To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Alternative Medicine & Creationism
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Creation / Evolution

curious1
Because the thread, belief vs scientific method, had so many tangents already, this would just get lost in the religious argument going on there, so I am starting this new thread for the purpose.

GeneSplicer said:
QUOTE
Your claims about traditional medicine ( TM ) and modern medicine remind me a bit of the claims of creation versus evolution, from the creationist’s point of view.

TM as you said is thousand of years old. Then why does TM have a better track record? Why didn’t it advance to find reliable and repeatable treatments and cures? You may think it is arrogant of modern medicine with only a century or so of experience to critique TM, but modern medicine has a much better track record when it comes to the treatment of disease and maladies.

Take simple infections. How many amputations and death resulted from simple infections that TM could not and cannot address? Simple ear or sinus infections that did not result in death would still cause permanent disabilities.

So far many of the comments center on medicines. What of the exploration of our biology or physical makeup? Again, where was TM for all those thousands of years? Modern medicine has explored the human body and mapped out functions. TM addresses functions of the body with mysticism and similar claims of functionality.

You speak of people in rural areas like in China who live long lives and attribute it to the TM practiced there. As with the claims Steve1957 made, other factors must be considered such as diet, exercise and family history and related factors including longevity and inherited disease resistance.

TM cannot be compared to modern medicine. The two are simple worlds apart. Could TM still produce useful treatments and cures? Of course, but as with the debate of evolution versus creationism, the lack of definitive knowledge on the part of modern medical science is not defacto support or credibility of TM and its capabilities or claims.

Why not judge TM by the same standard you have judged modern medicine: it’s limitations or failures? How many have died from the use of TM due to TM’s inability to treat a specific disease? How many still die due to this?

You may rely upon it and believe in it, but TM is not proper medical treatment or medicine. It is mystical based and is not reliable enough to be used rationally. If it were, then modern medicine would not exist since TM would be an effective treatment to disease and maladies.


Great points. I am going to answer this as I can, which involves how modern science does drug discovery and what I know of the historical methods of drug discovery by Asian medicine.

I wanted to start the thread now, so more people don't distract from the religious thread on this subject. I know Cactuscritter and others will have comments about this also, and that thread would turn into a huge mess with the god debate raging at the same place at the same time. Thanks for the patience.
curious1
Sorry about the delay... had to do some things today:).

QUOTE
Your claims about traditional medicine ( TM ) and modern medicine remind me a bit of the claims of creation versus evolution, from the creationist’s point of view.


I don't think I made 'claims' about it so much as I said that it should not be out of hand dismissed as quackery. Especially since China, and much of the rest of Asia, still uses traditional healing methods more often than western methods. I can't speak for other Asian nations, but I just returned from a 3 week trip to China a month ago. It was a 7 city tour, Beijing, Shanghai, Xian, Wushi, Suzhou, Hangzhou, Chingdao. This isn't hearsay, I saw a lot while there.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Your claims about traditional medicine ( TM ) and modern medicine remind me a bit of the claims of creation versus evolution, from the creationist’s point of view.


I don't think I made 'claims' about it so much as I said that it should not be out of hand dismissed as quackery. Especially since China, and much of the rest of Asia, still uses traditional healing methods more often than western methods. I can't speak for other Asian nations, but I just returned from a 3 week trip to China a month ago. It was a 7 city tour, Beijing, Shanghai, Xian, Wushi, Suzhou, Hangzhou, Chingdao. This isn't hearsay, I saw a lot while there.

TM as you said is thousand of years old. Then why does TM have a better track record? Why didn’t it advance to find reliable and repeatable treatments and cures? You may think it is arrogant of modern medicine with only a century or so of experience to critique TM, but modern medicine has a much better track record when it comes to the treatment of disease and maladies.


In Asia, it does. You see Chinese medicine practiced alongside Western medicine all over China. While I was there, I went to a 'drug store'. VERY different from our Eckerds and Walgreens here. They had a few western perscription drugs and antibiotics (which you could buy over the counter without perscription... and that includes very expensive modern western antibiotics starting from ampicillin to I think I saw vancomycin, one of the newer 'super antibiotics' designed for infections resistant to other antibiotics). They were sold alongside herbal medicines like dried newts and deer antlers. The chinese herbal medicines were the entire back wall of the store in little drawers, the western medicines were in glass cases. It was interesting.

Who said the cures weren't repeatable? Modern medicine is common in the west, and some, the ones that are more effective than Chinese medicines, are sold as well. But where the Chinese have better medicines, the western versions don't appear available for sale. Now this is from direct personal experience, I did not talk to doctors about western medicines and availability while there. I'm not sure of the full range of available western medicines, but they don't sell more than a handful of antibiotics in their drug stores, and the ENTIRE store is filled with other Chinese remedies.

I AM sure that in all of China, no one exclusively uses Western medicines. Only some are even available. Yet they have cures for the same things, if not more.

Do their drugs work? Well, they have a population of 1.6 billion, tho that's dropping from the low birthrate. From talking to them, they don't seem to have nearly as many illnesses as we do.

In 3 weeks there, I neither saw nor heard of a single sick person... I can go down the street any day of the week and see someone in the US sneezing, coughing or looking miserable. There are teeming masses of people in China... 34 million in Shanghai, 24 million in Beijing... wall to wall people... and no one looked sick... not once. Remarkable when I think back on it. The only illness I saw was an English tourist who slipped in the rain on top of the great wall and got a concussion. And it appears that accidents happen so infrequently... they don't even have ambulances. The poor guy laid there there til they could find a doctor for him.

Of course, a few weeks doesn't give you a reasonable cross section, despite traveling on local planes, buses, and even subways. But not one person I spoke to mentioned even knowing someone sick.

Heck, several people talked about their GREAT grandparents whom they helped take care of because in China, it appears that 'retirement' plan consists of their children and grandchildren's generosity. There doesn't seem to be any pensions at all. GREAT, not grandparents, GREAT grandparents... and these were adults talking.

Lest you wonder, most Chinese do not have their children young... from my visit, it appeared that most waited til they were late 30's to 40 to even have a child, and in past generations, the nation was in one war after another til 1949 back to back. Americans seem to have kids younger in general than in China (based on observation of a very small cross section of people, and talking to them about the culture).

As for 'track record'... here is a site that explains exactly how drug discovery works in the US: http://www.ppdi.com/corporate/faq/about_dr...opment/home.htm
QUOTE
Discovering and bringing one new drug to the public typically costs a pharmaceutical or biotechnology company nearly $900 million and takes an average of 10 to 12 years. In special circumstances, such as the search for effective drugs to treat AIDS, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has encouraged an abbreviated process for drug testing and approval called fast-tracking. The drug discovery and development process is designed to ensure that only those pharmaceutical products that are both safe and effective are brought to market.


How many drugs do you think they can effectively investigate, test and bring to market in that time? Further, there is NO cash incentive for ANY pharmaceutical company in the USA to invest millions of dollars to bring working herbal products to market... they cannot get a patent, and cannot get their investment back. All they can do is investigate currently working medicines for the sake of humanitarianism.

Who would PAY for FDA approval for an herb medicine used for thousands of years? What for? There are many Americans today that fly to Asia to be treated for things untreatable in the US... such as Hepatitis C.

Have money, find the best health care anywhere in the world. What company has the deep pockets to hop the hoops of US drug regulations to sell something that anyone can buy in the streets of Asia for a few dollars?

It costs a few thousand dollars to go buy a years supply of whatever medication you need right now... and wealthy people do it every day of the week... my understanding is that US doctors and their wives do it for their own families too.

While I was there, I picked up Nicotine patches. The reason I was in that drug store was to buy nicotine patches. The 24 hours at the airport and the plane drove me mad, because I'm a smoker. I wasn't going to go thru that on the way back. They are perscription here, I picked them up from that drug store, 16 total patches PLUS a package of Chinese herbal anti-smoking tea (it doesn't contain nicotine, it just makes you not want to smoke) for $10. Sealed, packaged professionally and expiration date stamped. It was a lifesaver for the flights back.

Today, there's quite a few people making real money selling beauty treatments and chinese herbal medicines as 'supplements'... and they're not using something that are pie in the sky... they're using medicines that have been proven over thousands of years.

No 'real' pharmaceutical can compete, so they don't. Again, if you read the above quote... $900 million US dollars to bring 1 drug to market. Who's going to pay even 1/2 that to sell something anyone can buy for $2 in China?

Do I 'believe' in traditional Chinese medicines? I don't have to. Is it like Creationism where my 'faith' tells me something's true? Of course not. I can see if it's true. I can talk to people who have used them. I can take them myself.

Does this mean every single chinese medicine is equally effective? Of course not. But neither is western medicine. For all that testing, you still have your Thalidomide, COX-2, etc. Look at THIS article: http://www.drugresearcher.com/news/ng.asp?...3-new-cox-scare

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Discovering and bringing one new drug to the public typically costs a pharmaceutical or biotechnology company nearly $900 million and takes an average of 10 to 12 years. In special circumstances, such as the search for effective drugs to treat AIDS, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has encouraged an abbreviated process for drug testing and approval called fast-tracking. The drug discovery and development process is designed to ensure that only those pharmaceutical products that are both safe and effective are brought to market.


How many drugs do you think they can effectively investigate, test and bring to market in that time? Further, there is NO cash incentive for ANY pharmaceutical company in the USA to invest millions of dollars to bring working herbal products to market... they cannot get a patent, and cannot get their investment back. All they can do is investigate currently working medicines for the sake of humanitarianism.

Who would PAY for FDA approval for an herb medicine used for thousands of years? What for? There are many Americans today that fly to Asia to be treated for things untreatable in the US... such as Hepatitis C.

Have money, find the best health care anywhere in the world. What company has the deep pockets to hop the hoops of US drug regulations to sell something that anyone can buy in the streets of Asia for a few dollars?

It costs a few thousand dollars to go buy a years supply of whatever medication you need right now... and wealthy people do it every day of the week... my understanding is that US doctors and their wives do it for their own families too.

While I was there, I picked up Nicotine patches. The reason I was in that drug store was to buy nicotine patches. The 24 hours at the airport and the plane drove me mad, because I'm a smoker. I wasn't going to go thru that on the way back. They are perscription here, I picked them up from that drug store, 16 total patches PLUS a package of Chinese herbal anti-smoking tea (it doesn't contain nicotine, it just makes you not want to smoke) for $10. Sealed, packaged professionally and expiration date stamped. It was a lifesaver for the flights back.

