38% of Adults Use Alternative Medicine

Kevin · � #1 � 12-11-2008, 08:12 AM

Study Prompts Critics to Warn of Therapies' Risks

Quote:

More than one-third of adults and nearly 12 percent of children in the United States use alternatives to traditional medicine, according to a large federal survey released today that documents how entrenched acupuncture, herbal remedies and other once-exotic therapies have become.

The 2007 survey of more than 32,000 Americans, which for the first time included children, found that use of yoga, "probiotics," fish oil and other "complementary and alternative" therapies held steady among adults since the last national survey five years earlier, and that such treatments have become part of health care for many youngsters.

"It's clear that millions of Americans every year are turning to complementary and alternative medicine," said Richard L. Nahin of the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, which released the survey. "The use of complementary and alternative medicine seems to have stabilized in the United States."

The most commonly used are dietary supplements and herbal products such as echinacea, flaxseed oil and ginseng, followed by deep-breathing exercises, meditation, chiropractic therapy, massage and yoga. Although fewer Americans were using certain diets and trying herbal remedies such as echinacea to cure colds, the popularity of acupuncture, meditation, yoga and massage grew.
...

Read more at Washington Post

scorpiotiger · � #2 � 12-11-2008, 09:45 AM

I think that is good... but one problem I see with alternative medicine is not the only the lack of studies.. but the fact that evidently, manufacturers don't always deliver what they say on the label.

This is in turn probably is the reason for some of the variable results people see using the same product. And yes, I know that everyone is an individual, but if one person is using a magnesium supplement that only has 250 mg when the label says 500mg, and another is using a supplement that really has 500 mg, then there is going to be a difference. Or if one supplement has lead (and this has been found in some common supplements), then the person using that supplement might not do as well as a person using a supplement with no contaminants.

Kevin · � #3 � 12-11-2008, 09:59 AM

Right, besides the unregulated industry, I would like to add is that, people usually try alternative medicine for chronicle diseases, or as the last resort for difficult situations, it's expected to be not effective. Also, natural cure needs lots of patience.

Arrowwind09 · � #4 � 12-11-2008, 11:29 AM

yep, I agree with Kevin and people also expect natural medicine to work on top of a lousy deficient diet. Thats expecting a lot.

But then again in many cases, diet does not distract from cure for certain disease conditions. Like. if you had a MRSA infection and did an allicin product to cure it it would work on a S.A.D. diet. and grapefruit seed extract for intestinal parasites. And homeopathy usually works on top of a bad diet. But for more severe stuff like cardiovascular disease and cancer the diet change is a must.

liverock · � #5 � 12-12-2008, 03:46 AM

The main reason people are turning to alternative medicine is the fact that drugs do not work for most people, something that articles in the mainstream press will never admit to, as they rely on advertising in most instances from the drug companies.

We are all different genetically and respond differently to drugs, a point admitted by the Vice President of Genetics at Glaxo Smith Kline at a scientific meeting.

Pharmaceutical Drug Industry Tactics Glaxo Chief: Our Drugs Do Not Work On Most Patients

Quote:

Glaxo Chief:Our Drugs Do not Work On Most People

A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them.

Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them.

It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public. His comments come days after it emerged that the NHS drugs bill has soared by nearly 50 per cent in three years, rising by �2.3bn a year to an annual cost to the taxpayer of �7.2bn.

GSK announced last week that it had 20 or more new drugs under development that could each earn the company up to $1bn (�600m) a year.
Dr Roses, an academic geneticist from Duke University in North Carolina, spoke at a recent scientific meeting in London where he cited figures on how well different classes of drugs work in real patients.

Drugs for Alzheimer's disease work in fewer than one in three patients, whereas those for cancer are only effective in a quarter of patients. Drugs for migraines, for osteoporosis, and arthritis work in about half the patients, Dr Roses said. Most drugs work in fewer than one in two patients mainly because the recipients carry genes that interfere in some way with the medicine, he said.
"The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people," Dr Roses said. "I wouldn't say that most drugs don't work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people. Drugs out there on the market work, but they don't work in everybody."

