in the Daily mail: Women warned of the Dangers in 'herbal HRT'

[Ginger Rogers]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=403081&in_page_id=1774

[Admin]

It's the same old story. People assume that anything labelled as 'natural' must be harmless. I find it disconcerting just how keen people are to try anything based on anecdotal evidence or unsubstantiated claims.

If these products do have an effect on the body then they are, by definition, drugs. That means they can have side effects or they could even be dangerous.

Unless they have been scientifically tested, no one knows what these 'natural' products do. Something that eases symptoms of the menopause may actually work for that problem! But it may be attacking your kidneys at the same time. No one knows...

[Ginger Rogers]

I wonder why there isn't some kind of law against giving people 'drugs' which have never been properly tested. There should be some kind of regulatory body or something?!

[Physiotherapist]

From another viewpoint, HRT has been tested supposedly and still has side effects!!

Think about that for a moment.

[Mongrel]

From another viewpoint, HRT has been tested supposedly and still has side effects!!

Think about that for a moment.


You're forgetting about the regular appointments with the Doctor to monitor and (where possible) control the side effects. Even if the side effects are not controllable there are normally other, different drugs to try that will be more suitable for the recipient

[Physiotherapist]

In a woman's life, starting periods, pregnancy and childbirth and the menopause and perfectly normal physiology, so why seek a 'cure' for what is perfectly normal?

It is my feeling that lots of women see the menopause as an illness - IT IS NOT and is a perfectly normal part of a woman's life. It is just switching from one part of life to the next.

Lots of women sail through the menopause without taking anything.

If women want to use herbal alternatives, then they should go and see a qualified medical herbalist who knows what they are doing. They are also trained fully in differential diagnosis and know when to refer on to others I think the problems arise when OTC herbs are purchased and then taken in isolation. If you see a herbalist, they would never give you just one herb. They would normally give you a tincture containing about 4 ot 5 different tinctures that work synergistically.

[chillzero]

In a woman's life, starting periods, pregnancy and childbirth and the menopause and perfectly normal physiology, so why seek a 'cure' for what is perfectly normal?

It is my feeling that lots of women see the menopause as an illness - IT IS NOT and is a perfectly normal part of a woman's life. It is just switching from one part of life to the next.

Lots of women sail through the menopause without taking anything.

And a lot of women do not. A lot of women suffer terribly from the moment their first period begins. The problem is not these perfectly normal occurrences, it is how some women's bodies tackle the effects. Why should women have to endure crippling pain, feverish temperatures, and often violent moodswings, if they can be treated?


If women want to use herbal alternatives, then they should go and see a qualified medical herbalist who knows what they are doing. They are also trained fully in differential diagnosis and know when to refer on to others I think the problems arise when OTC herbs are purchased and then taken in isolation. If you see a herbalist, they would never give you just one herb. They would normally give you a tincture containing about 4 ot 5 different tinctures that work synergistically.



Women with "female problems" should visit their GP regularly, and not allow them to fob them off as believing the problem is just because they are women, and women have to deal with this kind of thing. The changes that occur are hormonal, and therefore require proper monitoring. I believe that quite often women turn to alternative therapies in these cases when faced by (usually) male GPs who believe that women see these natural events in their life as illnesses, and that they should just buck up and get over it. It's not that simple. Blood sugars drop dramtically, blood pressures rise, hormone levels alter and all these things cause symptoms that can become impossible to live with - for not just the woman, but her family as well.

[tkingdoll]

In a woman's life, starting periods, pregnancy and childbirth and the menopause and perfectly normal physiology, so why seek a 'cure' for what is perfectly normal?

It is my feeling that lots of women see the menopause as an illness - IT IS NOT and is a perfectly normal part of a woman's life. It is just switching from one part of life to the next.

Lots of women sail through the menopause without taking anything.



What a bizarre argument. Many women used to die in childbirth, that was 'natural' too, until we developed drugs and procedures to stop that happening. Perhaps you think doctors should just let women take their chances with nature and die or live according to that?

Childhood illnesses are also normal, perhaps we should avoid avoid immunisation against measles, mumps and rubella and let them develop their own immunity by getting the diseases.

Pain is normal. But we take painkillers because we can.

Some women suffer incredible amounts of pain, as well as severe mood swings, temperature fluctuations etc because of the menopause. Suggesting that they should just be left to get on with it is not only cruel, it's contrary to the entire point of medicine.

