[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: NY TIMES SLAMS ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE ON FRONT PAGE



Thanks for stating this so clearly.  We do need a new way to deal with 
this.   I've been very disappointed that the long-term NIH meno studies 
are apparently focussing on the know W.A. products (Premarin, Provera) 
and ignoring (as far as I know) estrogens natural to the human body and 
progesterone.

If I'm wrong about this I'd be glad to be corrected!!

Thanks in advance,

dn

leagle1140@aol.com (Leagle1140) wrote:
>
>Re: the NYT article . . . 
>
>    Notice that the author's real problem with alternative treatments is
>that they are "untested."  By this she means that they have not been
>subject to scientifically rigorous and controlled experiments.
>
>    Unfortunately, patent law and the FDA Act have an unfortunate
>intersection where natural medicines are concerned.  Patent law makes it
>impossible to safeguard intellectual property rights in natural products. 
>Plants, for example, are generally not patentable.
>
>    At the same time, the FDA divides its regulatory structure into
>"foods" and "drugs."  Foods require only a GRAS determination - a showing
>that something is generally recognized as safe.    This is a low hurdle,
>and that's why most herbal medicines are sold as food supplements.
>
>     Drugs require a showing of efficacy - in other words, scientific
>proof (within statistical parameters).   This requires an enormous
>investment of time and money (not to mention a stable of research
>scientists and attorneys).   I should know, I am a D.C. lawyer who has
>dealt with this process.
>
>   Because patent law won't allow big companies to recoup the investment
>required to get something approved as a drug by the FDA, studies on herbal
>medicines and alternative therapies will NEVER take place, unless the
>public sector or charities step in.
>
>     A very strange effect of two otherwise very well-intentioned legal
>regulatory schemes.  Any comments?
>
>
>Tree





References: