Isn't requiring valid evidence and comprehensive testing for drugs a reasonable approach? Many other countries recognize US FDA approvals (not always as the final word). It tends to be slower and more rigorous than what's done elsewhere.

Under the present administration, too many government agencies we've long relied upon are being neutered, run by incompetent political hacks and adopting policies that ignore accepted scientific evidence of all kinds. And even dismissing scientists and limiting what they can do and where they can speak. You'll have to wait until the Neaderthals are back in their caves.

Scientific testing and conclusions is always a nice thing to have, but we don't always have it. Or sometimes we have it but it's not done well or in a scientific way as to be conclusive...or not yet peer reviewed and repeated so as to add confidence to the results.

So sometimes we take a chance. Sometimes it helps, even if there isn't any scientific evidence, for real or as a placebo. If it's sufficient to alleviate suffering, whether scientific or not, then I say go for it, so long as it does no harm.

Annie, the absence of negative evidence for something doesn't in that way provide positive evidence. And the absence of evidence suggesting something is harmful, isn't itself evidence that it's helpful. Untested and unproven are just that.

Supplement providers intentionally produce products that meet the existing exemptions for not requiring testing and approval. Many supplement products when tested simply for contents don't contain the ingredients on their labels and do contain ingredients that aren't listed. There are many physicians and scientists who want the vitamin and supplement field to be better regulated, it's the wild west now. Maybe at a future time.

I recognize all you've said, elmer, but the fact remains the placebo effect can be quite powerful, so if someone thinks it helps and it does, then that's fine...as I say so long as it does no harm.

People were using willow bark to alleviate pain long before aspirin was around....they weren't wrong, they were helped even though the scientific evidence had yet to be discovered. And over the decades, we have seen many instances where the scientific evidence for practices comes long after people have been benefiting from them.

It is the wild west...always has been...probably always will be.

My thought with the various supplements and actually all medication is that knowing that it may not help you or could even harm you then you go ahead and use it you and your family have no grounds for suing anyone if you become ill from it and/or die. I have used various herbal things when I was younger and even off the label medicines but I did it with the knowledge that if anything went wrong I was to blame and not the manufacturer. Some people can not use things that are safe for others along with the reverse.

There is a difference if a manufacturer knowingly adulterates a medicine but most herbal supplements are grown in fields and harvested often by machines that do not recognize one plant from another. It is common for other plants to be mixed together.

Gotcha, annie. Tell me though - if something is untested, should it be made available at all? Because if untested, there's no way to know it causes no harm and if unregulated, no way to know what's in the container. .

The willow bark example recalls the expression "even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile". You may know that folk medicine going back centuries and millennia was a belief system, not a science. Benefits were assigned to materials available in the area and procedures performed. If 1 % of the materials actually had the effect that was alleged, that doesn't take away from 99% being wholly ineffective.

Reminds me of this video

My two favorite quotes from this clip are

"Well science KNOWS it doesn't know everything otherwise it would stop"

And

"Herbal medicines been around for thousands of years, indeed it has; and we've tested it all and the stuff that works became "medicine"" and the rest is just a nice bowl of soup and some potpourri."

Cute, I hadn't seen or even heard of him before. I liked the drowning line and he is right about homeopathic potions - they're tolerated because the active ingredients are diluted so mega-significantly they're not present at all. So, water.

Although I do take a couple of supplements, I agree that there isn't enough oversight guaranteeing that all the ingredients are labeled and safe. We demand it of the food and drug industry but not supplements, especially herbal ones. I take Holy Basil, an adaptogen grown and used in India since ancient times. I did check with my Dr. and he said there was absolutely no harm in taking it. When I asked him if I was imagining the good results he said "no, it really can help with that". He could have been telling a white lie for my sake but I don't think so. Then again, my Doctor is Indian and he said that all Indian families have that herb growing in their garden, it's not only a medicinal herb, it is a sacred one, too. That's why I am leery about the safety of all this CBD oil that is everywhere now, I'm afraid that a lot of it is a bunch of people coming out with quick concoctions to get in on this suddenly huge money-making fad. The other supplements I take are vitamin drops and I have to just trust that they are the real deal and safe to take.

Yes Elmer it should be made available because it can work. I know, eg, many who don't believe in chiropractors, but in my experience...and that of my friends and family members, it's helped *a lot*. And I know of others who refuse chiropractic care and instead go for physical therapy or rely on drugs to no avail and suffer dearly for it. Granted there are good practitioners and lousy ones like in any profession so referrals are very important. Again, wild west. But now there is scientific evidence that chiropractic care can help.

It should be made available because I know, for example, that most doctors know very little about nutrition, even though what we feed ourselves on a daily basis has a huge impact on our health. It's only been in the last several decades that doctors even focused on the impact of diet on health. And so much of nutrition science is underfunded because no one is going to be patenting and making monopoly profits off of, say, broccoli.

It should be made available because we know doctors don't know everything and can be wrong...remember when doctors used to recommend smoking to help you relax and soothe your throat? Or they'd prescribe long-term bed rest vs. now when they try to get patients up and moving as soon as possible?

It should be made available because not all medical knowledge resides with western doctors. For example, my neighbor was in a boating accident and was told he wouldn't walk again. Abandoned by western medicine, he turned to chinese medicine and now he's fine. In fact, he was so impressed, he went to china to learn it and is now a practitioner here in the states. He has suggested various herbal remedies for us and they've helped a lot. For example, when I broke my ankle, he recommended a particular herbal mix which I took. Not only did my ankle heal quickly, and my shoulder stopped hurting which had been bothering me, but my other ankle which was still enlarged from when I'd broken 10 years early, went back to normal size too. DH was diagnosed with arthritis and bone on bone in his thumb to the point it was hard for him to grasp anything. The doctor offered surgery to actually sever the bone. Instead we put him on chinese herbs and his arthritis is much improved and his thumb very usable.

It's also not if, even with scientific research and the FDA drug approval process, drugs are only beneficial...to wit the opioid crisis which has led to 400,000 deaths from 1999-2017. The profit motive is as big a factor with "medicine" as is is with "alternative medicine".

After all, all a physician can do is cut something out or prescribe toxic medication. If someone finds another way to better health that works for them, then they should have access.

I agree we'd be better served if the supplements and herbal remedies were tested to be sure they contain what they say they do as so few actually do, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be made available. People have a right to spend/waste their money as they see fit. And it's no less caveat emptor than it ever was.

If it's on the internet it must be okay. LOL

Celebrities are rife with doing stupid things.........that blonde bimbo's latest one is 'vaginal steaming' which she swears by. Women are doing it and one was taken to hospital with serious burns. Squatting over a pot of boiling water type thing. There are surely many more who are injured but are too embarrassed to say what happened.

Let's talk about coconut oil. There isn't a nutritionist out there who purports it to be healthy. Since its a saturated fat, I could never understand how it would be better for you than say olive oil. It's good for your hair and skin, but to eat it? I'll pass.

The theory is that coconut oil is higher in medium chain vs long chain fatty acids which have purportedly shown to help insulin resistance and reduce fat. But there's a lot more evidence that needs to be presented, and mice ain't people. All fat is high in calories and should be used, but sparingly.

I no longer bother with the herbs and supplements. In the 90's I tried a few but felt no results. My skepticism increased as reports of mislabeled ingredients etc. emerged. I am uncomfortable not knowing what is in that capsule or pill so I am done with them.

Honestly, I would extend this to many, many things that licensed medical doctors prescribe as well. Years ago, I took a course called something like the Anthropology of Medicine. It looked at Western medicine as well as those of other cultures. I can't remember specifics, but it was eye-opening. Also, prescription drug addiction is not uncommon and, from what one hears on the news, often started by the mishandling of pain prescriptions by doctors.

"For example, the EPA won't issue warning labels for Roundup."

Have you ever read a pesticide label? The label - which is required by law by the EPA for any pesticide - very clearly carries various warnings (Danger, Caution, and Warning - assigned by degree of toxicty) as well as as admonitions on wearing protective clothing and eye gear (and even masks at times), to avoid inhalation or ingestion and what do if exposed to the product, how to address spills, animals or wildlife it may affect and how, etc. and even this very important and most overlooked warning: never use in a manner for which the product is not clearly labeled.

How much more of a warning do you want?? There is no warning that it may cause cancer because that connection has not been proven.

I had to laugh at the Holy Basil because I do visit various garden centers and have seen several different Basils labeled as Holy Basil. Although I do not know if it is the type that is actually Holy Basil but I have purchased from an Indian store a package of basil seeds and grew them. Was an interesting plant with fuzzy gray leaves and while the seeds had flavor the leaves did not.

The slightly purple plant that is sold at one grower as Holy Basil is excellent as a crisp fried leaf to top or add to things for texture and flavor.

"There is no warning that it may cause cancer because that connection has not been proven."

And it probably never will be here in the U.S.

Yes, I read labels, including pesticide labels. And how much of a warning do I want, you ask? What is provided is sufficient for my purposes, as I do research for added information.

There is no need to come at me with double question marks, bold type, and veiled sarcasm, Gardengal.

If an adequate warning for your purposes, then why even come in with that comment? And it probably won't ever be proven here or elsewhere. All manner of very common substances may be potentially carcenogenic or contributory but they do not come with any warning label either. It is very hard to prove direct cause and effect.

btw, I am free to use any sort of bolding or exclamatory punctuation as I like and that I feel illustrates my point. Don't like it?........ignore it!

I think it was Lancet that long ago ridiculed Americans as having "the most expensive urine in the world" due to ingesting vitamins and other 'supplements' (that are simply excreted).

I take D3 because my blood tests show a deficiency without it. I started taking a muli-vitamin a few months ago. With no appetite, I'm struggling to stay above 100 lbs. I know I'm not eating the 'balanced diet' that would fulfill my body's needs.

Humans want to believe they can 'protect' themselves in many aspects of life. This is one. The makers of supplements are chuckling all the way to the bank, selling undetectable amounts of what they claim to be this or that, which has this or that effect. (They don't want to risk putting a *potent* amount of anything into the product. Lawsuit!) What's the harm? Everybody's *happy*. lol

I shared the comment because it was my contribution to the discussion, Gardengal.

And I would never ignore your messages simply because of your communication style. There's much to be learned from it.

Just a few years back some consumer group or other went around to stores and purchased bottles of some of the most popular herbal remedies and found they pretty much did not actually contain the labeled herb or so little of it as to be pointless for deciding if that herb was actually useful for curing your targeted problem. Sal palmetto and St John's wort were two of the tested herbs. Oh, Gingko Biloba was another. No source was better than any other. I take B-12 and even though I researched the source and company I still have less then stellar confidence in whether or not I am getting the B-12 I need. At least my levels went back up to normal but still, I would love to have federal testing for this sort of stuff.

If you have a supplement that you feel is helpful, but worry about adulterated product -- there are a very few brands that submit to USP testing for quality control. Look for that indication on the label.

Intentional or not, adulteration with undisclosed and potentially toxic substances -- including outright addition of chemicals or known medications, not just other herbs growing in proximity and unintentionally harvested - is very real and much more common than most might suspect.

The bark of several species of willow does contain a chemical that acts a bit like asprin.

Ref: WebMD

Willow bark is the bark from several varieties of the willow tree,
including white willow or European willow, black willow or pussy willow,
crack willow, purple willow, and others. The bark is used to make
medicine.

Willow bark acts a lot like aspirin, so it is used for pain, including headache, muscle pain, menstrual cramps, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis, gout, and a disease of the spine called ankylosing spondylitis.

Willow bark’s pain relieving potential has been recognized throughout
history. Willow bark was commonly used during the time of Hippocrates,
when people were advised to chew on the bark to relieve pain and fever.

Willow bark is also used for fever, the common cold, flu, and weight loss.

Salicin, the active ingredient in willow bark, seems to have
contributed to the death of the composer, Ludwig von Beethoven.
Apparently, Beethoven ingested large amounts of salicin before he died.
His autopsy report is the first recorded case of a particular type of kidney damage that can be caused by salicin.

How does it work?Willow bark contains a chemical called salicin that is similar to aspirin.

I used to take supplements. When I did I had a membership to consumerlab.com. They test many many different brands of supplements and post their findings on the website. I found it eye opening. In the end I did not find any benefit to taking the supplements so I stopped and cancelled my membership. At the time it was something like 35 dollars a year. I am sure that it is more expensive now. But it may be worth it to those who regularly take such things.