quote:Originally posted by redsnapperdragonfly: My understanding is that the only difference between "medicine" and "herbs" or whatever, is that in the case of "medicine", a substance - and it is VERY frequently a botanically derived substance - is isolated, studied, patented, regulated, and controlled.
And it's a very important difference. It's what keeps unscrupulous types from putting whatever they want into a bottle and selling it as a cure-all. It's meant to keep what's supposed to be helping a sick person from instead killing them outright. It means "We have evidence that this works how we say it works." If herbal medicines work as well as they're supposed to, why aren't there more scientific studies illustrating this?
-------------------- "My sandwich choice is uncertain, until I actually order. It's like Schrodinger's Sandwich." "Is plutonium involved in this sandwich in any way?" "Maybe." Posts: 496 | From: Whitby, ON, Canada | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by redsnapperdragonfly: My understanding is that the only difference between "medicine" and "herbs" or whatever, is that in the case of "medicine", a substance - and it is VERY frequently a botanically derived substance - is isolated, studied, patented, regulated, and controlled.
And it's a very important difference. It's what keeps unscrupulous types from putting whatever they want into a bottle and selling it as a cure-all. It's meant to keep what's supposed to be helping a sick person from instead killing them outright. It means "We have evidence that this works how we say it works." If herbal medicines work as well as they're supposed to, why aren't there more scientific studies illustrating this?
My understanding is that for various reasons, there won't be financial incentive in it - they wouldn't be able to patent it and recoup their investment, or other similar market type conditions. Any company can sell them for a small amount of money so how could they sell them for more?
Which is a reasonable reason not to pursue them, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are ineffective.
There's plenty of products out there that are extremely effective but aren't patentable. Hand lotion is great stuff. If they could control, patent and sell petroleum jelly in a profitable manner I'm sure they would, but they can't, so they don't.
~ I do agree there are unscrupulous quack medicine sellers out there. However, there have been plenty of less than altruistic behaviors on the part of big pharma.
Again, the idea that all non big Pharma is ebil and snake oil and all big Pharma are utterly trustworthy is no more true than the inverse. There are good and bad people in all industries. Pharma is overseen by the government, and sometimes that does, as you say, make a big difference.
It doesn't always, though. It's supposed to, but, shit happens.
I'm just saying - I don't see any reason to give Pharma, any more than anyone else, a free pass on the skepticism. It is controlled, but it's controlled by humans, and humans fail.
snap *you want some thalidomide with that?* dragonfly
-------------------- "Wolves, dragons and vampires, man. Draw the nut-bars like big ol' nut-bar magnets." ~evilrabbit
(snurched because one of my nutbar family members is all about wolves and another one is all about dragons...)(with apologies to surfcitydogdad) Posts: 2397 | From: Texarkana, TX | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by redsnapperdragonfly: My understanding is that the only difference between "medicine" and "herbs" or whatever, is that in the case of "medicine", a substance - and it is VERY frequently a botanically derived substance - is isolated, studied, patented, regulated, and controlled.
And it's a very important difference. It's what keeps unscrupulous types from putting whatever they want into a bottle and selling it as a cure-all. It's meant to keep what's supposed to be helping a sick person from instead killing them outright. It means "We have evidence that this works how we say it works." If herbal medicines work as well as they're supposed to, why aren't there more scientific studies illustrating this?
My understanding is that for various reasons, there won't be financial incentive in it - they wouldn't be able to patent it and recoup their investment, or other similar market type conditions. Any company can sell them for a small amount of money so how could they sell them for more?
If they could show more evidence, there's a good chance more people would use these products. And what about independent researchers? Or whoever it is that keeps telling us how dangerous aspertame is ;P? If "natural remedies" are so effective, why AREN"T the big drug companies researching them for patent?
quote:Which is a reasonable reason not to pursue them, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are ineffective.[qb]
No, but it's a bit of a crap shoot, isn't it?
quote:[qb]There's plenty of products out there that are extremely effective but aren't patentable. Hand lotion is great stuff. If they could control, patent and sell petroleum jelly in a profitable manner I'm sure they would, but they can't, so they don't.
And yet, there seems to be a lot of profit in researching new formulas of hand lotion.
quote:~ I do agree there are unscrupulous quack medicine sellers out there. However, there have been plenty of less than altruistic behaviors on the part of big pharma.
Again, the idea that all non big Pharma is ebil and snake oil and all big Pharma are utterly trustworthy is no more true than the inverse. There are good and bad people in all industries. Pharma is overseen by the government, and sometimes that does, as you say, make a big difference.
It doesn't always, though. It's supposed to, but, shit happens.
I'm just saying - I don't see any reason to give Pharma, any more than anyone else, a free pass on the skepticism. It is controlled, but it's controlled by humans, and humans fail.
snap *you want some thalidomide with that?* dragonfly
I agree with all of this. Yes, major Pharmacueticals sometimes do more harm than good. Sometimes the testing doesn't show potential problems, or overstates pontential benefits. But at least the testing is done, and when something turns up wrong, there is a system in place to remove the offending drug from the market. "Natural medicines" have no such system. "Natural medicines" can be nothing but a placebo and companies can sell them as the next great cure-all. Even if there's a serious health risk (ephedra anyone?) there's no regulatory body to stop people from selling it.
Yes, the system is flawed. Yes, we should be skeptical of any substance that's supposed to make our lives better. But just because we sometimes get the answers wrong doesn't mean we should stop asking the questions. Just because tests sometimes fail us doesn't mean we should abandon testing for blind guesses and old wives' tales.
