Do you trust the FDA? Or the AMA?

[OtherCheek]

Do you trust the FDA to look out for the best health interests of the consumer? Or do you trust them to look out for the best interest of commercial entities?

This is an old article, but there are new cases of this kind of stuff going on all the time.
http://ecochildsplay.com/2008/11/30/...t-consumption/

Or do you trust the AMA to look out for the best health interests of the consumer? Or do you trust them to protect the monopoly of the westernized approach to medicine and expel non-conventional approaches that have worked for others--expel them from the U.S.?

[pancreasman]

Do you trust the FDA to look out for the best health interests of the consumer? Or do you trust them to look out for the best interest of commercial entities?

This is an old article, but there are new cases of this kind of stuff going on all the time.
http://ecochildsplay.com/2008/11/30/...t-consumption/

Or do you trust the AMA to look out for the best health interests of the consumer? Or do you trust them to protect the monopoly of the westernized approach to medicine and expel non-conventional approaches that have worked for others--expel them from the U.S.?

Another false dichotomy. I suspect both agencies are right much of the time and wrong some of the time. As with all expert opinion it needs to be evaluated carefully on a case by case basis. Since both agencies are meant to base their decisions on science, it's fortunate that this kind of evidence is available to us all. For example, it is abundantly clear that homeopathy makes claims unfounded in science and upon large scale testing has no therapeutic effect beyond placebo. The black/white alternative seems to be having no regulatory authority over drugs and medical treatment and I find this prospect alarming.

[OtherCheek]

Another false dichotomy. I suspect both agencies are right much of the time and wrong some of the time. As with all expert opinion it needs to be evaluated carefully on a case by case basis. Since both agencies are meant to base their decisions on science, it's fortunate that this kind of evidence is available to us all. For example, it is abundantly clear that homeopathy makes claims unfounded in science and upon large scale testing has no therapeutic effect beyond placebo. The black/white alternative seems to be having no regulatory authority over drugs and medical treatment and I find this prospect alarming.

Homeopathic medicine does work, and it is proven to do so and is very popular in Europe, India, and other parts of the world. But what works for some, does not always work for everyone--much like Western medicine. My concern with the FDA and the AMA is that they are more interested in protecting business than the consumer.

[pancreasman]

Homeopathic medicine does work, and it is proven to do so and is very popular in Europe, India, and other parts of the world. But what works for some, does not always work for everyone--much like Western medicine. My concern with the FDA and the AMA is that they are more interested in protecting business than the consumer.

I'd be interested in your citation of any double blind trials showing homeopathy being effective.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Given the history of medicine before peer-review and regulation, I'll take what we've got, for all of its faults.

[seanD]

Government thrives on a totally different moral standard than the rest of us. Romans 13 tells us so. They're not out for profit or power; they're out for the betterment of humanity. Therefore, you must worship the FDA, you commie.

[Catholicity]

I'd be interested in your citation of any double blind trials showing homeopathy being effective.

There are a couple of remedies available in the US over the counter for colds, here is a double blind study for Zinc Gluconate or as its better known Zincum Gluconium 10x (homeopathy) and the duration of the common cold. Happy reading. http://www.coldeeze.com/uploaded_fil...Iv%20Study.pdf

[Catholicity]

Do you trust the FDA to look out for the best health interests of the consumer? Or do you trust them to look out for the best interest of commercial entities?

This is an old article, but there are new cases of this kind of stuff going on all the time.
http://ecochildsplay.com/2008/11/30/...t-consumption/

Or do you trust the AMA to look out for the best health interests of the consumer? Or do you trust them to protect the monopoly of the westernized approach to medicine and expel non-conventional approaches that have worked for others--expel them from the U.S.?

In general, I'd say I like the AMA. The FDA less so. However with every "evil" the FDA does, it also has some good in it. ex, controlling quack medicine. They have in recent years gotten very good at it. Almost too good. On the other hand, its such a bureaucracy, that if a medication can kill you, I don't think they care much as long as its "approved" And they do not crack down hard enough on generic medications. Case and point. In generic form a medicine can have a 20 percent difference greater or less than, the brand name. As such, I can only take the brand name of one of my medications or else it won't work and I develop odd side effects. However if I take the name brand of another medication its can be too strong. And honestly due to the money they made from merck's kick backs they never did recall vioxx despite the clear association with strokes. As far as the AMA, I take it easy. They have so many good reccommendations and the DRs currently on the board are excellent about targeting issues that Complementery medicine was targeting years ago. E.G. Using massage, even acupuncture for chronic pain. Recognition of Tissue inflammation, Fibromyalgia as real and not psychosomatic, cracking down on stupid doctors, now making new requirements for medical students to enhance bedside manner that is requiring they work at least 1000 hours as a CNA before they set foot in med school, or volunteer at bedside 1000 hours. I have a lot more respect for them now than I did years ago

[Jaecp]

There are a couple of remedies available in the US over the counter for colds, here is a double blind study for Zinc Gluconate or as its better known Zincum Gluconium 10x (homeopathy) and the duration of the common cold. Happy reading. http://www.coldeeze.com/uploaded_fil...Iv%20Study.pdf

I lolled a bit at the part where they excluded people who'd taken an antibiotic in the last week, when the problem is viral is nature.

And the part where the wrote that no antibiotics were being used. For the common cold. A Virus.

These are doctors of some stripe running these studies, right?

[OtherCheek]

I'd be interested in your citation of any double blind trials showing homeopathy being effective.

You can find some information here. Be sure to check the whole page.
http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/Research/provings

[Ansgar Seraph]

In your source link, the author listed numerous clinical studies as resulting in positive evidence for homeopathy. Maybe I just got lucky but the first study I looked at, "Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes," did not support homeopathy:

WITHDRAWN: Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Vickers, Smith. 2009

Seven studies were included in the review, three prevention trials (number of participants (n) = 2265) and four treatment trials (n = 1194). Only two studies reported sufficient information to complete data extraction fully. There was no evidence that homoeopathic treatment can prevent influenza-like syndrome (relative risk (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 1.43). Oscillococcinum treatment reduced the length of influenza illness by 0.28 days (95% CI 0.50 to 0.06). Oscillococcinum also increased the chances that a patient considered treatment to be effective (RR 1.08; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.00).

© source where applicable

Not only was this article withdrawn in 2009 but the results of the study don't support homeopathy! No evidence of homeopathy preventing influenza and a 0.28 day (i.e., ~ 7 hour) reduction in length — within the natural variable time period. The other studies don't appear much more in favor of homeopathy, with the possible exception of the vertigo study.

—Sam

[Dee Dee Warren]

I don't trust either of them. But I have a very dim view of the medical profession in general.

[Seasanctuary]

Yes, I do. I'm also tired of real life friends and family harassing me constantly until I take whatever worthless homeopathic remedy is good for making them shut up about it.

[OtherCheek]

How do people feel about GMO (genetically modified) foods? Milk from Hormone-treated cows? Meat from hormone treated cows, pigs, chickens? Has anyone noticed more allergies to wheat in the U.S. than we used to have 20 years ago?

"For more than a decade, almost all processed foods in the United States — cereals, snack foods, salad dressings — have contained ingredients from plants whose DNA was manipulated in a laboratory."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/sc...=MYWAY&ei=5065

[Ansgar Seraph]

How do people feel about GMO (genetically modified) foods? Milk from Hormone-treated cows? Meat from hormone treated cows, pigs, chickens? Has anyone noticed more allergies to wheat in the U.S. than we used to have 20 years ago?

"For more than a decade, almost all processed foods in the United States — cereals, snack foods, salad dressings — have contained ingredients from plants whose DNA was manipulated in a laboratory."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/sc...=MYWAY&ei=5065

Gluten sensitivity and celiac (coeliac) disease don't have much to do with GMO, at the moment. The issue there is gliadin, which is a prolamin found in all gluten produce, regardless of whether it's been GMO'd. The uptick in diagnoses of gluten sensitivity have gone up but that's almost entirely because A) we're eating more and more products with gluten ingredients, B) gluten sensitivity and celiac are low-key diseases that don't present unique or particularly deadly symptoms and C) only recently have technologically-modern diagnoses been possible. Even a decade ago, biopsies to test for celiac were extremely rare. Today, they have blood tests that can accurately diagnose celiac disease.

GMO wheat might end up having something to do with celiac, in the form of an alternative form of gluten produce that does not trigger the autoimmune system's reaction to wheat, rye, etc. Monsanto, evil though it may be, is working on this, at the moment.

I've got no problem with GMO food — if it were feasible, I'd prefer all my meat to be grown in the lab!

—Sam