Having been in Corporate Sales in Manhattan, I had friends both in Advertising
and
Pharmaceutical Sales. Sales is about making money - from idea to finished
product, it's about money. The buyer, should be about 'awareness'. Awareness,
hopefully,
creates responsibility in a drugged out world! An endless loop of one hand
serving
the other with an illusive caveat for taking the high road. Corporations sell
needs that
may or may not be there - it comes down to the buyer and how that buyer uses the
product. 'Fast food brains' are their own worst karma.
Arhata
Requiring natural remedies to produce verifiable research is a bogus
excuse to demonize their use. The politics of allelopathic medicine
and the globalization Big Pharma push pills for profit and
"alternative medicine" cuts into their bottom line. Since herbs and
homeopathy, rely on history, case studies, subjective reports and
trial and error to prove effectiveness, they are an easy target for
Big Pharma, to cry, "snake oil." Anything that empowers people to
treat their own ailments means a smaller piece of pie for the big guys.
Drug researchers can produce quantifiable results but they can also
cheat by ignoring test results they don't like. "Figures can lie and
liars can figure." A drug company often pays for its own research,
which amounts to the fox guarding the chickens. They push newer,
"better" drugs to market as quickly as possible with all their
attendant side effects and 5 years later the drug proves dangerous.
It's a risk they are willing to take, squeezing every dime they can
out of a market until it becomes obvious a drug is killing more people
than it saves. It hypocritical to say that drug research, motivated by
profit, is superior to any standard measuring the effectiveness of
herbs that DON'T kill people and drugs that DO.
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@.. .> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, ruthsimplicity <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Vaj <vajradhatu@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > Let's not forget the last study putsch: the TM is good for your
> heart
> > > marketing campaign. Luckily the BBC caught them on that one, as
did
> > > some physicians reviews. But it makes me wonder: should someone be
> > > pointing all this out to the NIH? Should the NIH sue for fraud and
> > > deception? I mean, these are our tax dollars they are, quite
> > > actually, stealing.
> > >
> > > If you look at it, it's pretty clear what they're trying to do:
cash
> > > in on insurers who are already paying for treatments like MBCT for
> > > depression. Once they can get into the medical system with their
> > > product, they be able to rake in the $$$ with their over-inflated
> > > mantra prices.
> >
> > I have done some letters to Senate and Congress regarding the NIH
> > Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, which is a big
> > money pit for poor research. I think it should be disbanded and
> > research money for alternative therapies needs to be tied to more
> > rigorous requirements.
>
> Just as a question, Ruth, given your background
> and your feelings on this, what thype of "rigorous
> requirements" would you suggest for studies done
> on homeopathy?
>
> I'm asking out of curiosity because a friend of
> mine is a homeopath, and has clued me in to some
> of the recent attempts to demonize that practice
> in the UK. Their stance, which makes sense to me
> given what I know of the practice, is that "con-
> trol groups" are an inappropriate form of "rigor-
> ous requirement" because every patient in home-
> opathy is treated differently, based on their
> own *particular* symptomology. Two patients com-
> plaining of the same primary symptom might be
> treated completely differently given their
> *other* symptoms.
>
> So what, in your opinion, would be a valid study
> design for homeopathy? In the US, the AMA so
> successfully demonized homeopathy that it is
> difficult for it to gain acceptance. But in Europe
> that is not true, because no such demonization took
> place until recently. *All* pharmacies in France
> and Spain sell both allopathic and homeopathic
> medicines; *all* doctors prescribe both; *all*
> patients give positive feedback on both.
>
> So I'm asking out of curiosity. I *understand* the
> scientist's/ medical doctor's skepticism of home-
> opathy -- we are talking substances so diluted in
> strength that no trace of them can be found in
> the pills prescribed. And yet they work, and work
> consistently enough that most countries in Europe
> rely on them as often as they do allopathic treat-
> ment. So what kind of study would be "rigorous"
> enough to validate this in your eyes, given the
> limitation that there can't be any "control"
> groups in the traditional sense?
>
> Thanks for pondering this, and for your reply if
> you have one. I'm really not trying to "challenge"
> you or put you on the spot, and I *agree* with
> your assessment of the NIH Center for Complementary
> and Alternative Medicine as it currently works. I'm
> just asking because of my friend's interest in
> homeopathy, and my own personal experiences with
> homeopathic treatment, as prescribed for me by
> full-fledged MD's in France and in Spain. It
> worked. I can see no rational reason for *why*
> it worked, but it did. Go figure.
>