Today, there's quite a few people making real money selling beauty treatments and chinese herbal medicines as 'supplements'... and they're not using something that are pie in the sky... they're using medicines that have been proven over thousands of years.

No 'real' pharmaceutical can compete, so they don't. Again, if you read the above quote... $900 million US dollars to bring 1 drug to market. Who's going to pay even 1/2 that to sell something anyone can buy for $2 in China?

Do I 'believe' in traditional Chinese medicines? I don't have to. Is it like Creationism where my 'faith' tells me something's true? Of course not. I can see if it's true. I can talk to people who have used them. I can take them myself.

Does this mean every single chinese medicine is equally effective? Of course not. But neither is western medicine. For all that testing, you still have your Thalidomide, COX-2, etc. Look at THIS article: http://www.drugresearcher.com/news/ng.asp?...3-new-cox-scare

11/04/2005 - The controversy over the COX-2 inhibitor class refuses to die down after the FDA asked Pfizer to withdraw Bextra (valdecoxib) from the market because the overall risk of heart disease and life-threatening skin reactions outweighed its therapeutic benefits.


So... you spend $900 million dollars, you pass all the safety tests, you invest 10-12 years... and your drug gets withdrawn because it kills or harms people.

Is THAT safer? 10-12 years is not enough time to know long term repercussions.

As a patient in the USA, you have FAITH that the drug your doctor perscribed will help you and not kill you. Sometimes... it can kill you anyway, and then it's withdrawn. That doesn't exactly help those who died before it was withdrawn. After 12 years, you are still a guinea pig.

Is this faith in a western doctor not the same as the Creationist faith in god? Of course not. Because you know that the drugs have been tested and most are safe. You hope.

But... with most chinese herbal medicines, we're not talking about 10 years of testing. If something's been tested over 1000 years... and a million people, and people don't die, you really believe that it's 'faith' that cures that quantity of people, prompting the continued use of that medicine?

Today, that's less of a concern anyway. If you take a hard look at the NIH's Pubmed, you will see that much research are conducted by Chinese doctors on herbs from China. Actually, if you look at the Quackwatch article you posted yourself on DHEA... the doctor they cited was a Chinese doctor.

Regardless of perscription capability, the vast majority of Chinese medicines are ALREADY known in the US, and you can do a quick search for them individually by ingredient. They are sanctioned by both Chinese and Western doctors.

However, those doctors don't waste their money going thru FDA approval for no financial gain. You can get the individual info FROM the US government sometimes by doing a search of PubMed. Or... just search the term on google.

I picked a random one... Dong Quai. It's used in a lot of chinese herbal preps. It's NOT FDA approved. I just picked that because it happened to be one of Steve1957's purported ingredients in his super supplement, so it was still in mind.

Here we go:
Mayo Clinic - the best hospital in the world... and carries all kinds of info on 'Traditional Chinese Medicines'. THEY know that 1000 years of study may be better than 12 years of animal tests, which is why the rich worldwide fly there for treatment. Just what do you think makes they Mayo Clinic the best in the World?:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/dong-quai...atient-Dongquai

Medicine Online:
http://www.medicineonline.com/herbs/Dong-Q...a/Synonyms.html

University of Maryland:
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/ConsHerbs/DongQuaich.html

Drugguide:
http://www.drugguide.com/monograph_library...ts/dongquai.htm

Finally, MedLine... from the US Government:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginf...t-dongquai.html

Unless you consider the Mayo Clinic, the US National Library of Medicine and National Institute of Health, the med School at the University of Maryland, and other Universities as quackery, the only organization that doesn't give you the drug info is the FDA... no one applied for drug approval for Dong Quai... or any other Chinese Traditional Medicine.

The info for most Chinese traditional medicines are already at your fingertips, they are known worldwide and also throughout the US. Look for yourself.

How do you compare this to Creationism vs Science?

The only real difference between the 2 medicine types in many cases, is that there is no financial gain in seeking FDA approval for something unpatentable... it's 'old' information, and not novel.

And for the people who already know, they do their searches, drop a few grand on a plane ticket and fly over to stock up for themselves. As I said, lots of people do it. I saw many Americans on the plane with sacks full of Chinese medicines they were taking home.
curious1
QUOTE
TM cannot be compared to modern medicine. The two are simple worlds apart. Could TM still produce useful treatments and cures? Of course, but as with the debate of evolution versus creationism, the lack of definitive knowledge on the part of modern medical science is not defacto support or credibility of TM and its capabilities or claims.

Why not judge TM by the same standard you have judged modern medicine: it’s limitations or failures? How many have died from the use of TM due to TM’s inability to treat a specific disease? How many still die due to this?

You may rely upon it and believe in it, but TM is not proper medical treatment or medicine. It is mystical based and is not reliable enough to be used rationally. If it were, then modern medicine would not exist since TM would be an effective treatment to disease and maladies.


Something I forgot to mention in the first note. Many if not most of the components in TM are very researchable. My idea of researchable are government sites and US medical sites. I gave you one example because it was on the top of my head, but every one I've looked up in the past I have also found.

They ARE investigating. There IS a large chance that they can isolate the compounds in specific TM herbal medicines that work... it just takes 10-12 years. Keeping in mind that only 10 years ago, Acupuncture was dismissed as 'quackery' and today, insurance companies are considering paying for it. That's not even enough time to develop 1 drug. Isolate 1 compound, let alone the synergies in 1 compound that make it effective.

I pointed this out, but I'll say it again. Aspirin was used in China as long ago as 400 BC. In 1899, someone isolated the Salicylic acid, and it became a 'drug'. But it was already 'commonly known' elsewhere in the world... for millenia.

When there is financial incentive to isolate a given component, that's when a pharmaceutical company will do it.

The Chinese believe in a more holistic approach to healing. That is, drink willow bark instead of aspirin, and you get such a dilution and slow release of the active ingredient... that you don't need a stomach buffer because the aspirin will tear your stomach up. It's slower acting, but safer in the long run. This is true for most TM compounds. They really CAN"T kill you because they are in such low doses from using the entire plant and not the extract, that they are safer to use. Of course, they are slower acting for this reason as well.

If you haven't already noticed, I don't 'rely' on ANYTHING without substantiating data. I have no intention of being anyone's guinea pig. I won't even take TM medicines unless I can look up all the components. The beauty of it is, I CAN look them up, they are all over the place in University and Government research.

Here's a nice tidbit for you. Kudzu. It's known as 'the plant that ate the South' per Wikpedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudzu

If you google Kudzu, you find all kinds of sites... many of which are ways of eradicating it... it's a terrible weed.

THEN... look... new study... Kudzu cuts alcohol consumption. Talk about saving money for college students. LOL!
From Harvard's Gazette:
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/05.19/09-kudzu.html
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
TM cannot be compared to modern medicine. The two are simple worlds apart. Could TM still produce useful treatments and cures? Of course, but as with the debate of evolution versus creationism, the lack of definitive knowledge on the part of modern medical science is not defacto support or credibility of TM and its capabilities or claims.

Why not judge TM by the same standard you have judged modern medicine: it’s limitations or failures? How many have died from the use of TM due to TM’s inability to treat a specific disease? How many still die due to this?

You may rely upon it and believe in it, but TM is not proper medical treatment or medicine. It is mystical based and is not reliable enough to be used rationally. If it were, then modern medicine would not exist since TM would be an effective treatment to disease and maladies.


Something I forgot to mention in the first note. Many if not most of the components in TM are very researchable. My idea of researchable are government sites and US medical sites. I gave you one example because it was on the top of my head, but every one I've looked up in the past I have also found.

They ARE investigating. There IS a large chance that they can isolate the compounds in specific TM herbal medicines that work... it just takes 10-12 years. Keeping in mind that only 10 years ago, Acupuncture was dismissed as 'quackery' and today, insurance companies are considering paying for it. That's not even enough time to develop 1 drug. Isolate 1 compound, let alone the synergies in 1 compound that make it effective.

I pointed this out, but I'll say it again. Aspirin was used in China as long ago as 400 BC. In 1899, someone isolated the Salicylic acid, and it became a 'drug'. But it was already 'commonly known' elsewhere in the world... for millenia.

When there is financial incentive to isolate a given component, that's when a pharmaceutical company will do it.

The Chinese believe in a more holistic approach to healing. That is, drink willow bark instead of aspirin, and you get such a dilution and slow release of the active ingredient... that you don't need a stomach buffer because the aspirin will tear your stomach up. It's slower acting, but safer in the long run. This is true for most TM compounds. They really CAN"T kill you because they are in such low doses from using the entire plant and not the extract, that they are safer to use. Of course, they are slower acting for this reason as well.

If you haven't already noticed, I don't 'rely' on ANYTHING without substantiating data. I have no intention of being anyone's guinea pig. I won't even take TM medicines unless I can look up all the components. The beauty of it is, I CAN look them up, they are all over the place in University and Government research.

Here's a nice tidbit for you. Kudzu. It's known as 'the plant that ate the South' per Wikpedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudzu

If you google Kudzu, you find all kinds of sites... many of which are ways of eradicating it... it's a terrible weed.

THEN... look... new study... Kudzu cuts alcohol consumption. Talk about saving money for college students. LOL!
From Harvard's Gazette:
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/05.19/09-kudzu.html
Researchers at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., suspected that excessive drinking might be curbed by giving drinkers an extract of kudzu, a pesky, rapidly growing weed common in the Southern states. They knew it has been used for that purpose in China since 600 A.D. More recently, other researchers at Harvard University tested it on golden hamsters, bred and born to drink alcohol, and found that it reduced the rodents' intake.

 

"These results prompted us to test an herbal extract of it on humans," notes Scott Lukas, professor of psychiatry at McLean, a psychiatric hospital affiliated with Harvard Medical School. He and his colleagues recruited 14 men and women, average age 24 years. The "laboratory" was an apartment where each person was allowed to drink as many beers as he or she wanted, up to a maximum of six. After determining how much each person drinks normally, half were given a capsule of kudzu or an inactive pill or placebo.


So... last year... some scientists tested it... including a double-blind study. And what did they determine? Kudzu... which has been used to reduce alcohol consumption in China since 600 AD (so why'd it take so long for someone to investigate in the West? Hmm?), works. Gee.

Another test on Kudzu from another University:
http://research.unc.edu/endeavors/end496/kudzu.htm
QUOTE
During his regular trips to China, David Lee, an organic chemist at Research Triangle Institute, noticed that many households he visited kept an herbal tea on hand-a mixture of seven different Chinese herbs, including the kudzu plant. Loosely translated, the Chinese name for this tea means "drunkenness dispeller." It's a common practice in Northern China to drink it to sober up after drinking alcohol and to relieve hangovers.

In 1991, Lee and scientists at Shin-Yang University in China began testing an herbal compound derived from this tea using rats that had been injected with alcohol. They found that it improved the rats' motor coordination, or made them less "drunk."

Meanwhile, Amir Rezvani and David Overstreet, both research associate professors of psychiatry at UNC-CH's Skipper Bowles Center for Alcohol Studies, had been working with rats that voluntarily drink a significant amount of alcohol. In 1989 Rezvani had discovered this alcohol-preferring quality in Fawn-Hooded rats, named for the orangish-tan patches on their heads and shoulders. Later they began working with Finnish and P-rats, strains of rats that have been selectively bred to prefer alcohol over water...


The whole article above is interesting reading. Another test, of another TM remedy.

You need to keep something in mind... there was a 'Cold War' with China until almost 1980. Before that, there wasn't much info exchange. After that, China's not been pursuing info exchange, because they've been pursuing economic improvement.

It's NOW that things are starting to happen, and they are happening at very very fast paces for medicine.

However, the FDA STILL TAKES years to approve something, and no one will apply for something they can't make money from. But the research is happening, faster and faster.

Here's another MSNBC article about Kudzu:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7884540/

If you do a search for Kudzu Alcohol on google, you'll get 150,000 articles, not all of which are useful, but it's hardly a secret.

So what specific TM remedy do you consider equivalent to 'Creationism'?
GeneSplicer
QUOTE
I don't think I made 'claims' about it so much as I said that it should not be out of hand dismissed as quackery.

Nor would I considering the history of medical research into herbs and TM medicine that has resulted in promising compounds. The quackery I would argue against would be the type exemplified by confidence men like Gliksman. My points about his herbal concoction would be applicable to any compound claimed to be of benefit. Would you agree that the peddling of such unregulated or at the very least untested herbal concoctions would qualify as quackery?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I don't think I made 'claims' about it so much as I said that it should not be out of hand dismissed as quackery.

Nor would I considering the history of medical research into herbs and TM medicine that has resulted in promising compounds. The quackery I would argue against would be the type exemplified by confidence men like Gliksman. My points about his herbal concoction would be applicable to any compound claimed to be of benefit. Would you agree that the peddling of such unregulated or at the very least untested herbal concoctions would qualify as quackery?

In Asia, it does. You see Chinese medicine practiced alongside Western medicine all over China.


Yes, but if that is the case, then wouldn’t a track record of physicians and TM medicine be established and usable by practitioners of Western Medicine (WM)? And if practitioners of WM in the east can and have researched TM treatments and cures, then surely there would be information available for further research or at the very least verification.

QUOTE
Who said the cures weren't repeatable? Modern medicine is common in the west, and some, the ones that are more effective than Chinese medicines, are sold as well. But where the Chinese have better medicines, the western versions don't appear available for sale. Now this is from direct personal experience, I did not talk to doctors about western medicines and availability while there. I'm not sure of the full range of available western medicines, but they don't sell more than a handful of antibiotics in their drug stores, and the ENTIRE store is filled with other Chinese remedies.


Addressing the claim of “better medicines”. I would prefer to see research into such claims rather than reliance upon local and cultural preferences.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Who said the cures weren't repeatable? Modern medicine is common in the west, and some, the ones that are more effective than Chinese medicines, are sold as well. But where the Chinese have better medicines, the western versions don't appear available for sale. Now this is from direct personal experience, I did not talk to doctors about western medicines and availability while there. I'm not sure of the full range of available western medicines, but they don't sell more than a handful of antibiotics in their drug stores, and the ENTIRE store is filled with other Chinese remedies.


Addressing the claim of “better medicines”. I would prefer to see research into such claims rather than reliance upon local and cultural preferences.

Do their drugs work? Well, they have a population of 1.6 billion, tho that's dropping from the low birthrate. From talking to them, they don't seem to have nearly as many illnesses as we do.


And other factors must be addressed as I stated before. Lifestyle is one huge contributing factor.

QUOTE
In 3 weeks there, I neither saw nor heard of a single sick person... I can go down the street any day of the week and see someone in the US sneezing, coughing or looking miserable. There are teeming masses of people in China... 34 million in Shanghai, 24 million in Beijing... wall to wall people... and no one looked sick... not once. Remarkable when I think back on it.

If we are talking strictly about researching claims and verifying TM and WM then personal experiences are anecdotal at best.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
In 3 weeks there, I neither saw nor heard of a single sick person... I can go down the street any day of the week and see someone in the US sneezing, coughing or looking miserable. There are teeming masses of people in China... 34 million in Shanghai, 24 million in Beijing... wall to wall people... and no one looked sick... not once. Remarkable when I think back on it.

If we are talking strictly about researching claims and verifying TM and WM then personal experiences are anecdotal at best.

Heck, several people talked about their GREAT grandparents whom they helped take care of because in China, it appears that 'retirement' plan consists of their children and grandchildren's generosity. There doesn't seem to be any pensions at all. GREAT, not grandparents, GREAT grandparents... and these were adults talking.


Not surprising considering that traditional old world families seem to do this regardless of country.

QUOTE

Have money, find the best health care anywhere in the world. What company has the deep pockets to hop the hoops of US drug regulations to sell something that anyone can buy in the streets of Asia for a few dollars?


And argument can be made about the FDA approval process, but research into compounds that do not produce any viable substance is also part of the long research process. As far as buying just the herbal remedies, I’d have to go back to the same arguments regarding Gliksman’s patent medicine. If there are documented cures of diseases such as hepatitis c, then as I stated before, simple investigations into the claims should produce verifiable cases that should lead to research into the cure. WM is not blind to TM, but again research into many of the claims of TM have proven to be dead ends over and over.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Have money, find the best health care anywhere in the world. What company has the deep pockets to hop the hoops of US drug regulations to sell something that anyone can buy in the streets of Asia for a few dollars?


And argument can be made about the FDA approval process, but research into compounds that do not produce any viable substance is also part of the long research process. As far as buying just the herbal remedies, I’d have to go back to the same arguments regarding Gliksman’s patent medicine. If there are documented cures of diseases such as hepatitis c, then as I stated before, simple investigations into the claims should produce verifiable cases that should lead to research into the cure. WM is not blind to TM, but again research into many of the claims of TM have proven to be dead ends over and over.

It costs a few thousand dollars to go buy ….te stamped. It was a lifesaver for the flights back. 


The cost of drugs is a separate issue to the original topic of TM versus WM. I’d really like not to divert much on the topic.

QUOTE
Do I 'believe' in traditional Chinese medicines? I don't have to. Is it like Creationism where my 'faith' tells me something's true? Of course not. I can see if it's true. I can talk to people who have used them. I can take them myself.


And there would still be a factor of faith or belief that the TM treatment will function the way you expect it to.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Do I 'believe' in traditional Chinese medicines? I don't have to. Is it like Creationism where my 'faith' tells me something's true? Of course not. I can see if it's true. I can talk to people who have used them. I can take them myself.


And there would still be a factor of faith or belief that the TM treatment will function the way you expect it to.

So... you spend $900 million dollars, you pass all the safety tests, you invest 10-12 years... and your drug gets withdrawn because it kills or harms people. 
Is THAT safer? 10-12 years is not enough time to know long term repercussions.


Investigation and testing is the best method we have to research and verify the effectiveness of new medicines. Herbal concoctions do not have to under go such testing so how do you determine their effectiveness? How do you track people harmed or killed by such concoctions?

QUOTE
As a patient in the USA, you have FAITH that the drug your doctor perscribed will help you and not kill you. Sometimes... it can kill you anyway, and then it's withdrawn. That doesn't exactly help those who died before it was withdrawn. After 12 years, you are still a guinea pig.


And let us not get pedantic here. General faith and belief are not the same as religious faith and belief. I don’t have faith as in blind religious faith that the drugs I take will be the fix. I can have faith based upon the knowledge that the given drug has proven to produce a specific reaction. I am also aware that the effect may be less or more than documented, in some cases none at all or that the side effect may outweigh the benefits.

But everything I just stated is also applicable to TM, more so due to the irregularity of active ingredients found in the elements of herbal concoctions.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
As a patient in the USA, you have FAITH that the drug your doctor perscribed will help you and not kill you. Sometimes... it can kill you anyway, and then it's withdrawn. That doesn't exactly help those who died before it was withdrawn. After 12 years, you are still a guinea pig.


And let us not get pedantic here. General faith and belief are not the same as religious faith and belief. I don’t have faith as in blind religious faith that the drugs I take will be the fix. I can have faith based upon the knowledge that the given drug has proven to produce a specific reaction. I am also aware that the effect may be less or more than documented, in some cases none at all or that the side effect may outweigh the benefits.

But everything I just stated is also applicable to TM, more so due to the irregularity of active ingredients found in the elements of herbal concoctions.

But... with most chinese herbal medicines, we're not talking about 10 years of testing. If something's been tested over 1000 years... and a million people, and people don't die, you really believe that it's 'faith' that cures that quantity of people, prompting the continued use of that medicine?


And testing many of these TM remedies has produces no viable compounds that address or treat the illnesses or melodies they are claimed to address. If TM is so reliable than even cursory investigations into TM and treatments used should produce supportive evidence.

Look at the testing of herbal medicines claimed to cure cancer. In the 80’s there was testing of over 700,000 potentially active ingredients of plant derivatives. Only two or three (if memory serves) proved to be treatments and were actually put to use.
QUOTE
How do you compare this to Creationism vs Science?


Simple. TM and most of the treatments and concoctions used have not produced verifiable and consistent results. Testing into TM treatments to a large degree has proven to be dead ends. Given the fact that active ingredients in herbs varies from batch to bath, it is difficult to say the least to produce a treatment that has any consistency to it. With all the factors considered, for anyone to claim that TM is on par or equal to WM is a claim of faith, as in unsupported belief on par with the faith of a theist and their claim that creationism is an equally valid explanation as evolution.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
How do you compare this to Creationism vs Science?