I find your attitude rather staggering. By your logic, there would be no medicine at all, as all disease and illness fits the 'normal' criteria that you supply. At one point in our not too distant past, average life expectancy was 40. That was normal. And according to you, what's normal should be left alone.

Thanks, in the most part, to the development of medicine, life expectancy has now doubled.

Just because 'lots' of women sail through the menopause without taking anything, does that mean that all women don't need to? Really? I hope you seriously think about doing some research and changing your attitude, because it does a great disservice to medicine and to millions of women worldwide who don't have to suffer needlessly thanks to HRT.

[Allo Allo]

I also, at one time, was interested in what I think is something which has never been scientifically investigated and might or might not be true - and that is the idea that women in a tribal situation have a much better journey through menopause than "we" do. One explanation of this (if it is a fact) is that they expect to have very few problems, and afterwards they achieve status in the tribe. We make a big "thing" out of menopause and expect problems as told us in the press/media etc and when we've had it we are demoted to being "old". I don't know where one would find studies to back up such an idea.

From my own observations, I have noticed from anecdotal stories that Mothers/daughters' experiences during menopause can be similarly easy or dreadful so - though I don't know this - one would assume that you might be able to predict what your own menopause might be like from the experience of your mother or grandmother. I have no source to back this up - it's a question!

I know someone whose menopause was so terrible, one could only have likened it to an "illness". Even with proper orthodox treatment she took a long time to become "well". My own opinion is that we should take advantage of whatever accepted medications can help - INCLUDING! - (no skep attack please!) MKB therapy (touch therapies.) Many drugs are natural remedies focused.

I think we have progressed simply by medical science recognising PMT and being able to help. When I was young - not SO long ago! women who suffered it were just considered foul belligerent bitches.


M :)

[Allo Allo]

I rather enjoyed this! - http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020920.html

M

[Admin]

If women want to use herbal alternatives, then they should go and see a qualified medical herbalist who knows what they are doing.

And how do we find a 'qualified medical herbalist'?

There's no science behind this form of quackery.


They are also trained fully in differential diagnosis and know when to refer on to others I think the problems arise when OTC herbs are purchased and then taken in isolation. If you see a herbalist, they would never give you just one herb. They would normally give you a tincture containing about 4 ot 5 different tinctures that work synergistically.

They mix and match 4 or 5 different herbs without any real idea of what they're doing. They don't know what ingredients are in the herbs and they certainly don't know what potential compounds they end up with in their 'remedy'.

Most herbs are probably benign but some of them do contain active ingredients (i.e. drugs). I think it's completely foolish to start making compounds out of these and ingesting them without a clue what they do or what their side effects may be.

Herbal remedies may have the potential to do good, but because unlike acupuncture or homeopathy they have far more potential to do harm (!)

I would suggest that people steer well clear of these quacks and their unproven, and unknown (even to them), treatments.

[Allo Allo]

There's no science behind this form of quackery.

They mix and match 4 or 5 different herbs without any real idea of what they're doing. They don't know what ingredients are in the herbs and they certainly don't know what potential compounds they end up with in their 'remedy'.

I would suggest that people steer well clear of these quacks and their unproven, and unknown (even to them), treatments.


Mmmm - Don't know about this post - think this is a bit emotive - like an "opinion". Herbalists undergo years of training and know about orthodox drugs too.... Quacks? I dunno. Check out

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1116847

which seems a more moderate view


M

[Admin]

Mmmm - Don't know about this post - think this is a bit emotive - like an "opinion". Herbalists undergo years of training and know about orthodox drugs too.... Quacks? I dunno. Check out

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1116847

which seems a more moderate view


Please give us your assessment of the article you have linked to. Then I'll give you mine. ;)

You might just find you've shot yourself in the foot again!

[tkingdoll]

Opinions are fine if they're based on an assessment of facts. Nothin 'emotive' about that.

[Ginger Rogers]

In a woman's life, starting periods, pregnancy and childbirth and the menopause and perfectly normal physiology, so why seek a 'cure' for what is perfectly normal?

It is my feeling that lots of women see the menopause as an illness - IT IS NOT and is a perfectly normal part of a woman's life. It is just switching from one part of life to the next.

Lots of women sail through the menopause without taking anything.