Some industry analysts said Dr Roses's comments were reminiscent of the 1991 gaffe by Gerald Ratner, the jewellery boss, who famously said that his high street shops are successful because they sold "total crap". But others believe Dr Roses deserves credit for being honest about a little-publicised fact known to the drugs industry for many years.

"Roses is a smart guy and what he is saying will surprise the public but not his colleagues," said one industry scientist. "He is a pioneer of a new culture within the drugs business based on using genes to test for who can benefit from a particular drug."

Dr Roses has a formidable reputation in the field of "pharmacogenomics" - the application of human genetics to drug development - and his comments can be seen as an attempt to make the industry realise that its future rests on being able to target drugs to a smaller number of patients with specific genes.

The idea is to identify "responders" - people who benefit from the drug - with a simple and cheap genetic test that can be used to eliminate those non-responders who might benefit from another drug.

This goes against a marketing culture within the industry that has relied on selling as many drugs as possible to the widest number of patients - a culture that has made GSK one of the most profitable pharmaceuticals companies, but which has also meant that most of its drugs are at best useless, and even possibly dangerous, for many patients.

Dr Roses said doctors treating patients routinely applied the trial-and-error approach which says that if one drug does not work there is always another one. "I think everybody has it in their experience that multiple drugs have been used for their headache or multiple drugs have been used for their backache or whatever.

"It's in their experience, but they don't quite understand why. The reason why is because they have different susceptibilities to the effect of that drug and that's genetic," he said.

"Neither those who pay for medical care nor patients want drugs to be prescribed that do not benefit the recipient. Pharmacogenetics has the promise of removing much of the uncertainty."

Response Rates

Therapeutic area: drug efficacy rate in per cent

Alzheimer's: 30
Analgesics (Cox-2): 80
Asthma: 60
Cardiac Arrythmias: 60
Depression (SSRI): 62
Diabetes: 57
Hepatits C (HCV): 47
Incontinence: 40
Migraine (acute): 52
Migraine (prophylaxis)50
Oncology: 25
Rheumatoid arthritis50
Schizophrenia: 60

I think even these response rates are inflated. The claim that cancer drugs are 25% and Alzheimers drugs are 30% effective seems to beg the question how you define 'effective'

.

scorpiotiger · � #6 � 12-12-2008, 07:53 AM

yes, liverock, I think this is another BIG reason alternative medicine is gaining a foothold.

and.. I think another reason is... the internet. There is much more information easily available to everyone with a computer, than there ever was in the past. Not only information on alternative protocols, but.. more information on the convention protocols.. including side effects and rates of success (although that is harder to find)

liverock · � #7 � 12-12-2008, 09:52 AM

Drugs are also more dangerous,even when prescribed by doctors, and the ease which drug abusers can obtain them through overprescribing and the internet, makes them even more deadly according to this report. This knowledge will also tend to make people seek alternative solutions to health problems.

Prescription Drugs Kill 300 Percent More Americans than Illegal Drugs

Mad Scientest · � #8 � 12-12-2008, 08:50 PM

With more sources of information available I think what is happening is many people are slowly waking up to the fact that there is no guarantee that the magic pills prescribed by their doctor will actually work. They realize that if one pill doesn�t work seemingly their doctor randomly says lets try some of these. Plus even if they do work their side effects can be worse then the problem they are suppose to cure.

With alternative medicine there is the �hope� that even if it doesn�t work at least it will do no harm.

scorpiotiger · � #9 � 12-13-2008, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Scientest

With more sources of information available I think what is happening is many people are slowly waking up to the fact that there is no guarantee that the magic pills prescribed by their doctor will actually work. They realize that if one pill doesn�t work seemingly their doctor randomly says lets try some of these. Plus even if they do work their side effects can be worse then the problem they are suppose to cure.

With alternative medicine there is the �hope� that even if it doesn�t work at least it will do no harm.

I agree. I was thinking about exactly this same thing with all the things we've tried for my son's acne.