Simple. TM and most of the treatments and concoctions used have not produced verifiable and consistent results. Testing into TM treatments to a large degree has proven to be dead ends. Given the fact that active ingredients in herbs varies from batch to bath, it is difficult to say the least to produce a treatment that has any consistency to it. With all the factors considered, for anyone to claim that TM is on par or equal to WM is a claim of faith, as in unsupported belief on par with the faith of a theist and their claim that creationism is an equally valid explanation as evolution.

They ARE investigating. There IS a large chance that they can isolate the compounds in specific TM herbal medicines that work... it just takes 10-12 years. Keeping in mind that only 10 years ago, Acupuncture was dismissed as 'quackery' and today, insurance companies are considering paying for it. That's not even enough time to develop 1 drug. Isolate 1 compound, let alone the synergies in 1 compound that make it effective.


The actions of insurance companies are irrelevant to the topic of the effectiveness of TM claims. That is akin to the moot exercise of arguing science in court of law. Insurance companies also pay for chiropractic treatments whose original claims are just as questionable as those made by the modern patent medicine hucksters.

Like I said before, I encourage investigation of any TM claims if there appears to be an effective treatment for a malady or aliment, but the track record of TM right now is not one that builds confidence. And yes, as you have pointed out, WM has its own problems, but as with all science, WM and the scientific method(s) it currently uses is/are the best system we have to investigate and verify.

QUOTE
I pointed this out, but I'll say it again. Aspirin was used in China as long ago as 400 BC. In 1899, someone isolated the Salicylic acid, and it became a 'drug'. But it was already 'commonly known' elsewhere in the world... for millenia.


Yes, but as with all herbal remedies, the effect varied depending on the concentration found in the leaves or the bark and it only became such a widely used and effective medicine after it was standardized. Even now, those that peddle willow bark do so as an extract and concentrate of it labeled as “natural aspirin”.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I pointed this out, but I'll say it again. Aspirin was used in China as long ago as 400 BC. In 1899, someone isolated the Salicylic acid, and it became a 'drug'. But it was already 'commonly known' elsewhere in the world... for millenia.


Yes, but as with all herbal remedies, the effect varied depending on the concentration found in the leaves or the bark and it only became such a widely used and effective medicine after it was standardized. Even now, those that peddle willow bark do so as an extract and concentrate of it labeled as “natural aspirin”.

They really CAN"T kill you because they are in such low doses from using the entire plant and not the extract, that they are safer to use. Of course, they are slower acting for this reason as well.


And a claim that is not supported by facts is just a statement of faith. WM documents deaths and keeps tract of what medicine(s) were involved if any. Do countries that rely upon the practice of TM do the same? No. Every drug or active compounds, even those found in TM, have side effects to varying degrees.

QUOTE
The whole article above is interesting reading. Another test, of another TM remedy.


Yes and exactly what should happen when researching such compounds, but again you overlook the claims that did not produce any beneficial compound or were found to be worthless. You can only verify the claims of an herb or compound once it has been researched.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The whole article above is interesting reading. Another test, of another TM remedy.


Yes and exactly what should happen when researching such compounds, but again you overlook the claims that did not produce any beneficial compound or were found to be worthless. You can only verify the claims of an herb or compound once it has been researched.

You need to keep something in mind... there was a 'Cold War' with China until almost 1980. Before that, there wasn't much info exchange. After that, China's not been pursuing info exchange, because they've been pursuing economic improvement.

So China is the sole source of the herbal remedy and TM market? What about the rest of Asia? What about the rest of the world? I bet most of the same TM treatments can be found with little variation in the region (Asia) as a whole.

And for you to made this comment centralized around just China shows a personal preference when thinking about TM and related remedies rather than to address TM and related remedies from around the world. Not to overuse the comparison, but this is similar to a polarized view of a theist of a particular faith. They tend to ignore faith not of their own or faith not preferred by them when thinking about and addressing a relevant topic. This makes you appear fully vested in Chinese TM.
QUOTE
So what specific TM remedy do you consider equivalent to 'Creationism'?


I have already addressed that. It was not and TM medicine, but the blind faith aspect many practitioners of TM and their followers claim.

As far as the implied greed of the WM and pharmaceutical companies go, TM practitioners and herbal doctors were no saints. Last time I checked, the global market was at $15 billion or more. This is why the discussion of money or the market is not relevant to the effectiveness of WM, TM and related treatments.

And let us hearken back to the days of old to another herbal product original promoted for its alleged health benefits. Currently, it is responsible for more preventable deaths than nearly any other cause in the U.S. The herbal remedy is tobacco.
curious1
In the middle of the night, it's much harder for me to produce a concise, coherent 'argument', as I begin rambling.

Back to your point. Lets compare Western 'drug discovery' with Eastern.

Western Drug Discovery Method (for suspected known drug compounds):
1. isolate what appears to be 'active compound' from existing herb. Test on petri cultures of bacteria/virus/blood cultures/whatever is being treated. If this works,
2. test isolated compound on animals. If the compound doesn't work, isolate a different compound from the same existing herb.
3. test on animals. If it doesn't work, repeat above, if it does, test on more animals.
4. after testing on many animals, with a reasonable rate of effectiveness, begin human trials.
5. Double-blind tests to determine efficacy.
6. If effective, go back to drawing board and study why, apply for FDA approval.
7. After FDA approval, put on market, ask Doctors and Hospitals to provide feedback on patients perscribed the medications.

Eastern Drug Validation (for Traditional Medicines):
1. doctors perscribe medications.
2. continue perscribing to patients (there are doctors in China, there are hospitals in China, people don't go to their local village head to get their medicines. Higher Education in China is harder to obtain than in the US... there are too few schools, and too many extra millions who want to go every year. A 'doctor' in China has undergone a far more intense and competitive process to become one than in the US, where med school is a mere 3 years post graduate, and a nurse can be a mere 2 years post High School).
3. Doctors document and observe the efficacy of their perscriptions. What doesn't work, doesn't get perscribed again, and are probably published in their version of Science Review.

What makes you think the drugs they use are completely untested? The Chinese don't have Shaman medically treating people. What is the difference between the 2 above? The animal tests were omitted because full human testing was already done for thousands of years. How is western testing, which is the same type, human trials, more reliable when they're doing the same thing for a far lesser period of time?

My understanding is they stop perscribing or using drugs with negative effects or less benefits also. I'm not sure how they withdraw them, I'm in the process of looking this up right now.

Here's an interesting article about TCM from a PharmD (from the US Pharmacist Trade Journal):
http://www.uspharmacist.com/index.asp?show...page=8_1002.htm
QUOTE
A clinical graduate degree is a prerequisite for one to practice TCM. One is required to take pre-medical courses and a bachelor's degree is usually required for admission. A graduate program usually requires another 4 years of studying both TCM and Western medical sciences. Afterwards, a clinical internship is required after completion of the graduate program in TCM. The amount of education or training is equivalent to a doctorate program in optometry, podiatry, pharmacy, osteopathy, etc. A state board exam is required in order for one to be licensed or board certified. In most states, it is governed by the acupuncture board, which allows one to carry the title of Licensed Acupuncturist (L.Ac.).


So according to this article, a practicing TCM in the US has to have an advanced degree with a clear understanding of BOTH Eastern and Western Medicines.

Apparently, with the new educational requirements in the US for TCM, the acceptance is coming. Unless you think US trained MD's and PharmD's are quacks too.



curious1
I can't find the current Chinese testing requirements for TCM's in China. This is understandable, since they'd be in Chinese Publications, which are probably not online at all.

I did find updated information about Regulations for Global Trade in TCM's and the tests of validity for them:
http://www.china.org.cn/english/scitech/47745.htm

QUOTE
The Chinese government has set a target of revamping the traditional Chinese medicine industry, which offers unique treatments for a number of specific diseases such as AIDS and diabetes.

Li Xueyong, vice-minister of science and technology, said traditional Chinese medicine had become more and more recognized by the international community.

He made the remark while addressing the International Conference on the Modernization of Traditional Chinese Medicine that opened Sunday in this capital city of southwest China's Sichuan province.

Among those dignitaries present at the conference were more than 4,000 health officials and scientists from the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States and 24 countries and regions as well as CEOs from the world's leading drug manufacturers.

The core of the relevant strategy, Li said, was to modernize traditional medicine by adopting modern technologies such as information technology and biological technology.

Li briefed the conference, jointly sponsored by his ministry, the Ministry of Health, the State Drug Administration, the State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, on recent developments in the industry. The Chinese-made traditional medicine was now being exported to over 130 countries and regions, he added.

To ensure the quality and safety of those medicinal products, he noted, China would speed up the adoption of a scientific and internationally-recognized standards for traditional medicine.

Moreover, he disclosed that colleges, universities and pharmaceutical firms would join research and development efforts on new uses for traditional Chinese medicine.


I believe I found the Chinese regulatory site: http://www.satcm.gov.cn/english_satcm/eindex.htm

The entire site needs to be looked at, since there's no short 'how do we license individual TCM" paragraph to quote.
But (keep in mind that reading Chinese translated sites are very tedious due to writing style):
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The Chinese government has set a target of revamping the traditional Chinese medicine industry, which offers unique treatments for a number of specific diseases such as AIDS and diabetes.

Li Xueyong, vice-minister of science and technology, said traditional Chinese medicine had become more and more recognized by the international community.

He made the remark while addressing the International Conference on the Modernization of Traditional Chinese Medicine that opened Sunday in this capital city of southwest China's Sichuan province.

Among those dignitaries present at the conference were more than 4,000 health officials and scientists from the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States and 24 countries and regions as well as CEOs from the world's leading drug manufacturers.

The core of the relevant strategy, Li said, was to modernize traditional medicine by adopting modern technologies such as information technology and biological technology.

Li briefed the conference, jointly sponsored by his ministry, the Ministry of Health, the State Drug Administration, the State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, on recent developments in the industry. The Chinese-made traditional medicine was now being exported to over 130 countries and regions, he added.

To ensure the quality and safety of those medicinal products, he noted, China would speed up the adoption of a scientific and internationally-recognized standards for traditional medicine.

Moreover, he disclosed that colleges, universities and pharmaceutical firms would join research and development efforts on new uses for traditional Chinese medicine.