If women want to use herbal alternatives, then they should go and see a qualified medical herbalist who knows what they are doing. They are also trained fully in differential diagnosis and know when to refer on to others I think the problems arise when OTC herbs are purchased and then taken in isolation. If you see a herbalist, they would never give you just one herb. They would normally give you a tincture containing about 4 ot 5 different tinctures that work synergistically.



That's a horribly archaic and chauvanistic thing to say! Men have absolutely no idea whatsoever what women go through - not all no, but some. If there's one thing I can't stand it's some arrogant old fashioned doctor that thinks women should stop complaining and 'get on with it' >:(
I agree with everything tkingdoll said basically.

[Cuddles]

There's no science behind this form of quackery.

They mix and match 4 or 5 different herbs without any real idea of what they're doing. They don't know what ingredients are in the herbs and they certainly don't know what potential compounds they end up with in their 'remedy'.

I would suggest that people steer well clear of these quacks and their unproven, and unknown (even to them), treatments.


Mmmm - Don't know about this post - think this is a bit emotive - like an "opinion". Herbalists undergo years of training and know about orthodox drugs too.... Quacks? I dunno. Check out

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1116847

which seems a more moderate view


M


You do realise this article says exactly the same as John, don't you?

[Allo Allo]

Please give us your assessment of the article you have linked to. Then I'll give you mine. ;)

You might just find you've shot yourself in the foot again!


Quackery is a derogatory term used to describe the unethical practice of promising health-related benefits for which there is little or no basis. Quack is also a term used for an incompetent medical doctor, or any other person who dispenses false medical advice or treatment. Wikipedia

There is a great deal of basis for herbal remedies. And herbalists do not dispense false treatment so one cannot call them quacks.

I become uncomfortable when I see statements like "herbalist are quacks and it is all quackery" for several reasons. One – it feels to me like name calling as if repeating by rote. Two – not all herbalists are quacks – though I’m sure some are. Three – it debases skepticism.

I have re-read my link – it was an overview of herbalism with negative aspects discussed. Nowhere did it use the term "Quackery" - in which of my feet did you perceive I shot myself?

M

[Allo Allo]

Opinions are fine if they're based on an assessment of facts. Nothin 'emotive' about that.


Opinions need to be stated when writing or speaking. An opinion is not always a fact. “In my opinion, the moon is made of green cheese.” is clearly an opinion. Whilst “The moon is made of green cheese” is a statement which implies fact but is someone's belief. John is obviously hostile towards herbalism which would make me hesitate to believe what he says without careful investigation.

M

[Cuddles]

Please give us your assessment of the article you have linked to. Then I'll give you mine. ;)

You might just find you've shot yourself in the foot again!


Quackery is a derogatory term used to describe the unethical practice of promising health-related benefits for which there is little or no basis. Quack is also a term used for an incompetent medical doctor, or any other person who dispenses false medical advice or treatment. Wikipedia

There is a great deal of basis for herbal remedies. And herbalists do not dispense false treatment so one cannot call them quacks.

I become uncomfortable when I see statements like "herbalist are quacks and it is all quackery" for several reasons. One – it feels to me like name calling as if repeating by rote. Two – not all herbalists are quacks – though I’m sure some are. Three – it debases skepticism.

I have re-read my link – it was an overview of herbalism with negative aspects discussed. Nowhere did it use the term "Quackery" - in which of my feet did you perceive I shot myself?

M



From the article - "However, there is still very little evidence on the effectiveness of herbalism as practised"

No-one doubts that some herbs contain active ingredients that can help certain conditions. The quackery is in the way "herbalists" use them, with no knowledge of what is in the plants or what effect it may have, and especially in the way they diagnose disease which flies in the face of established medical knowledge.

[Allo Allo]

You do realise this article says exactly the same as John, don't you?


Of course - One difference is that I see the jury is still out and he already has a verdict! Another is that it uses its words moderately.

This is also from that article "Almost no randomised studies have investigated herbal practitioners treating as they would in everyday clinical work.Perhaps the closest attempt evaluated a traditional Chinese herbal treatment of eczema. As prescriptions depend on patients’ exact presentations, only those with widespread, non-exudative eczema were included. Eighty seven adults and children, refractory to conventional first and second line treatment, were randomised to a crossover study that compared a preparation of about 10 Chinese herbs with a placebo consisting of herbs thought to be ineffective for eczema. Highly significant reductions in eczema scores were associated with active treatment but not with placebo. At long term follow up, over half of the adults (12/21) and over 75% of the children (18/23) who continued treatment had a greater than 90% reduction in eczema scores."