I asked him about a year ago if he wanted to continue with the dermatologist. He said, no, that he thought the stuff i gave him worked better. but.. I've ended up trying several things, 2 of which have worked pretty well. Hasn't totally cleared it, but it is now mild instead of heading toward bad.

but initially, the dermatologist said, "we will start on this.. and then if this doesn't work, we will do this,... " etc.

and when you start really listening.. this is what happens on most doctors visits. All medicine is about trying things and seeing if they work.. if they don't, you try something else. And until they invent a device that every practitioner can use to safely scan a patient to see what is going on inside, I think it will always be pretty much a guessing game, unless something definite can be determined by blood/urine/biopsy, etc.

scorpiotiger · � #10 � 12-16-2008, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scorpiotiger

I think that is good... but one problem I see with alternative medicine is not the only the lack of studies.. but the fact that evidently, manufacturers don't always deliver what they say on the label.

This is in turn probably is the reason for some of the variable results people see using the same product. And yes, I know that everyone is an individual, but if one person is using a magnesium supplement that only has 250 mg when the label says 500mg, and another is using a supplement that really has 500 mg, then there is going to be a difference. Or if one supplement has lead (and this has been found in some common supplements), then the person using that supplement might not do as well as a person using a supplement with no contaminants.

an example of what I'm talking about:
Adverse effects by artificial grapefruit seed extract products in patients on warfarin therapy

Quote:

Abstract

Objective Grapefruit seed extract (GSE) is promoted as a natural product with antibacterial and antiviral properties. The aim of this study was to investigate the composition of some commercially available GSE products and evaluate their effect in vitro on two cytochrome P450 enzymes, CYP2C9 and CYP3A4.

Methods A couple on lifelong treatment with warfarin and continuous regular follow-ups took some drops of a GSE product for 3 days. The female patient experienced a minor subcutaneous haematoma 3 days later, and her international normalised ratio (INR) value was 7.9. This was reported to the Swedish Medical Products Agency (MPA) as a spontaneous post-marketing report concerning adverse drug reactions/interactions. The composition of the GSE products was determined by proton and carbon-13 nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR). The inhibitory effect of the GSE products on the cytochrome P450 enzymes was tested in an in vitro baculosome assay.

Results The NMR analysis showed that all three investigated GSE products contained the synthetic preservative benzethonium chloride (BTC) in addition to glycerol and water. No authentic GSE extract was found in any of the three GSE products analysed. Furthermore, BTC was found to be a potent inhibitor of CYP3A4 and CYP2C9 activity in vitro.

Conclusion Our results suggest that BTC in the GSE products is responsible for the increase in the INR value in a patient on warfarin treatment.

Keywords Grapefruit seed extract - Benzethonium chloride - Warfarin

... (details of the study in the link article)

Discussion
The present study was initiated in response to a pharmacovigilance report concerning serious adverse reactions/interactions in two patients on warfarin therapy. CYP2C9 is the enzyme responsible for the metabolism of the pharmacologically more active form of warfarin. One possible explanation for the clinical findings could thus be inhibition of CYP2C9 by one or several components of the GSE product resulting in increased plasma levels of warfarin.

Three different GSE products were obtained either from the local health shop or by ordering from the Internet. NMR analysis showed that all three GSE products contained considerable amounts of the synthetic preservative BTC. The labelling on the products described the product as pure GSE, and no synthetic additives were declared.

However, this is in sharp contrast to our results. Our NMR analysis did not show any significant amount of natural grapefruit seed components in any of the investigated products. Instead, our data suggest that these products are composed mainly of glycerol, water and BTC. They are not, as promoted by the manufacturers, natural GSE products.

We then analysed the three different GSE products, as well as BTC alone, in an in vitro baculosome assay for CYP2C9 inhibition. We found that all three products, and also BTC alone, indeed caused a very strong inhibition of CYP2C9. It thus seems likely that BTC is responsible for the observed inhibition. Furthermore, we analysed the specificity of the BTC inhibition by assessing the effect of BTC on the activity of CYP3A4. Our results show that CYP3A4 activity is also inhibited in vitro by BTC.

Additional studies are required to elucidate the mechanism behind the observed inhibition, but it seems that BTC can inhibit enzymes of the cytochrome P450 system in an unspecific manner. Interactions between surfactants and the CYP system in Prochilodus scrofa fish have previously been studied, and it has been hypothesized that compounds with surfactant properties are able to inactivate the components of the CYP system in two different ways, by altering the conformation of the active site and also by disrupting the lipid environment in which the enzymes are expressed [3, 5]. Non-specific enzyme inhibition by BTC has also been reported [1]. Coates and Flood show that BTC can inhibit both α7 and α4β2 human recombinant neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in Xenopus oocytes.