I believe I found the Chinese regulatory site: http://www.satcm.gov.cn/english_satcm/eindex.htm

The entire site needs to be looked at, since there's no short 'how do we license individual TCM" paragraph to quote.
But (keep in mind that reading Chinese translated sites are very tedious due to writing style):
Since 1980s, China has made remarkable achievements in research of natural medicaments. The development and production of dihydroarteannuin has produced great influence at home and abroad. It was approved in 1994 as one of the top 10 national scientific and technological achievements. The research of using arteannuin to treat malaria and using Chinese herbal medicines to treat urinary calculus has won the Albert Einstein world science prizes. The research of the mechanism of acupuncture analgesia and anesthesia continues to keep the leading role internationally. Artificially synthesized musk has been successfully developed and put into production. Artificial cultivation of Dong Chong Xia Cao (Cordyseps) and Gan Cao (Radix Glycyrrhizae) has opened a new way for the utilization of resources. A successful general survey of Chinese herbal resources throughout China has provided a scientific basis for their rational utilization and was approved in 1995 as one of the top 10 national scientific and technological achievements. According to a national survey , among 12,807 species of Chinese medicinal resources in China, there are 1,126 medicinal plants, 1,581 medicinal animals and over 80 medicinal minerals. (According to the "Regulations on Protection and Administration of Wild Resources of Medicinal Materials" issued by the State Council, rhino horn and tiger bone are no longer used as medicinal materials.) Remarkable progress has been made in treatment of collapse of the internal organs and acute abdomen with integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine. The research of the literature of TCM and the study of proved folk recipes have enriched and perfected TCM . The application of a number of new technologies and methods has promoted technical progress of the drug industry.


Here's a quote from Science Magazine:
QUOTE
ASIAN MEDICINE:
The New Face of Traditional Chinese Medicine
Dennis Normile
TOKYO--This year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a phase II trial to test the efficacy of Kanglaite in treating non-small-cell lung cancer, making Kanglaite the first drug derived from a traditional Chinese herbal remedy to go into clinical trials in the United States. Asian governments are hoping that high-volume screening and rigorous clinical trials will unlock the secrets of ancient herbal remedies--and that the results will pass muster with Western scientists.


There are TCM's that treat diabetes, Cancer, Hepatitis and Aids. Yes, they are being studied, but because it takes so many years for approval, people in the US die (except the ones that fly to China to get their treatments).

I understand and appreciate your concerns about 'quackery'... and unfortunately, licensing and education are coming, but taking a long time due to bureacracy.

Yes, there are people who sell 'snake oil'... using both TCM and Western medicines. There are people who sell perscription drugs to get high on too. But are there avenues to get 'legitimate' TCM treatment? Many many, because, again, they are clearly being licensed.

Here's an article in Nature Biotechnology Magazine (a trade journal for the US Biotech industry): http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n3/f...bt0304-263.html

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
ASIAN MEDICINE:
The New Face of Traditional Chinese Medicine
Dennis Normile
TOKYO--This year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a phase II trial to test the efficacy of Kanglaite in treating non-small-cell lung cancer, making Kanglaite the first drug derived from a traditional Chinese herbal remedy to go into clinical trials in the United States. Asian governments are hoping that high-volume screening and rigorous clinical trials will unlock the secrets of ancient herbal remedies--and that the results will pass muster with Western scientists.


There are TCM's that treat diabetes, Cancer, Hepatitis and Aids. Yes, they are being studied, but because it takes so many years for approval, people in the US die (except the ones that fly to China to get their treatments).

I understand and appreciate your concerns about 'quackery'... and unfortunately, licensing and education are coming, but taking a long time due to bureacracy.

Yes, there are people who sell 'snake oil'... using both TCM and Western medicines. There are people who sell perscription drugs to get high on too. But are there avenues to get 'legitimate' TCM treatment? Many many, because, again, they are clearly being licensed.

Here's an article in Nature Biotechnology Magazine (a trade journal for the US Biotech industry): http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n3/f...bt0304-263.html

Kanglaite Injection, produced by the Chinese company Zhejiang Kanglaite Pharmaceutical (ZKP; Hangzhou), has come farther than any traditional medicine toward earning drug approval in the West. With $20 million from an undisclosed investor, the company is preparing to enter phase 2 botanical drug trials this month.

Kanglaite is an extract produced from the coix seed (Semen coicis), a Chinese food staple. An injectible form of the extract was approved by China's State Drug Administration (SDA; Beijing) in 1996. A best selling anticancer drug in that country, Kanglaite has now been used by over 250,000 Chinese patients for lung, liver, breast and several other cancers. The extract has also been on the Russian market since last year, approved after only a year of clinical trials. According to ZKP, the speed of approval reflected the Russian regulatory authorities' willingness to accept safety and efficacy data from the three-year-long SDA trials in China.

However, according to John Harmer, CEO of ZKP's subsidiary Kanglaite USA (Salt Lake City, UT, USA), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA; Rockville, MD, USA) is much less open to accepting foreign safety and efficacy data. It took two years and $5 million to get through phase 1, says Harmer, who felt that much of the process was "unnecessary."

Since 1997, at least three other Chinese businesses have embarked on US clinical trials, but the associated cost, time and stringency of the tests have prevented any from clearing phase 2.

The Tasly Group (Tianjin, China) was the first Chinese company to receive FDA approval in 1997 to begin trials for its red ginseng (Panax ginseng)-based 'cardiotonic pill' against coronary arteriosclerosis. China's Department of Science and Technology (Beijing) partially funded the trials. But by 2000, the huge cost of international drug trials prompted the government to back out.

Other botanical drugs in the pipeline are faring better with self-generated funds. One remedy on the horizon is a lung cancer medication developed by China's National Corporation of Traditional and Herbal Medicine (CNCTHM; Beijing). The FDA recently approved phase 1 trials for the CNCTHM traditional medicine, an extract of a rare Chinese plant that the organization would not disclose. CNCTHM is collaborating with Botanica Bioscience (Ojai, CA, USA)—which oversees the supply of quality-controlled Chinese herbal products to US companies—for help with ironing out quality control and regulatory issues.

Other non-Western companies attempting to reformulate age-old remedies into modern day drugs (Table 1) include Avestha Gengraine Technologies (Bangalore, India), which is beginning to clinically validate 'ayurvedic cures'—part of the holistic Indian medical system of Ayurveda that dates back at least 3,000 years—targeted at obesity and diabetes. All are chasing a global market for natural cures estimated in the billions of dollars (Box 2).


Found the Chinese equivalent of the FDA- the SDA (China's State Drug Administration), and a specific medical article discussing it exactly how drug regulation and patenting (since no one makes drugs for free) works in China : http://www.pacificbridgemedical.com/public...hinaDec1998.htm
QUOTE
OVERVIEW OF THE CHINESE PHARMACEUTICAL MARKET

China's pharmaceutical market has expanded dramatically in the past twenty years, averaging between 18 - 20% growth, significantly higher than US and European growth during that period (7 - 9%). Pharmaceutical imports have been growing at 20% since the early 1990s and currently exceed $930 million. The total pharmaceutical market is expected to grow to $23 billion by the year 2000, to become the world’s largest pharmaceutical market by 2020.

These projections ignore, however, factors that interfere with Western pharmaceutical companies’ chances for profit. Foreign companies’ profit margins have significantly dropped from the previous five to ten years, when they were enjoying 20% sales growth and quick returns. Greater foreign and domestic competition, added to a regulatory system protective of domestic producers, has yielded an environment of limited profits to most foreign companies. New laws ban foreign-produced versions of drugs already sold in China by domestic manufacturers, allowing foreign pharmaceutical manufacturers to sell only “unique” drugs. To sidestep this law, foreign companies must enter joint partnerships with domestic ventures and manufacturers. There are now 1,800 such foreign-invested enterprises (FIEs) in the Chinese pharmaceutical market, while in the late 1980s only a dozen such partnerships existed.

The Chinese government is attempting to address foreign companies’ concerns with new regulations. This year, the Chinese government decided to reorganize the monitoring and approval structure for pharmaceuticals, laying the foundation for future reforms in the pharmaceutical industry. It is important for these companies to stay informed of new market changes and regulatory reforms, many of which will affect how they do business in China.

Because China's transition to the new system remains incomplete, several problems have occurred. For example, there is a backlog in the regulatory system because of some uncertainty over which agencies are responsible for monitoring and approving certain drugs, while the staff reduction in regulatory agencies' has delayed the review of some drug applications and clinical data. In addition, the government has still not decided how to restructure the pharmaceutical regulatory system at the provincial and local levels. Although many of these local branches’ regulations are very different from the central agency’s, they have shown resistance to ceding their power to the central government. China's size means that it will take time for reforms to reach the lower levels of government – and some have questioned whether a unified regulatory system is even possible in a country as large and diverse as China. The government hopes central reorganization to be complete by the end of 1998.

CONSOLIDATING THE SYSTEM: THE STATE DRUG ADMINISTRATION

Two agencies previously controlled China's pharmaceutical regulatory system: 1) the Bureau of Drug Policy Administration (BDPA), and 2) the State Pharmaceutical Administration of China (SPAC).

The BDPA, an agency of the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH), filled a function similar to that of the U.S. FDA, and enforced Chinese pharmaceutical law. The BDPA’s duties included implementing China's Drug Administration Act, and regulating pharmaceutical manufacturing, distribution, sale, and advertising. In addition, it approved domestic and imported drugs and biologics, and formulated and issued national drug standards.

The BDPA’s jurisdiction included the National Institute for Control of Pharmaceutical and Biological Products (NICPBP), the highest authority for pharmaceutical quality control in China. Also under the BDPA’s aegis, though technically an outside agency, was the Center for Drug Evaluation, responsible for many important features of the regulatory process. It conducted technical review for applications, convened and coordinated advisory evaluation committee meetings, and developed technical and scientific guidelines for drug development.

The SPAC, created in 1978 as an MOPH daughter agency, oversaw all activities relating to pharmaceutical R&D, manufacturing, sale, and distribution. Its influence waned as China began allowing private companies to control their own affairs, a policy that became a source of tension between the SPAC and the BDPA. Since 1993, the SPAC’s duties have been limited to reviewing and approving the administrative protection of pharmaceutical products.

