Im all for them being legal, but that law has been exploited to cash in on legal loopholes. You can claim anything you want as a long as its "herbal". I could take lawn clippings and garlic salt, put them in pills and say its an "herbal cure for aids". And some desperate people are going to sink lots of money into those pills. Do you think thats right? Think it won't happen? already does in smaller doses.
We have all seen the Enzyte commercials featuring smiling Bob, but Enzyte is just some crap thrown into a tablet , listed as herbal counting on the fact you would be too embarrassed to spread the rumour it doesn't work.
Herbal remedies are fine, but you claim they do something, you need to prove it.
Well if a person is incapable of finding his win lawn clippings and garlic salt he should suffer whatever.
The point I'm trying to get across is there are other methods for treating , most if not all, curses on our health. If a person is ignorant (not knowing) of these things he has absolutely no choice. The proposed law isn't so much about regulating products as about there being any ability for anybody to even discuss any alternative (practicing medicine). If a person is so lazy to not do as much research into their ailment as possible then so be it, I don't care. When it becomes that I can't do it for myself then I do care, quite a bit. Say I get cancer and I prefer not to go through the side-effects of chemo, the Gov is saying that I don't have the right to balance my ph level and increase my oxygen content in the hopes that I prolong my life. If passed it is the Gov that will decide what choices I have, do the chemo and nothing else.
You need proof, what would that look like. Here is an article to use as an example.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html
"
It sounds almost too good to be true: a cheap and simple drug that kills almost all cancers by switching off their “immortality”. The drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), has already been used for years to treat rare metabolic disorders and so is known to be relatively safe.
It also has no patent, meaning it could be manufactured for a fraction of the cost of newly developed drugs.
Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and his colleagues tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body and found that it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but not healthy cells. Tumours in rats deliberately infected with human cancer also shrank drastically when they were fed DCA-laced water for several weeks.
DCA attacks a unique feature of cancer cells: the fact that they make their energy throughout the main body of the cell, rather than in distinct organelles called mitochondria. This process, called glycolysis, is inefficient and uses up vast amounts of sugar.
Until now it had been assumed that cancer cells used glycolysis because their mitochondria were irreparably damaged. However, Michelakis’s experiments prove this is not the case, because DCA reawakened the mitochondria in cancer cells. The cells then withered and died (
Cancer Cell, DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.10.020).
Michelakis suggests that the switch to glycolysis as an energy source occurs when cells in the middle of an abnormal but benign lump don’t get enough oxygen for their mitochondria to work properly (see diagram). In order to survive, they switch off their mitochondria and start producing energy through glycolysis.
Crucially, though, mitochondria do another job in cells: they activate apoptosis, the process by which abnormal cells self-destruct. When cells switch mitochondria off, they become “immortal”, outliving other cells in the tumour and so becoming dominant. Once reawakened by DCA, mitochondria reactivate apoptosis and order the abnormal cells to die.
“The results are intriguing because they point to a critical role that mitochondria play:
they impart a unique trait to cancer cells that can be exploited for cancer therapy,” says Dario Altieri, director of the University of Massachusetts Cancer Center in Worcester.
The phenomenon might also explain how secondary cancers form. Glycolysis generates lactic acid, which can break down the collagen matrix holding cells together. This means abnormal cells can be released and float to other parts of the body, where they seed new tumours.
DCA can cause pain, numbness and gait disturbances in some patients, but this may be a price worth paying if it turns out to
be effective against all cancers. The next step is to run clinical trials of DCA in people with cancer. These may have to be funded by charities, universities and governments: pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to pay because they can’t make money on unpatented medicines. The pay-off is that if DCA does work, it will be easy to manufacture and dirt cheap.
Paul Clarke, a cancer cell biologist at the University of Dundee in the UK, says the findings challenge the current assumption that mutations, not metabolism, spark off cancers. “The question is: which comes first?” he says."
Look at those side-effects, two weeks of "DCA can cause pain, numbness and gait disturbances in some patients". Two weeks, go to the Doc and he says 'You're done, next' compared to well you have your first appointment for gamma radiation. That is the same stuff that if a cooked chicken is given a 'good dose' you can seal it up in a vacuumed bag and leave it in the cupboard for several years before you eat it.
Nobody could ever be forced to try any alternative . There are very few places where you can be treated with gamma. Getting somebody out in the sticks some baking soda is going to be possible and I doubt the isle that it can be found in doesn't even have a line you have to wait in. Would you call it a crime that information being withheld from the man in the sticks that, lacking gamma, he might try something else for a few weeks.
Really where is the profit in eliminating a condition somewhere for a few pennies and then still have some people pay millions to get a burst of solar wind.
If big pharm wasn't strictly about the bottom line concerning the profits of its shareholders then whatever monies have been made by all of them that was based on something they found in Brazil's rain forest (and brought back a sample of and found something useful or harmful) and then made any money off of they would have given some portion of that money back to them. This is different from an idea being developed because somebody gave somebody else an inspiration which they followed and made a monotary profit), it involved something that has always been classified as a national resource. Since the original intent was for that very purpose (to make money, which they did unless nothing was ever made from anything in that plant that was unique to that specific area) they should have been some kind of contract made with the people before the plants were removed from where they were found, I doubt that was done, more likely, "here, have some blankets and the cheque is in the mail". That is why some contracts today have royality clauses attached, as long as the product is useful somebody gets a payment.