GSE has been promoted as a gentle and non-toxic natural product with a healing power against a variety of diseases and with a very high antimicrobial efficacy.

It has been shown that ethanol extracts of grapefruit seed and pulp can inhibit bacterial growth [2].

However, it has also been reported that some commercial GSE products contain synthetic preservatives such as BTC, and that these additives are solely responsible for the antimicrobial activity of the products. Six different commercial GSE products were analysed [12], and it was shown that all GSE products except one contained BTC. Antimicrobial activity was only found in the GSE products containing BTC [11, 12].

so, basically, some patients had adverse reactions when they took GSE. They think it is GSE, only it isn't, because most of the supplements.. contain next to nothing of NO GSE. Instead the reaction is being caused by a preservative, BTC, that is not even listed on the ingredients of any of these brands. And it is this preservative that has the antimicrobial action.

so.. these patients took these supplements in good faith that they were taking a gentle and non-toxic natural product, and instead, they were taking a synthetic antiicrobial that caused side effects.

the alternative supplement business needs some kind of objective testing organization to expose this kind of fraud in the supplement business.

These guys market a natural product, then use cheap synthetic ingredients that might do the same thing.. and no one is the wiser because no one is testing anything.

added note:
I notice these supplements came from 3 different companies in 3 different countries: Italy, Sweden, and Germany. To me this indicates that this practice of substituting a cheap synthetic with similar action for the more expensive natural ingredent might be more common than we realize. The motivation has to be money.. I guess there is a nice profit margin to manufacture with cheap ingredients, then sell for the price that you would charge if it was really made with natural ingredients.

scorpiotiger · � #11 � 12-16-2008, 08:24 PM

another example:
A vitamin a day may do more harm than good - Diet and nutrition- msnbc.com

Quote:

A vitamin a day may do more harm than goodConsumerLab.com report finds unexpected nutrient levels, contamination

By Jacqueline StensonMSNBC contributor
MSNBC
updated 11:26 a.m. ET, Fri., Jan. 19, 2007

If you're banking on a daily vitamin to make up for any deficiencies in your diet, you may be getting a whole lot more — or less — than you bargained for.

Of 21 brands of multivitamins on the market in the United States and Canada selected by ConsumerLab.com and tested by independent laboratories, just 10 met the stated claims on their labels or satisfied other quality standards.

Most worrisome, according to ConsumerLab.com president Dr. Tod Cooperman, is that one product, The Vitamin Shoppe Multivitamins Especially for Women, was contaminated with lead.

"I was definitely shocked by the amount of lead in [this] woman's product," he said. "We've never seen that much lead in a multivitamin before."

Other products contained more or less of a particular vitamin than listed on the label. And some did not dissolve in the correct amount of time, meaning they could potentially pass through the body without being fully absorbed.

"Half the products were fine, half were not," said Cooperman.

ConsumerLab.com is a Westchester, N.Y.-based company that independently evaluates hundreds of health and nutrition products and periodically publishes reviews. In the new report, released to MSNBC.com, the company purchased a selection of the popular multivitamins on the market as well as some smaller brands and sent them, without labels, to two independent laboratories to be tested.

On a positive note, several of the most popular multivitamins on the market did pass muster, said David Schardt, a senior nutritionist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group in Washington, D.C.

These included Centrum Silver, Member's Mark Complete Multi (distributed by Sam's Club), One A Day Women's and Flintstones Complete.
"I think this confirms the advice often given: You're safer choosing a well-known brand sold by some company or store that you have confidence in," Schardt said. "There are no guarantees but that's your best bet."

Random vitamin testing isn't foolproof. For instance, because ConsumerLab.com tested several bottles from a particular lot number of each vitamin, it's not a given that products produced at a different time would have the exact same contents. But detectable problems are a red flag that there could be problems with a company's production process.

In the report, tests showed that The Vitamin Shoppe women's product contained 15.3 micrograms of lead per daily serving of two tablets.