The Chinese government established the new State Drug Administration (SDA) in March 1998, to consolidate the SPAC, BDPA, and the State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine (SATCM; similar to SPAC but only responsible for regulating traditional Chinese medicine). By consolidating law enforcement and inspection activities, eliminating functional overlap in different agencies, and separating control over the regulatory and business operations in the pharmaceutical industry, the SDA centralized and streamlined regulatory authority. In the new organizational structure the SDA has replaced the SPAC and BDPA, and operates alongside the SATCM (now an MOPH agency) to regulate all drugs entering the Chinese market.

The SDA will have a total of about 120 employees, 60% taken from the SPAC, 20% from the SATCM, and all of the BDPA's 20 employees. The new agency will regulate and supervise the research, registration, production, market circulation/advertising, and use of the following medical products:

• Chemical drugs and antibiotics
• Traditional Chinese medicine and preparations
• Biological products
• Radiopharmaceuticals
• Biochemical drugs
• Diagnostic products
• Medical devices and material
• Medical packaging material

The SDA’s Director General, Mr. Zheng Xiaoyu, is the former head of the SPAC; former head of the BDPA, Mr. Shao Mingli, and former SATCM second deputy head Mr. Ren Dequan are slated to fill two of the four Deputy Director General positions.

The SDA’s Department of Drug Registration is in charge of registering new drugs, biologics, generics, and imported drugs. It also issues drug standards, approves new drug clinical trials, controls "special drugs" (i.e. narcotics and radiopharmaceuticals), performs "drug re-evaluation" (although the government has not yet defined what this involves), and gives guidance to the nation's drug control institutes. The department is expected to have four divisions set up by product type: The Division of Chemical Drugs, Division of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Division of Biologics, and Division of Special Drugs. BDPA's Center for Drug Evaluation and NICPBP are likely to be incorporated under this department as well.

Other departments involved in pharmaceutical regulation include the Department of Safety and Surveillance, the Department of Market Supervision, the Department of International Collaboration, and the Department of Personnel and Education. The Department of Safety and Surveillance is made up of three divisions:

• The Division of Drug Evaluation: responsible for monitoring essential drugs and OTCs, and providing adverse event (AE) surveillance;
• The Division of Drug Research Supervision: qualifies clinical research bases and enforces good laboratory practices (GLP), good clinical practices (GCP), and good manufacturing practices (GMP); and
• The Division of Supervision of Drug Manufacturing: monitors drug manufacturing and grants hospital pharmacy preparation licenses.

The Division of Market Supervision is responsible for pharmaceuticals that have already received approval and are being sold in the Chinese market. It is responsible for the qualification of drug wholesalers and retailers, market regulations of prescription drugs, OTCs, and TCMs (crude and patent preparations); enforcement of Good Marketing Practices, providing licenses for "drug business operations" (both wholesale businesses and pharmacies); drug quality inspection, and approval of drug advertisements. Below the Division of Market Supervision are the Division of Drug Business Operations Supervision, the Division of Market Regulations, and the Division of Inspection.

The Department of International Collaboration oversees international activities, international technology exchange and collaboration, and the administrative protection of pharmaceuticals, all of which are performed by its Division of International Affairs, Division of Drug Administrative Protection, and the Division of International Liaison.

Finally, the Division of Personnel and Education provides personnel management, personnel training, pharmacist qualification examinations, and pharmacist licenses (previously, pharmacists did not require licenses). It is made up of the Division of Government Officials, Division of Personnel in Affiliated Institutions, and the Division of Education.

PHARMACEUTICAL REGULATIONS

The pharmaceutical market has opened to foreign companies considerably since the late 1980s, when most of China's pharmaceutical regulations were written. The government plans to address this problem by revising and streamlining its pharmaceutical regulations once the new organizational structure is fully established – meaning that the current regulatory system will remain in place until about the year 2000.

A. Pricing and Reimbursement

Currently, China maintains both a national and provincial set of pharmaceutical reimbursement schedules in state-run hospitals or clinics. The central government has authorized more than 1400 pharmaceuticals to receive reimbursement from state-controlled insurance organizations. Provincial and municipal governments are allowed a 10% "local readjustment" to alter the national reimbursement list.

Most foreign companies have found the reimbursement system to be both tightly regulated and inconsistent. Because the government demands low drug sale prices for an import to be considered for the list, many companies find they do not qualify. Manufacturers often complain, however, that the drugs included on the national list are not all consistent with regulations, and hint that the process may in part be more negotiation than regulation. In addition, provincial and municipal governments’ “local adjustment” often produces an almost entirely different system from the central governments’.

In an attempt to sidestep the reimbursement system, many companies enter into joint ventures with local partners, facilitating their involvement in the regulatory approval process and allowing for greater market share. The reimbursement system, however, may only marginally affect market share, as national health insurance only covers about 10 - 15% of the population: government insurance only covers 7 - 8% of the population, and local labor insurance, 13 - 20%.
The central government has also enacted price control measures in the pharmaceutical industry. In addition to placing more price controls on imported drugs in 1997, the government granted high profit margins to innovative drugs: 25 - 30% for Class I drugs, and decreasing profit margins for II, III, IV, and IV, with IV given the least. The system, however, excludes marketing expenses from profit calculations.

B. Pharmaceutical Classification

Under Drug Administration Articles 21 and 22 (July 1985), "new drugs" are those that have never been produced in China before, and for which a new indication, a change in the route of administration, or a change in dosage form is to be adopted. New drugs are classified into five categories:

• Class I: new pharmaceuticals that have not been approved in any country (i.e. new drugs reported but not specified in foreign pharmacopoeia);
• Class II: products currently in process of being approved by a major regulatory agency (i.e. the FDA, European Community, Japanese government) but not specified in foreign pharmacopoeia;
• Class III: preparations made of two or more compounds;
• Class IV: synthetic products of natural compounds, approved drugs, and modified formulas that have long been approved and in use in international markets; and
• Class V: adopted drugs with a new indication.

Please note: these classifications refer only to locally manufactured new drugs; imported drugs as a whole are treated as a separate class.

Currently, no single agency oversees all pharmaceutical cases. The SDA regulates Classes I, II, III, and imported drugs, but provincial governments deal with Classes IV and V. In addition, the government is in the process of creating a legal distinction between prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs (OTCs). In the past, confusion between the two caused some consumers to obtain prescriptions for OTCs, which has led to prohibitive reimbursement costs for the government.

C. Registration

Two separate regulatory processes exist: one for imported products, and one for locally manufactured products, irrespective of the sales company’s location. Both processes require the company to submit a registration data package. For imported drugs, this package replaces the import drug permit required by Chinese regulatory authorities. While similar to the US FDA’s requirements, the volume and content of information necessary is significantly less.

The registration data package must include:

• Application form
• Technical data
• Chemistry, manufacturing, standard, and analytic methods, stability, and quality control
• Non-clinical pharmacology and toxicology
• PK/PE, local clinical data
• Labeling
• 3 different batches of samples
• Locally manufactured drugs: 3 batches bulk, 3 batches finished
• Imported drugs: 3 batches final product
• Free sales certificate (for imported drugs)

Most of the documentation, such as the manufacturing methods and non-clinical pharmacology/toxicology data, need only a brief Chinese summary attached to the English version. Increased attention to product quality requires complete translations into Chinese of the standard/analytic methods and stability data.
Under the current system, while Class I product manufacturers may apply to the CDE directly, most other manufacturers need to submit an application to the provincial department of health, which then forwards it to the Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE). A CDE advisory committee performs a full review of the drug, identifies possible deficiencies in the application, and sends them back to the manufacturer for response. Because the CDE may need to communicate with the manufacturer concerning its application, this process may be lengthy. Only after the committee has reviewed the application at one of its biannual meetings does it forward the document to the BDPA. If an investigational new drug (IND) is involved, the BDPA is authorized to make a decision; if a new drug application (NDA) is involved, only the MOPH may decide whether or not to approve the application.

Imported drug applications, however, travel through a different bureaucratic process. The manufacturer must first send the packet of applicant materials to the MOPH’s International Cooperation Center, pharmaceutical division. Within this division, the Imported Drug Evaluation (which is comprised of many of the same members in the CDE's review committee for locally manufactured drugs) reviews the application. The committee may order the manufacturer to conduct a local registration/clinical verification study (described in the Clinical Investigation section below). Once the manufacturer has submitted a report on its study to the committee, the BDPA will make the final approval decision.

Currently, the MOPH's regulations for "Western drugs” requires the following to be investigated during the product application process:

• Name of drug, purpose, and reason for selection
• Chemical structure or composition
• Technology and manufacturing conditions
• Quality assessment
• Pharmacodynamic data and literature
• General pharmacological investigations
• Acute toxicity
• Long-term toxicity
• Toxicity of a topical new drug
• Impact of each ingredient on the efficacy or toxicity of a compound preparation
• Mutagenicity tests
• Reproductive toxicity
• Carcinogenicity tests
• Drug dependence data
• Pharmacokinetic investigations on animals
• Preliminary stability tests on drug substances and their singular or compound preparations
• Quality standard of drug used for clinical investigation
• Drug sample
• Clinical investigation plan and pre-clinical review
• Clinical pharmacokinetic investigation
• Bioavailability or dissolution tests
• Stability test results and dates of expiration
• Protocol and remarks of production quality standards
• 3 - 5 sample batches produced in succession with analytic reports
• Clinical reports and summary
• Samples of packaging material, labeling material, and package insert

Regulatory authorities have recognized the need to consolidate and streamline the local registration study. There has been a movement towards a more scientifically based estimation of small sample size, and in some cases, regulatory authorities are becoming more flexible by waiving additional tests for the product if it is in the same therapeutic area as a product that has already been approved. The government is also planning to assign the same evaluation committee members for both imported and locally-manufactured products. Additionally, the government will assign cases randomly to committee members to encourage objectivity, and increase data exchangeability so that drug imports may be used for products manufactured locally. Finally, because China is trying to encourage new drugs – especially Class I drugs – to enter the market, authorities are planning to establish a "special meeting" system to speed up the approval process. In this potential system, the drug’s sponsor or CRO could call an additional CDE advisory committee meeting, rather than wait for one of its regular biannual meetings. The sponsor may only call this meeting once the necessary registration information has been submitted, and the sponsor/CRO must pay an average of $20,000 to finance the meeting (to recover the hidden costs paid at the biannual meetings).

