Comments on: 07-12-12 http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-12/ Promoting Science and Critical Thinking Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:58:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jason Wallwork http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-12/#comment-4838 Jason Wallwork Wed, 09 Nov 2011 12:52:31 +0000 http://www.skeptic.com/eSkeptic/?p=234#comment-4838 Did you read the entire article? The reason herbs are dismissed as quackery is because they haven't been scientifically proven to be effective. Once they are, they become part of mainstream medicine. In the US, the article also points out that there is a legal double standard when it comes to mainstream drugs and alternative medicine. The former have to be proven to be effective *and* safe. The latter don't require either. It's fine to research herbal remedies to see if there might be something to them. It's wrong to sell them as effective treatments until they have scientific evidence showing that they're safe and effective. Did you read the entire article? The reason herbs are dismissed as quackery is because they haven’t been scientifically proven to be effective. Once they are, they become part of mainstream medicine. In the US, the article also points out that there is a legal double standard when it comes to mainstream drugs and alternative medicine. The former have to be proven to be effective *and* safe. The latter don’t require either. It’s fine to research herbal remedies to see if there might be something to them. It’s wrong to sell them as effective treatments until they have scientific evidence showing that they’re safe and effective.

]]> By: Michael Vogler http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-12/#comment-3789 Michael Vogler Sat, 02 Jul 2011 20:23:32 +0000 http://www.skeptic.com/eSkeptic/?p=234#comment-3789 I see a clear double standard in comparing pharmaceuticals to herbal medicines, which is not acknwleged by most skeptics. Herbs are automaticly worthless, wnile Pharmaceuticals are automaticly good. Many medicines were synthesised directly from the herbal remidies. Yet the herbs are billed as quakery. Some exhamples are Aspirin from Birch bark, Penecillin from a mold, Digitalis from Foxglove, and pseudo-ephedrine from Ephedra. Link: http://www.drugtalk.com/coumadin/drugthread.php/t-13661.html I had a lot mor to say, but that was "spammy" I see a clear double standard in comparing pharmaceuticals to herbal medicines, which is not acknwleged by most skeptics. Herbs are automaticly worthless, wnile Pharmaceuticals are automaticly good.
Many medicines were synthesised directly from the herbal remidies. Yet the herbs are billed as quakery. Some exhamples are Aspirin from Birch bark, Penecillin from a mold, Digitalis from Foxglove, and pseudo-ephedrine from Ephedra. Link: http://www.drugtalk.com/coumadin/drugthread.php/t-13661.html
I had a lot mor to say, but that was “spammy”

]]> By: Phil Baldwin http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-12/#comment-2097 Phil Baldwin Wed, 04 Aug 2010 07:56:16 +0000 http://www.skeptic.com/eSkeptic/?p=234#comment-2097 Can you get Wikipedia changed? The article for this womans states basically, that black cohosh has some benefit. This is at odds with your assertion: "we do now have firm evidence regarding the efficacy of black cohosh" You will have reference to the source and the knowledge to update wiki. thanks Phil Can you get Wikipedia changed? The article for this womans states basically, that black cohosh has some benefit. This is at odds with your assertion:

“we do now have firm evidence regarding the efficacy of black cohosh”

You will have reference to the source and the knowledge to update wiki.

thanks

Phil

]]>