This amount of lead is more than 10 times the amount permitted without a warning in California, the only state that regulates lead in supplements, Cooperman said. On average, most American adults are exposed to about 3 micrograms of lead through food, wine and other sources, he said, and while 15.3 micrograms of lead per day may not be immediately toxic, the mineral is stored in the body and could build up to dangerous levels with time.

"I would be concerned about a woman taking a multivitamin that contains 15.3 micrograms of lead per daily serving," said Judy Simon, a dietitian at the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle. Among other effects, she said, lead can contribute to high blood pressure.

The same product also contained just 54 percent of the 200 milligrams of calcium stated on the label.

The analysis also showed that Hero Nutritionals Yummi Bears, a multivitamin for children, had 216 percent of the labeled amount of vitamin A in the retinol form, delivering 5,400 International Units (IU) in a daily serving. That's substantially more than the upper tolerable level set by the Institute of Medicine of 2,000 IU for kids ages 1 to 3 and 3,000 IU for those 4 to 8.

Because too much vitamin A can cause bone weakening and liver abnormalities, the Yummi Bears "could be potentially doing more harm than good," Cooperman said. "Vitamin A is one of those vitamins where you really don't want to get too much."

Schardt said the lead and vitamin A findings are worrisome because vitamins are generally taken every day, potentially building up to toxic levels and leading to problems down the line. In particular, he noted, women with high levels of lead in their bodies who become pregnant could pass on problems to a fetus.

David Morrison, vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs at The Vitamin Shoppe, said his company's products are all tested more than once, including screening for lead, and he questioned the new results. "It would be very surprising to me if this were actually true," he said.
Hero Nutritionals did not respond to calls seeking comment.

Steve Mister, president and CEO of the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade group in Washington, D.C., that represents supplement manufacturers, said that if the findings on lead and vitamin A are, in fact, accurate, "that is not acceptable for the industry."

But he also said that top manufacturers consistently produce quality products and that with 150 million Americans taking vitamins or other dietary supplements annually, few problems surface.

"If we had a serious issue of safety, we'd be hearing concerns from consumers in large numbers and we're not," he said.

The ConsumerLab.com report also found that some vitamins didn't break apart within the 30-minute standard set by the United States Pharmacopeia. Nature's Plus Especially Yours for women required more than an hour to disintegrate, while AARP Maturity Formula took 50 minutes.
These products "could potentially go through your body without releasing all the nutrients," Cooperman said.

Mark Kitchens, an AARP spokesperson, said the Maturity Formula undergoes routine testing, and that during testing in November "among the attributes tested was dissolution and it met FDA requirements." Still, "as precautionary measures to protect our members" AARP is pulling the product from the market and offering refunds to anyone who has purchased it, he said.

In other findings, Eniva VIBE, a multivitamin liquid sold in packets, had only 54 percent of the claimed vitamin A.

ConsumerLab.com also tested a vitamin marketed for dogs called Pet-Tabs Complete Daily Vitamin-Mineral Supplement for Dogs and found the product was contaminated with 1.4 micrograms of lead per tablet.

Whether most people — or dogs, for that matter — really need to take a multivitamin is a subject of debate.

Experts agree that prenatal vitamins are important for women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, and that people with very poor diets can benefit from nutrients in a pill.

Schardt says multivitamins offer everyone "an inexpensive insurance policy." But Cooperman and many dietitians note that it's better to get your nutrition from a well-balanced diet.

"In many cases, you don't need a multivitamin," Cooperman said.

What bothers me is that the manufacturers seem to be saying, well, customers aren't keeling over, so no problem. But what I think happens is that someone hears about someone else's great results, buys a supplement they think contains the same thing.. it doesn't, and it doesn't work for them. They don't keel over, but they say.. guess it must be in their heads.. this didn't do anything for me.

imo, supplement companies are digging their own grave by not finding some way to address this problem. If these natural products really do have healing properties, then they are shortchanging the industry, as well as the customers, by not delivering what is on the label.

I really think there would be a market now for a magazine like Consumer Reports, but for the alternative health industry, where supplements would be tested and reports published. All results. Where the income would be from the magazine.

Something that doesn't cover whether or not you should take the supplement or not, that would be the choice of the customer, just like other products. This would just be reporting on whether the product delivered what was on the label. And which companies had the best record for this.