D. Clinical Investigation

Although China is beginning to accept foreign clinical data, almost all new drugs entering the country must conduct domestic testing in some form. Currently, Classes I, II and III drugs must undergo Phase I, II and III trials, although some Class III products are exempt from Phase I trials. Some Class IV and V products, and all new imports must be tested through a single-phase clinical verification/local registration study, lasting about 6 - 8 months. After these tests are complete, imported drugs must undergo an initial two-year trial/review, involving periodic comparative studies with locally manufactured products.
Regulatory authorities have set several standards for domestic registration study:

• The study must be comparative, with randomized, double-blind, parallel groups.
• The minimum sample size is usually 60 samples per group (120 total).
• Open-label studies must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
• For ethical reasons, active controls over placebos are preferred for the control group.
• Clinical and/or surrogate endpoints should be used for efficacy endpoints, depending on the drug (i.e. blood pressure reduction, intraocular pressure reduction, etc.)
• Data concerning both clinical and laboratory adverse events should be collected at the safety endpoints.

These standards pose several problems to clinical trials. First, they establish a uniform testing requirement without considering drug or disease specifics, nor are they sensitive to ethnic factors in testing. In addition, the requirements for statistical analysis are not well defined, and often involve basic hypothesis testing methods such as the t-test and chi-square test. This lack of statistical standards may result in inconsistent results, especially because investigators who control statistic design and analysis are not required to consult the drug sponsor or an independent statistician. The small sample size requirement does not allow for the statistical power to detect significant, if any, differences in the two test groups. And finally, simple hypothesis testing is inadequate for an active control equivalency trial, and cannot allow investigators to determine population effects, the study’s stated intent.

Pharmaceuticals manufactured domestically must undergo a separate clinical trial procedure. Companies planning to manufacture domestically must submit:

• One drug sample that is the exact product the company intends to manufacture;
• Drug stability data; and
• Information stating the drug to be an OTC or a generic prescribed product.

The Chinese government has also attempted to simplify the clinical trial procedure for foreign companies by harmonizing its clinical standards with those accepted internationally. It has begun to increase its acceptance of foreign clinical data, for example, and in March 1998 adopted the Good Clinical Practice (GCP) standards under ICH guidelines. The new GCP standards are intended mainly for drug registration-related clinical trials in China, and comply with the country's existing drug administration laws. About 95% of China's new GCP is currently compatible with ICH; the incompatible 5% is mainly due to procedural differences. The outline of regulations below represent a condensed but similar version of the ICH guidelines (Source: L. Su, RAPS '98):

• General Provisions
• Pre-requisites of the Conduct of a Clinical Trial
• The Rights of Study Subjects
• Clinical Trial Protocol
• Investigator's Responsibilities
• Sponsor's Responsibilities
• Monitor
• Records and Reports
• Data Management and Statistical Analysis
• Handling of Investigational Products
• Quality Assurance
• Multicenter Trials
• Miscellaneous
• Glossary
• Appendices
o Declaration of Helsinki
o Essential Documents

Under China's GCP, health authorities must assign all investigational centers and approve all clinical trials for new drugs. The Chinese government has given permission to 50 - 60 hospitals and medical centers where clinical trials may be held. In addition, each study must be conducted at a minimum of three different sites, and of these, one must be in North China and one in South China. Furthermore, a foreign company may not apply for approval to conduct a clinical trial itself; it must instead determine a Chinese company to apply on its behalf as a sponsor. Finally, appropriate sample sizes will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Because of the extent to which the government controls clinical trials, companies should also make sure they develop a strong relationship with their principal investigator (PI). Many PIs have a seat on the review committee, granting them power in determining the trial specifications and its duration. Meeting regularly with its PI to discuss data management, and "shadowing" the PI to confirm that the data is handled properly will avoid misinterpretation of local trial results, and thereby hurry the process.

LEGAL REFORM: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

Currently, China is revising its intellectual property law to help companies maintain control over their products, such as a proposed law to protect business secrets. Many of these legal reforms affect the pharmaceutical industry, such as China’s January 1993 patent law, the first product patent protection made available to pharmaceuticals. Previous to the 1993 patent law, chemicals and pharmaceuticals were only covered by “process protection.” Now, patent law offers twenty-year product patent protection, although patent protection is distinguished from administrative protection (granting market exclusivity rights to pharmaceuticals).

Patent applications are submitted to the Patent Bureau, whereas administrative protection applications are submitted to the SDA (previously, SPAC was responsible for handling administrative applications). If patent holders are granted administrative protection, for example, the product will gain 7 1/2 years of market exclusivity (i.e. the SDA will not approve domestic generics during this period). Administrative protection is granted automatically if:

• The product received patents in its country of origin between January 1, 1986 and December 31, 1992;
• The product was not formerly qualified for patent protection under the pre-1993 Chinese patent regulations; and
• The product was not sold on the Chinese market prior to submitting the administrative protection application.

Guaranteed protection is slowly being phased out, however, and foreign companies will soon have to trudge through the application process for the traditional 20-year patent.

Foreign companies without guaranteed administrative protection can combat the long delays with the help of a 1994 loophole in regulations. This loophole permits local companies to manufacture and sell a product before the patent holder receives administrative protection. Foreign companies may use a local company as a proxy, who in turn may register a copy of the product with the MOPH. Because drug patent details are published while administrative protection is in process, illegal copies may easily be manufactured as generics (70% of the Chinese pharmaceutical market).

Currently, local governments – notoriously susceptible to corruption – have the authority to issue manufacturing permits to medical factories and distributors. Proposed policy would transfer this authority to central government agencies, in the hopes of yielding stronger patent protection for domestic and foreign high-tech pharmaceuticals.

The central government will also improve local governments’ intellectual property law enforcement, by requiring them to crackdown on companies that lack proper licenses, transfer or lease licenses to drug counterfeiters, or use contractors that fail to meet proper requirements.

Registered product protection is another item on China’s legal reform slate. The 1993 Product Quality Law, for example, prohibits producers and sellers from counterfeiting products or falsely applying quality marks to its products, such as certification marks, famous brand marks or marks of excellence. It also prohibits producers and retailers from falsifying the product origin, or using another factory’s name and address. Violators face severe punishments and are liable for damages.

Furthermore, China's State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) is revising patent law to emphasize domestic and international property rights, and benefit new fields, such as microelectronic technology and biological engineering. SIPO expects to receive 100,000 patent applications a year by the year 2000, and expects this figure to increase to 150,000 every year until 2010.

CONCLUSION

Foreign companies registering products in China should understand the regulatory system and process clearly. Because China's regulatory environment is still in transition, and language and cultural barriers may delay the process, it is important for foreign companies to increase their presence in China, and to build relationships (guanxi) with local medical professionals and government officials. In this way, companies can gain an "insider's view" into the regulatory process, and – because much of the approval process is negotiated (i.e. over whether certain clinical tests are needed) – gain clout to expedite drug approval. China's pharmaceutical market offers vast opportunities for foreign pharmaceutical companies, but requires both a conditioned relationship with the country and a long-term commitment to products not already produced in China.


The US has had a 30 year lead on drug regulation, and it's going to take a bit for the Chinese to catch up... but you can see, they're doing it.

You can also see that TCM's are more than a little respected in the Medical communities.
GeneSplicer
QUOTE
What makes you think the drugs they use are completely untested?


Did I say completely untested? No, I said tested. And let us compare what you have listed. You think that using a “test and see” prescription method on people is a valid form of testing? And on the ill too boot? What was that comment about being a guinea pig for the FDA?

If you think this method of testing is equally to or superior to WM methods, I have to simply disagree. Using people as guinea pigs is not in any way shape or form superior to WM scientific method. PETA may like the idea, but this type of random “test and see” method is not a rational one to apply to animals let alone humans.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
What makes you think the drugs they use are completely untested?


Did I say completely untested? No, I said tested. And let us compare what you have listed. You think that using a “test and see” prescription method on people is a valid form of testing? And on the ill too boot? What was that comment about being a guinea pig for the FDA?

If you think this method of testing is equally to or superior to WM methods, I have to simply disagree. Using people as guinea pigs is not in any way shape or form superior to WM scientific method. PETA may like the idea, but this type of random “test and see” method is not a rational one to apply to animals let alone humans.

So according to this article, a practicing TCM in the US has to have an advanced degree with a clear understanding of BOTH Eastern and Western Medicines.


Considering the documented damage done when people mix prescribed drugs and herbal remedies, this is not much of a surprise. Also noted in the article are the typical mysticism of “holistic” medicine and “boosting the immune system” or “boosting XXX absorption”. These are typical buzzwords related to TM that are meaningless.

QUOTE
Apparently, with the new educational requirements in the US for TCM, the acceptance is coming. Unless you think US trained MD's and PharmD's are quacks too.


Again, how do you protect the public from any form of quackery? In this case, license any practitioner of medicine. I might be wrong, but not all states require acupuncturist to be licensed. Also note that as a license practitioner and a primary healthcare provider, he or she must renew their license, must be insured and can be sued, fined and jailed for harm caused.


The damage of herbal remedies is very real as is the need for them to be regulated to avoid impurities and to prevent the public from being harmed.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Apparently, with the new educational requirements in the US for TCM, the acceptance is coming. Unless you think US trained MD's and PharmD's are quacks too.


Again, how do you protect the public from any form of quackery? In this case, license any practitioner of medicine. I might be wrong, but not all states require acupuncturist to be licensed. Also note that as a license practitioner and a primary healthcare provider, he or she must renew their license, must be insured and can be sued, fined and jailed for harm caused.


The damage of herbal remedies is very real as is the need for them to be regulated to avoid impurities and to prevent the public from being harmed.

Herb Remedies: Panacea or Problem

The problem, say many concerned public health officials, is that the manufacturing of dietary supplements is nearly unregulated -- few safeguards against contamination exist. Consumers cannot be certain that the ingredients on the label of an herbal product are what is actually in the bottle.

``In many cases, consumers are serving as guinea pigs because they don't really know what they are taking,'' said Bill Gurley, a pharmaceutical researcher at the University of Arkansas.

In some cases, herbal remedies have been found to be contaminated with dangerous levels of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and mercury. In other cases, herbal products have been purposely spiked with restricted pharmaceutical drugs to boost their effects.

Some of the biggest health worries about herbal products come from uninspected, untested natural substances imported from overseas suppliers.

Last year, a 61-year-old Sacramento woman bought a package of Chinese herbs for a tea to help ease her arthritis. The label said the tea contained clematidis, a common herb often used to treat the ailment.

However, the tea actually contained podophyllotoxin, an herb similar in appearance to clematidis but one that is used externally to treat genital warts.
The woman, a licensed acupuncturist*, slipped into a coma after drinking the poisonous tea. When she awoke, she could neither walk nor use her hands. The herb paralyzed her intestinal tract as well, said Ko of the state Department of Health Services. She is currently in a nursing home unable to digest solid food.


* I guess her herbal knowlege didn’t help her determine that what she was taking was a toxin and not the herbal remedy she expected. Back to the article.

QUOTE
Ko said such serious poisonings are rare, but adulterated herbal products are not.
Two years ago, he tested 260 Asian patent medicines, concentrated herbal products usually in pill form, purchased at California herbal stores. He found that nearly a third of the products were contaminated.

Thirty-one of the products contained pharmaceutical ingredients such as ephedrine, a heart stimulant, or chlorpheniramine, an antihistamine. Sixty-eight medicines contained either lead, arsenic or mercury, which are taken in China to treat various maladies, but which have not been in common use in this country since antibiotics became widely available about 60 years ago.

In some cases, Ko found the concentration of heavy metals to be thousands of times the maximum levels recommended by U.S. health officials.


So, lead, arsenic and mercury are part of TM herbal remedies? Last time I checked, this is one of the benefits of having a regulated pharmaceutical industry. Contamination still occurs but not to this degree since there are established protocols of manufacturing.
GeneSplicer
QUOTE
You can also see that TCM's are more than a little respected in the Medical communities.


TCM, no. The herbs they use for actual usable compounds, yes. And again, testing, verification and discovery of the actual active compound is perfectly fine and supported by any rational person, but TCM or TM is not the same.

Considering the documented contamination, harmful elements included in and varying degree of potency of TM treatments, a person would be taking a considerable risk by using them. The long process of testing compounds is part of the harsh reality of how you prove something works.

Mentioning people who are ill now as a justification of using such TM treatments is an appeal to emotion and irrelevant to the topic of comparing TM to WM. There will always be people who are ill and afflicted with diseases that are beyond are capability to treat. It is these very people who are so easily victimized by TM and similar “holistic” medicine.

You may think that hope, even false hope, is an effective treatment or justified for the seriously or terminally ill. That would be another point you and I disagree upon. It is all too human to feel despair at the brutal reality of one’s own demise. Unfortunately, it is also all too human to prey upon such despair.
curious1
QUOTE
Did I say completely untested? No, I said tested. And let us compare what you have listed. You think that using a “test and see” prescription method on people is a valid form of testing? And on the ill too boot? What was that comment about being a guinea pig for the FDA?


Yes, because the patients being tested aren't being tested using medicines for only 12 years, but for 1000 years. They may be the 2,500,000th guinea pig for the TCM vs the 100th for the FDA. Presumably, 2,000,000 testers ago, they continued to test because the medicines worked. So when you are 'testing', you are testing after 2,500,000 patients found the medicine worthy of continued testing. This is far far more secure than the FDA's standards of testing.

Based on the numbers of withdrawn medicines in the USA, medicines that may have cost their developers $900 million dollars, I'd say that testing by the FDA wasn't adequate, even after 12 years, in some cases.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Did I say completely untested? No, I said tested. And let us compare what you have listed. You think that using a “test and see” prescription method on people is a valid form of testing? And on the ill too boot? What was that comment about being a guinea pig for the FDA?


Yes, because the patients being tested aren't being tested using medicines for only 12 years, but for 1000 years. They may be the 2,500,000th guinea pig for the TCM vs the 100th for the FDA. Presumably, 2,000,000 testers ago, they continued to test because the medicines worked. So when you are 'testing', you are testing after 2,500,000 patients found the medicine worthy of continued testing. This is far far more secure than the FDA's standards of testing.

Based on the numbers of withdrawn medicines in the USA, medicines that may have cost their developers $900 million dollars, I'd say that testing by the FDA wasn't adequate, even after 12 years, in some cases.

Again, how do you protect the public from any form of quackery? In this case, license any practitioner of medicine. I might be wrong, but not all states require acupuncturist to be licensed. Also note that as a license practitioner and a primary healthcare provider, he or she must renew their license, must be insured and can be sued, fined and jailed for harm caused.


I think that we aren't as far apart as you think. I agree with you here. The fact is, there are plenty of unlicensed activity of all kinds. I see commercial advertising for palmistry and psychic readings as well. In some of these cases, these 'new age' methods lead people down life-threatening roads as well. "You are with your 'soul mate, stand by him", and the man is an abuser who beats her weekly. "Your career will take a turn for the better very soon", so the person quits their job and waits for this 'new career', threatening their financial stability. Etc.

How DO you protect the public from fake or fraudulent supplements, medical treatments (or the lack of... some religions prohibit medical interventions at all)? Certainly licensing is one way, and I pointed out that TCM practitioners can be licensed. In every endeavor of human life, there's people who work unlicensed, so long as money can be made. So you find practitioners who are licensed, and you check out their background and the education required for them to be licensed.

How do you know your family doctor is licensed? You can go on the medical association's site and look them up. I do this before I go see any doctor, as there have been a few publicized cases of people who don't even have a degree opening up MEDICAL practices, hanging a fake shingle in a shopping center. My understanding is that Insurance companies don't even check their degrees. We had a 25 year practicing general practitioner here a few years ago, with hundreds of patients, who turned out to have no Medical degree at all.

This widespread fraud has resulted in a lot more medical background information on the Internet, it's a lot less likely today to see someone claim to have a degree from such and such a University, because with computerization, you can write/call the school and find out who's got a degree from there as claimed. Fraud still happens, in every single field.

You can do the same with TCM practitioners as well apparently. If people don't do this, for either their regular doctors or TCM doctors, that doesn't mean it's not available information.

QUOTE
The damage of herbal remedies is very real as is the need for them to be regulated to avoid impurities and to prevent the public from being harmed.


It's only 'real' if you don't do any research on your own. I have linked a LOT of different sources to find medical information. Both western and eastern. I have listed examples of the Eastern, but you can do the same with any western medicines perscribed as well... information from the same sources and more.

The bigger question is who licenses the manufacturing and oversees or regulates it. If you look at the almost ludicrous state of our meat inspections by the USDA, where they show up once in a while to check, while processers drop entire sides of beef in urine and feces, then throw them back on the machines, I can't fathom how anyone can check the state of pharmaceutical manufacturing much better.

But having a license to manufacture beats not having one at all. So if you are going to buy 'supplements', you look for companies who are licensed by their State Dept of Regulations, who've been in business for a while, who don't have a poor track record, who have never had regulatory complaints filed against them, and like buying meat, you hope for the best.

This is just as true for modern perscription drugs as it is for supplements or anything else. Do you remember that big stink over Botox a few years ago? Where a doctor bought Botox from a noname company and actually paralyzed or killed a few of his patients? You still read horror stories about tampered with drugs or improperly prepared drugs occasionally.

The market and lawsuits regulates these industries pretty well. Lots of people would love to sue a deep pocketed pharmaceutical if they cause them any health concerns at all. There's at least a bit of consumer protection living in a liability-happy nation such as the US, despite that malpractice insurance drives up medical costs to the point of near unaffordability for many.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The damage of herbal remedies is very real as is the need for them to be regulated to avoid impurities and to prevent the public from being harmed.


It's only 'real' if you don't do any research on your own. I have linked a LOT of different sources to find medical information. Both western and eastern. I have listed examples of the Eastern, but you can do the same with any western medicines perscribed as well... information from the same sources and more.

The bigger question is who licenses the manufacturing and oversees or regulates it. If you look at the almost ludicrous state of our meat inspections by the USDA, where they show up once in a while to check, while processers drop entire sides of beef in urine and feces, then throw them back on the machines, I can't fathom how anyone can check the state of pharmaceutical manufacturing much better.

But having a license to manufacture beats not having one at all. So if you are going to buy 'supplements', you look for companies who are licensed by their State Dept of Regulations, who've been in business for a while, who don't have a poor track record, who have never had regulatory complaints filed against them, and like buying meat, you hope for the best.

This is just as true for modern perscription drugs as it is for supplements or anything else. Do you remember that big stink over Botox a few years ago? Where a doctor bought Botox from a noname company and actually paralyzed or killed a few of his patients? You still read horror stories about tampered with drugs or improperly prepared drugs occasionally.

The market and lawsuits regulates these industries pretty well. Lots of people would love to sue a deep pocketed pharmaceutical if they cause them any health concerns at all. There's at least a bit of consumer protection living in a liability-happy nation such as the US, despite that malpractice insurance drives up medical costs to the point of near unaffordability for many.

* I guess her herbal knowlege didn’t help her determine that what she was taking was a toxin and not the herbal remedy she expected. Back to the article.


And here's an article from the US CDC with a few case reports about licensed pharmacies selling contaminated drugs that killed patients treated in good faith by hospitals/medical clinics in the US: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5149a1.htm

Your point was that it can't happen with licensed companies that produced drugs and medicines, but only with teas or TCMs? It happens with perscription drugs too, and more frequently because you use the extracted concentrated components in drug manufacture.

QUOTE
So, lead, arsenic and mercury are part of TM herbal remedies? Last time I checked, this is one of the benefits of having a regulated pharmaceutical industry. Contamination still occurs but not to this degree since there are established protocols of manufacturing.


You took THIS below quote out of context:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
So, lead, arsenic and mercury are part of TM herbal remedies? Last time I checked, this is one of the benefits of having a regulated pharmaceutical industry. Contamination still occurs but not to this degree since there are established protocols of manufacturing.


You took THIS below quote out of context: Sixty-eight medicines contained either lead, arsenic or mercury, which are taken in China to treat various maladies, but which have not been in common use in this country since antibiotics became widely available about 60 years ago.


Those 68 medicines that contained those contaminants have not been in common use for 60 years. Right around the time the US BEGAN MANUFACTURING ANTIBIOTICS ourselves.

If you're extending poor safety standards in medical preparations to prior to 60 years, ago, it would take us hundreds of pages in pure documentation to show how poorly oversighted the US 'medical' industry was... prior to 60 years ago.

You took a few words out of a SENTENCE to indicate your position, ignoring the rest of the sentence (that stated those contaminated medicines are no longer in use)? Tsk.