and all. Full federal funding of the FDA would help eliminate potential conflicts of interest. Until then, warts and all, the FDA is the best we have.

FDA has a lot of warts and so does the Canadian equivalent!/ Don't tell me that drugs such as thalidimide which underwent FDA approval based on *scientific trials* and oh yes how about Vioxx? again approved by FDA and its Canadian counterpart balderdash at the minimum science gets it wrong and somehow our watchdogs are anything but a watchdog! A independent oversight organization needs private funding not bloody funding by the big Pharma companies//// That laughs at bias.


Do you know that anywhere between 15-20% of hospital admissions are for drug interactions!!! That is prescription Rx drug interactions.


That is a huge number! And where is the public outrage about this?


Where are the studies that show why this is so???????


Oh I have taken drugs that could have toxic effects on my liver, heart and kidneys, and now no more - as those self same drugs have negatively affected one of those organs. Oh yes you get the very very very brief laugh at informed consent to these drugs - but I knew because of my research how toxic they were ! Now because of my liver values I am off them for awhile - and we shall see if my liver recovers! How-ever as the drugs DID NOT work and relatively recent research over the past 10yrs show that they have at best50% efficacy but oh yes the biologics similar toxicity but have shown some promise to actually treat the ms disease is about 1500-1800 monthly which is now a crap shoot (not to mention unaffordable)- sic because of my liver values - oh yes thank you very much western science.

Exactly - what's the problem with it when everyone that disagrees with anyone else or even questions them could essentially be accused of starting "drama" as you call it by "nit picking", according to your definition? As long as no one is name-calling and posting within the rules, what's wrong with asking for specifics, asking for source material, what one's post is based on - available scientific studies or one's own empirical evidence/experience on these subjects. Sometimes we'd just like a little more information if the member would care to share the source material.

This is what I would call nit picking. I may be incorrect here, but I don't think you participated in this discussion except to comment about Taylor?

Seems to me that everyone on this thread is working through all of the different opinions without any extraneous comments.

No disrespect, but I just find this distracting.

FDA has done a lot of stupid things, but approving thalidomide wasn't one of them. (I'm not here to argue, I'm just a stickler for facts.) The FDA denied the application for thalidomide multiple times, but the Canadian agency approved it. I agree that a lot of drug side effects and interactions aren't discovered until after they have been approved. I shudder at the high cost of biologicals and pray I will never need to take one.

And now you're nitpicking about when a member can get involved and on what subject? Hmmm........

Thanks for the correction Phil on the FDA for thalidomide but the thing is a drug should be tested prior approval for *all* its effects. It was someones' brilliant idea to denote a term of *side effects* which can include death, blindness, irreversible organ disease, hypertension, etc etc etc etc.


These so called side effects need to be weighed very very carefully and quite frankly the medical profession does not explain this to the patient well at all. And of course here I talk about human medicine, the veterinary medicine is way way behind human medicine in terms of trials and knowledge


You know it is pretty hard to live without a functioning liver - or to live blind..... And there are some drugs that have this risk that are used in treatment for some chronic *diseases*.


I too very much hope that you never need biologicals - they are not only financially very expensive but have some very very serious health risks

LOL you are really serious? SMH

Been following this thread for a long time and wanted to speak up - silly me, thinking that was the way it works - join in at will. Next time, should I ask you how and when I should join in? Kidding. But seriously, what's your problem with me lately? We used to be buds - I thought.

I am not doing this with you. It was not personal. You have a problem with another's posts and I simply had a problem with yours. Don't need to inject anything else into it.

Not doing what with me? Just seemed a tad tense. And I know you never get personal. I did post days earlier, if that matters. Still don't see anything wrong that I pointed out to Taylor she was doing the same thing she accused Gail of, she accused me back and I agreed with her, asked what was wrong with nitpicking, asking for specifics as Gail was doing and then you chimed in with still another "nitpick" - all over Gail and I wanting the same thing.

Anyway, back to what Gail was asking about. Did we ever get an answer to Gail's question? Is there anything to prove that test is not a valid test - that it's results are worthless or something? I like source documents to read where available and would like to know what other research has disproved the test.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

No, I had not heard this. Where are those figures from?

I just scanned a couple of articles and see that there are a handful of meds that cause adverse drug reactions, BUT these are medications that are very successful and necessary in certain medical conditions. Warfarin and insulin are at the top of the list...if they are not used correctly, then yes, there will be adverse events. I don't know if they classify that as a "reaction" or "event" or if they are the same.

Same thing with Vioxx. It was a very effective drug and I was extremely upset when it was removed from the market. I knew the side effects when it was prescribed....I used it as it was intended to be used and I had no medical issues that would increase the likelihood of a reaction. It was like a miracle drug for me and nothing has ever been the same since. I don't care much for narcotics and take Ibuprofen daily. It too can cause problems if not used correctly. Many people did not take Vioxx properly and sadly it was overused and prescribed to people who had were high risk for cardiac issues.

We also don't know how many hospitalizations are from reactions and side effects to herbs and supplements mostly because there not known it could be even highier. I wounder how many hospitalizations there are of people in terrible shape because they waited to long to get medical help because they thought they could cure themselves with herbs or supplements? No matter how crappy some regulations seem some is certainly better then none. I would love to see people who bash medicines go there whole live only ever using herbs and supplements and then see how that goes. There is good and bad with everything but at least we know what can happen with medicines vs herbs and supplements. These medicines people want to complain about save lives and make lives better. I take the risk of the side effects my depression, anxiety, and OCD meds have because it makes life a bit more bare able. I take birth control pills even with the side effects because I bleed for a full year ended up anemic and sent to the hospital for a blood transfusion but luckily I had been on the iron pills for enough days to work enough. I also take one that only gives me periods every three months and take the risk because having a period every month made me anemic again. I am willing to take the risks for a better life and my life is certainly not stellar but these meds have helped to make it better a livable.

We do not know how many are due to misuse of Rx drugs (ie on the street usages).