Efficacy of supplements and alternative 'meds'?

[quirkyme]

With TV guru Dr. Mahmet Oz hauled before Congress for his promotion of alternative 'meds' it might be good to know about a site that monitors discredited medications and treatments.

"Let the buyer beware."

quackwatch.org/

[PatV]

Good to know about this site. I like to be well informed. I do think Dr. Oz is doing a great job, not that I watch every day.

[srarndt]

thanks, quirky!

[Hidden]

The site is probably sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry and therefore not objective.

[soup in reply to Hidden]

quackwatch.org/00AboutQuack...

Unlikely I think.

[quirkyme in reply to soup]

caveat emptor, let the buyer beware.

As a former RN I am ever skeptical of alternative medications. Others can do as they choose but I remain skeptical. People have been 'burned' too many times before over fads and unsubstantiated medications and treatments. Look at homeopathy, completely bogus and yet people spend millions on quack meds.

[quirkyme in reply to Hidden]

here is their statement.

"Quackwatch is an international network of people concerned about health-related frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies. The primary focus of our Web sites is on quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere. The organization was founded in 1969 as the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud and was incorporated as a nonprofit in 1970. In 1997, it assumed its current name and began developing a worldwide network of volunteers and expert advisors. The nonprofit corporation was dissolved in 2008 after I moved to North Carolina, but our activities have not changed.

"Quackwatch has no salaried employees. It operates with minimal expense, funded mainly by small individual donations, commissions from sales on other sites to which we refer, sponsored links, and profits from the sale of publications. Money donated to Quackwatch supports research, writing, and legal actions that can protect many people from being misled.

"Many people wonder whether Quackwatch is a "front" for the American Medical Association, the pharmaceutical industry, the "medical establishment," or whomever else they might not like. Nearly every week I get e-mails accusing me of this—and worse. Quite frankly, the idea is preposterous.

"I have no financial tie to any commercial or industrial organization.

My viewpoints are not for hire. Even if they were, none of my imaginary funders would actually have a reason to hire me.

Standard medicine and "alternative medicine" do not actually compete for patient dollars. Well-designed studies have shown that most "alternative" methods are used in addition to—rather than instead of—standard methods.

"The total cost of operating our many Web sites is approximately $7,000 per year. If donations and other income fall below what is needed, the rest comes out of my pocket."

[soup]

I am totally with you Quirkyme.

I like to see peer reviewed proof. I want the larger-than-12-people double blind studies, the judgements made against recognised measures of Parkinson's symptoms, the DaT scan evidence that we are actually dealing with patients with Parkinson's and who have shown regrowth of neurons when it's claimed. I want results that say, "Better than" not "No worse than" when comparing a new treatment with a standard one. I want to know what the drop out rate is for participants and why they dropped out.

I want to know that people claiming to be Doctor So and So have right to the title and it is linked to the field of study. I want them to be well versed in the rigours of scientific investigation.

However, like religion, politics and which football team you support, there's no changing peoples' minds by discussion especially in countries where healthcare costs so much to the individual that supplements and alternative therapies seem like good value for money.

I am hoping that somebody comes up with a non toxic, side effect free, neuron stimulating herb but until then we'll keep on with the free to user medication that we can get through the NHS which so far has not proved to be deleterious and has controlled John's symptoms a treat.

[quirkyme in reply to soup]

Thank you for your excellent overview of the need to think clearly and fully about how we make medical decisions regarding our loved one's care. Before I offer something to my husband, that he put in his mouth and swallow, I want to know that is is safe and efficacious. He trusts me on this and I take the choosing of medication seriously (I'm a former RN).

So far his doctors and his medical care have been excellent (diagnosed 2007). He sees his PCP (Primary Care Practitioner), a general neurologist, and a urologist and takes meds prescribed by all three, although the problems are all PD related (neurogenic bladder in the latter, now completely controlled, but oh, what troubles we had last year)!