(Sorry, but you seem to have walked into a swinging Munchkin, there...it doesn'thelp that my mom and stepfather are both pharmacists)
-------------------- "My sandwich choice is uncertain, until I actually order. It's like Schrodinger's Sandwich." "Is plutonium involved in this sandwich in any way?" "Maybe." Posts: 496 | From: Whitby, ON, Canada | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by evilrabbit: (snip) If "natural remedies" are so effective, why AREN"T the big drug companies researching them for patent?[/QB]
My understanding is that they legally couldn't obtain a patent for certain things, due to the peculiarities of patent laws. There are certain criteria that must be met before a patent is granted and a lot of them have nothing whatsoever to do with efficacy. Something might be very effective, but unpatentable.
Like petroleum jelly. If someone where to invent something very similar and could prove they had a unique molecular structure and a bunch of other legal blahbittyblah they might could get a patent on it and nobody else could sell it. But since petroleum jelly already exists, cheap and easily accessible, unless the new product had some angle that really appealed to consumers, there just wouldn't be much profit. ~ any intellectual property lawyers here, please forgive any innacuracies and feel free to clarify or expand.
quote:(snip)(Sorry, but you seem to have walked into a swinging Munchkin, there...it doesn'thelp that my mom and stepfather are both pharmacists) [/QB]
I respect pharmacists but I trust big Pharma about as much as any company beholden to it's shareholders, which is to say, not a NFBSKing lot. That's where MY cynicism comes in.
I think there's all sorts of ways, both legal and illegal, to bilk folks.
I also think I can decide for myself if I want some vitamin C without much help from the government. As long as the vitamin C contains only what it says it does on the label and there's no evidence it's harmful being supressed, I'd like the government to just sort of butt out.
-------------------- "Wolves, dragons and vampires, man. Draw the nut-bars like big ol' nut-bar magnets." ~evilrabbit
(snurched because one of my nutbar family members is all about wolves and another one is all about dragons...)(with apologies to surfcitydogdad) Posts: 2397 | From: Texarkana, TX | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's plenty of products out there that are extremely effective but aren't patentable. Hand lotion is great stuff. If they could control, patent and sell petroleum jelly in a profitable manner I'm sure they would, but they can't, so they don't.
And yet, there seems to be a lot of profit in researching new formulas of hand lotion.
[/QB]
But not enough profit, apparently, for big Pharma to bother with. I assume there are some medicated lotions that are rx, but ordinary old lotions containing non patentable ingredients such as petroleum jelly or glycerin aren't made by Merck or Lilly or any of those others that I know of. See, that's exactly my point. They only make money if they can PATENT something that nobody else can sell even a copy of for a long time. (You can get a Walmart copy of whatever Jergens latest offering is within months - may be as good, may not be, but that could never happen with a new prescription drug - it's protected.) That's the whole argument about generics. The marketing of rx medicine is a unique animal from other businesses. Also there are orphan drugs, which are perfectly effective, but so seldom needed that it's not profitable enough for them to bother, which further proves that just because something works doesn't mean that big Pharma wants to sell it.
My point is that there are plenty of effective products out there that simply don't, for various reasons, produce a big enough margin of profit for certain business to mess with them. Again, it doesn't mean they aren't effective. Just not profitable for certain groups. But profitable enough for other groups. Which is why companies OTHER than Big Pharma find plenty enough profit to sell these natural medicines.
Profitability does not equal efficacy.
~ the handlotion is probably a bad analogy in some ways, but it's what came to mind - there is no reason for big pharma to research and develop something that already exists, is my point, and these natural medicines already exist and are on the market. So, no, it's doubtful big Pharma will try to sell them also, but not because they don't work. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but if Merck or someone spent all the money to prove they did, all that would do is help the competition to sell more of something they already sell. Is that not true? They want to sell medicines that cannot be obtained by other means, is that not correct?
edited.
-------------------- "Wolves, dragons and vampires, man. Draw the nut-bars like big ol' nut-bar magnets." ~evilrabbit
(snurched because one of my nutbar family members is all about wolves and another one is all about dragons...)(with apologies to surfcitydogdad) Posts: 2397 | From: Texarkana, TX | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Rhiandmoi
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
Moisturizers are patented. And if someone uses someone else's secret moisturizing formula without permission they do get letters from lawyers. I think most generic formulations are made either by the original company or with a license to use the patented stuff.
-------------------- I think that hyperbole is the single greatest factor contributing to the decline of society. - My friend Pat.
quote:Originally posted by redsnapperdragonfly: Also there are orphan drugs, which are perfectly effective, but so seldom needed that it's not profitable enough for them to bother, which further proves that just because something works doesn't mean that big Pharma wants to sell it.
It's not that they don't want to sell it, it's just that they can't justify the expense of research and development for a substance that may treat or cure a rare disease or disorder. The company has to answer to its shareholders, so unfortunately these kinds of calculations have to be made before a new drug can be developed. The extensive testing required to establish the safety and efficacy of a new prescription drug--the research that sets these substances apart from "natural medicines"--can cost over $100 million. The 1983 Orphan Drug Act provided incentives to pharmaceutical companies to develop such substances, and non-profit organizations such as the Institute for OneWorld Health accept donations of ideas and money to develop these unprofitable drugs for the people who need them. Free-market capitalism isn't compassionate, but people can be.
-------------------- "If God wrote it, the grammar must be infallible. Perhaps it is we who are mistaken." -MapleLeaf Posts: 977 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
but it's what came to mind - there is no reason for big pharma to research and develop something that already exists, is my point, and these natural medicines already exist and are on the market. So, no, it's doubtful big Pharma will try to sell them also, but not because they don't work. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but if Merck or someone spent all the money to prove they did, all that would do is help the competition to sell more of something they already sell. Is that not true? They want to sell medicines that cannot be obtained by other means, is that not correct? 
