[Benning Boy]

I get that a Big Pharm spends millions in R&D. Then they put it on the market. Then a generic can't be done for, I believe, 7 years. They recoup, make a profit.

There is no R&D on herbs, they're sometimes in your back yard.

Don't get me wrong on this. All I want is the choice. If I tried every coventional cancer treatment, and nothing worked, I want the opportunity to go with the yak butter/ginseng/whatever.

I find it odd that nobody is going after GNC, but these people have apparently been getting hammered, even though none of their products has been linked to causing anyone harm, and has apparently helped some.

[pandamonium]

Daggle, when you say supplements, are you referring to vitamin/minerals?
The herbal products are very different.

[TheDaggle]

Originally Posted by pandamonium

Daggle, when you say supplements, are you referring to vitamin/minerals?
The herbal products are very different.

It comes down to truth in advertising (I know, it's an oxymoron). Pharmaceuticals are allowed to advertise effectiveness against illnesses because there is hard scientific evidence that they do what they are supposed to do. Herbals that have not undergone the same testing and have not produced hard scientific evidence of effectiveness may not claim that they are effective.
Chemo can be advertised as a treatment for cancer, because exhaustive studies have shown that patients who undergo chemo treatment have a significantly higher chance of survival and remission. Bio-shark has not undergone such testing, and therefore may not make such claims. If anecdotal evidence were sufficient to validate medical claims, i could sell my semen for $10,000 per milliliter, citing the fact that none of my ex-girlfriends have cervical cancer.
Some supplements DO have health benefits, and many companies DO engage in honest and legal advertising practices, and these products and companies should be left alone. When a company claims that it's product shrinks tumors with no valid clinical trials to support their claims, they have lied to the consumer and should be penalized and prevented from continuing unethical practices.

[pandamonium]

Originally Posted by TheDaggle

It comes down to truth in advertising (I know, it's an oxymoron). Pharmaceuticals are allowed to advertise effectiveness against illnesses because there is hard scientific evidence that they do what they are supposed to do. Herbals that have not undergone the same testing and have not produced hard scientific evidence of effectiveness may not claim that they are effective.
Chemo can be advertised as a treatment for cancer, because exhaustive studies have shown that patients who undergo chemo treatment have a significantly higher chance of survival and remission. Bio-shark has not undergone such testing, and therefore may not make such claims. If anecdotal evidence were sufficient to validate medical claims, i could sell my semen for $10,000 per milliliter, citing the fact that none of my ex-girlfriends have cervical cancer.
Some supplements DO have health benefits, and many companies DO engage in honest and legal advertising practices, and these products and companies should be left alone. When a company claims that it's product shrinks tumors with no valid clinical trials to support their claims, they have lied to the consumer and should be penalized and prevented from continuing unethical practices.

Understood, I like to keep supplements, as in vitamins and minerals in a separate category, and they should be as v&m's are vital components to metabolism and general health, herbal/holistic/homeopathics are not.
I agree with all you said, but I still do not have faith that the drugs that get aproved by the FDA are all that well tested, but thats just me and my trust of Government Agencies to be able to do the job properly, too many agencies/programs are complete and utter failures.