M

[Cuddles]

You do realise this article says exactly the same as John, don't you?


Of course - One difference is that I see the jury is still out and he already has a verdict! Another is that it uses its words moderately.

This is also from that article "Almost no randomised studies have investigated herbal practitioners treating as they would in everyday clinical work.Perhaps the closest attempt evaluated a traditional Chinese herbal treatment of eczema. As prescriptions depend on patients’ exact presentations, only those with widespread, non-exudative eczema were included. Eighty seven adults and children, refractory to conventional first and second line treatment, were randomised to a crossover study that compared a preparation of about 10 Chinese herbs with a placebo consisting of herbs thought to be ineffective for eczema. Highly significant reductions in eczema scores were associated with active treatment but not with placebo. At long term follow up, over half of the adults (12/21) and over 75% of the children (18/23) who continued treatment had a greater than 90% reduction in eczema scores."


M




The jury isn't still out. Some herbs have an effect. This study was "Perhaps the closest attempt" at testing what the herbalists do, it did not actually test what they really do. It is entirely possible that at least one of the 10 herbs could help eczema, but that does not make herbalists any less quacky. The whole point is that herbal practitioners refuse to be tested and have no idea what they are actually giving their patients.

[Admin]

Quackery is a derogatory term used to describe the unethical practice of promising health-related benefits for which there is little or no basis. Quack is also a term used for an incompetent medical doctor, or any other person who dispenses false medical advice or treatment. Wikipedia



Quackery is the practice of fraudulent medicine, usually in order to make money or for ego gratification and power. Those who practise quackery are called "quacks" and are in the business of selling false hope to ill-informed people who may be genuinely suffering. Most would consider such a practice highly unethical.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quack)

Herbalists are not qualified doctors. For example, they have no skill in medical diagnosis (which is why they resort to quack devices etc.); they have little or no real knowledge of what they're doing (they certainly could not provide a list of ingredients in their nostrums, for example); and they try to take on the role of doctor.

They are quacks.


There is a great deal of basis for herbal remedies. And herbalists do not dispense false treatment so one cannot call them quacks.

Bullshit.

There is great potential in using herbs' constituents as medicine, but it's only through a scientific approach and evaluation that this potential will be realised.

Herbalists do not use a scientific approach. They mix and match herbs based on mythical and mystical ideas of how they're supposed to work. An approach which comes from the middle-ages.

[Admin]

John is obviously hostile towards herbalism which would make me hesitate to believe what he says without careful investigation.

I've obviously studied herbalism a lot more deeply than you have. ;)

Your comment is typical of so many woos in that they assume that the skeptic has formed an opinion before investigation.

Have a read of this: skeptics are disbelievers (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=skeptics_are_disbelievers.php)

And you'll realise that your assumption is wrong.

[Physiotherapist]

John,

Herbalists are not quacks at all. I have a friend who is a herbalist and he studied biochemistry, anatomy, physiology, pathology and also Differential Diagnosis. All the herbalists were also required to do another course over and above differential diagnosis.

He also studied phytochemistry and botony for herbs, so yes, they most definitely know what is in the herbs they are giving.

I went to his clinic once and when he sees patients, he takes a full case history and will perform a physical examination if needed. He prescribes herbs for the symptoms that people present with - nothing mystical about this.

He is trained as well as any doctor that I know of and he has been trained in differential diagnosis, which doctors are trained in too. He studied for a BSc (Hons) degree in herbalism.

How much do you know about herbs? By the sounds of it not a lot - I think Alo Allo Allo knows more than you do!!

[Admin]

John,

Herbalists are not quacks at all. I have a friend who is a herbalist

I'd already worked that one out although I thought it may have been your wife/girlfriend.

He may have "studied for" (nice and ambiguous) many things but that doesn't mean that herbalists know which ingredients are contained in their nostrums or what effect they're likely to have on the human body: good or bad.

If he's trained in differential diagnosis then at least he should be able to know when to send someone to a real doctor. This would be an exception with herbalists though. Even so, that still doesn't validate herbalism.


He studied for a BSc (Hons) degree in herbalism.

You can get a BSc (hons) in homeopathy too!

Sorry, but your "I have a friend who..." story does nothing to convince me that herbalism is a valid form of medical practise.

It is not scientific, evidence-based medicine. It's quackery pure and simple.


How much do you know about herbs? By the sounds of it not a lot - I think Alo Allo Allo knows more than you do!!

:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

That's me told then!! ;D

[Allo Allo]

How much do you know about herbs? By the sounds of it not a lot - I think Alo Allo Allo knows more than you do!!

:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

That's me told then!! ;D


I HAVE to admit that I know very little :-[ - I have never used herbs myself (except in cooking) - or ever gone to a herbalist. I do understand the anger that is around because other disciplines will not conform to modern scientific medicine - and they come from a different place of "understanding" so that is not possible. But I'm out of here about herbalists :eek:

My point was the name calling and condemnation of herbalists as not having a value. I started here with the same idea - slagging off doesn't get anyone anywhere. I do not believe that ALL herbalists are frauds nor do I think in their discipline they ALL do not know what they are doing. I do not accept what they practise is fraudulant.

The only experience I have ever had about herbalists is e-mails from the woman from whom I got my dog. She developed Lupus (had to find a home for her dog) and after many years of orthodox treatment not helping, she went to a herbalist and is greatly improved - she says.

But, John, I'm very happy that someone thinks I know more than you - it has made my day!!! :tongue2:

[Physiotherapist]

Actually, it is standard that all medical herbalism courses these days contain differential diagnosis courses. The training is every bit as good as medical training and is just as in depth. They also have to study pharmacology, so that they know about durg interactions.

It was never my wife, but always a friend who was the herbalist.

Perhaps you should read some books on herbalism by a guy called Simon Mills, who is a conventinally trained medical doctor, who decided to become a medical herbalist instead. He has written a lot of books with Kerry Bone.

That website you linked to is rubbish. Nutrition is a legitimate and extremely important subject to study. If more people studied and thought more about the nutritional value of the food that they stuffed into their mouths, then perhaps the obesity epidemic in this country could be turned around.

[Admin]

Here's a good article on the inappropriate tenets of much of herbalism: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/paraherbalism.html

[Admin]

I absolutely agree that woo "therapy"/"courses"/"claims" are over the top - yet they persist in their commercial form because they are a commodity people WANT.

Popularity doesn't make something right though.

I agree that so much of this exists because there is a demand for it. Demand creates supply. It's how the demand is created that is the interesting bit.



I ask (as I have before) what is this "lack" that people have that makes them buy "New Age?" I think it is something that is missing from cold hard scientific medicine? Persecution is not the solution. Name calling seems puerile. Lectures sound patriarchal and autocratic - mmm - Well, thats MY opinion anyway. How do you woo a woo?

People form woo beliefs for many reasons and there's not one simple answer. In summary we: have an in-built tendency to form irrational beliefs; and a strong tendency to resist changing beliefs which seem to work for us. Beliefs are essentially a survival mechanism and they don't need to be true, logical, rational, etc., they just need to 'work' at keeping us alive.

Our brains evolved to their present form on the savannas of Africa and the way we form and hold onto beliefs is an adaption for that environment rather than modern day industrialised societies.

I had a look at why people are attracted to alternative medicine here: Why do people use alternative medicine? (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=why_people_use_alternative_medicine.php) - although I seem to have missed out the fear of surgery or severe intervention as as one of them! ??? :-[

Anyway, it's all very interesting and it's all about psychology.



This thread was about HRT - my local GP hasn't suggested it to me - am I doomed to brittle bones and stoopy back? Should EVERYONE take HRT?


No, men shouldn't. :P ;D

I think it's an individual choice for women. There is an increased risk of heart attack associated with HRT but it alleviates the nastier symptoms of the menopause for many so it's a case of whether the benefits outweigh the risks for you.

[Allo Allo]

Here's a good article on the inappropriate tenets of much of herbalism: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/paraherbalism.html




Yes – I much prefer the term “Paraherbalism”. Thanks – good article and clear on what is not acceptable to EBM - and devoid of "hostile" attitude.

M

[Allo Allo]

Yes - I've read this article before - this is you writing well without hostile. I think you should add "fear of surgery" "fear of drugs" "fear of chemo and radiation" - I knew someone who went every way but orthodox and died from cervical cancer - which needn't have happenned. Very sad.



No, men shouldn't. :P ;D


Oops ;D

[Nettles]

Interesting point about herbal HRT: most modern pharmaceutical oestrogens for HRT are made from herbal sources (wild yam, I think). So when you get the clean, pure known dose of oestradiol hemihydrate, you're also getting it from a natural herbal source.