Alliance For Natural Health

[Scutellaria]

Natural or Not – Does it Matter to You?

 

Internationally renowned scientist and sustainability expert, Dr Robert Verkerk, previously from Imperial College London and now executive and scientific director of the Alliance for Natural Health, is coming to the Isle of Man for the first time to provide the island with a unique insight into how European laws and international trade guidelines threaten our health and, even more so, those of future generations. Amongst other things, Dr Verkerk will address:

 

• How European authorities are trying to impact complementary and natural therapies during the coming years

• How we will face mounting pressure to eat GM foods

• How international Codex guidelines and standards benefit big business

• Why health authorities will continue to push for water fluoridation schemes

• Why low frequency electromagnetic radiation from communication systems pose such risks to our health

 

Even more importantly – Dr Verkerk will explain how we can all work together to deal with these threats and help create a brighter, greener, cleaner and healthier future for all!

 

At Ballakermeen Studio Theater on Wednesday 29th April starting at 7:30pm.

 

For further information about the Alliance for Natural Health see their website www.anhcampaign.org

[Sebrof]

Internationally renowned scientist?

 

Really? He's funded by people like Holland and Barrett, so don't expect too much "science".

 

S

[Alias]

aha - 'independent scholar', be wary. Note he wasn't a lecturer/professor as perhaps implied.

[Chinahand]

When I googled the guy the results set off my woo detector. Highly skeptical!

[bluemonday]

George Formby will be delighted, he's been very concerned about Mr. Woo and his Chinese Laundry.

Something to do with some missing socks I believe.

[Hermes]

Looking past the comments above, I peeked at the ANH website, and have to say that the Alliance appears to be an 'above the line' organisation, rather than a crackpot enterprise...

 

I am sure that a habitual MF cynic could just as well apply the same 'Crazy-Woo' factor to organisations such as Liberty or the trade unions or, for that matter, the St John's Ambulance (...and have you seen the kind of people that join up to that?)

[Terse]

[Chinahand]

I am sure that a habitual MF cynic could just as well apply the same 'Crazy-Woo' factor to organisations such as Liberty or the trade unions or, for that matter, the St John's Ambulance (...and have you seen the kind of people that join up to that?)

- In less than two minutes he's Godwin'ed himself and is comparing a UN/WHO body to the Nazi's. He then basically claims his science is better than other people's science - he's hitting all the right woo buttons if you ask me.

 

If you go ask if either he, or his organization, or any of the organizations he, or his organization, sponsors, have published peer reviewed research in journals like the Annual Review of Nutrition.

 

Dr R Verkerk has 10 citations in PubMed - none seem to be directly related to nutrition or vitamins - or natural health for that matter - what the heck does that mean by the way.

 

The Youtube link makes out he's an advocate of lots and lots of vitamins, good for him.

 

He's also worried about additives etc - fine - is he doing science, or just publicity. If he claims the science is being surpress be highly skeptical of his claims that is all I'm saying.

 

There are lots of snake oil salesmen out there with a pill for every problem - even a natural pill!

 

Edited to add - when you have someone saying something like this ...

 

Verkerk said that it was "utterly inappropriate" to use randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess homoeopathy and other complementary medicines, arguing that "as soon as you put someone into a trial situation, you destroy many of the effects that exist between patient and practitioner."

 

... then you know you are dealing with woo in its most pure essence - in a randomized, double blind trial neither the patient or the practitioner know whether the relationship has been "destroyed or not" - and if the essence of the effect cannot be seen when this occurs then it is by definition no stronger than a placebo.

 

Placebo's help people - no doubt about it. But placebos are orders of magnitude cheaper than woo potions sold by quacks - and that is the point, why spend the money when the effect is so small.

[T.I.N.G.]

"The ANH is mainly financed by donations from private individuals and vendors of dietary supplements. Its support base consists of Complementary Health Associations, Consumer & Health Advocacy NGOs, Innovative manufacturers, suppliers & distributors, and Trade Associations"

Says it all really.

[Frances]

"The ANH is mainly financed by donations from private individuals and vendors of dietary supplements. Its support base consists of Complementary Health Associations, Consumer & Health Advocacy NGOs, Innovative manufacturers, suppliers & distributors, and Trade Associations"

Says it all really.

of course they support it - the profit margin on these totally unnecessary supplements is enormous - many of these supplements can be dangerous if overdosed - I'm all for Europe treating these as any other pharmaceutical product.

[Hermes]

Chinahand - Regarding the Verkerk quote about limitations of double blind randomised controlled trials, I think he is trying to say that they eliminate the metaphysical element to medicine from the hypothesis to be tested. The patient usually knows they are in a trial, which will in some way influence the result of the outcome. Isn't ethics a pain?

Any good doctor worth their salt will tell you that the 'laying on of hands' aspect of the craft has an unquantifiable benefit. The method we like to refer to as 'Science' cannot by definition deal with metaphysics.

 

I dont believe that anyone except those with specific diseases need supplements, and that a healthy diet, a good attitude and regular exercise are the key to health. Nevertheless, I think it should be the case that people should have the choice what to believe in health, as they do in religion. If you insist that people should only have the right to use 'the best' and 'most advanced' medicines, you make the push for Orthodoxy of modern science and the WHO/WTO look like the Catholic church's inquisitions to root out heretics in the 12th-16th centuries... or possibly the effort of the German administration in the 1930's and 1940's to root out unorthodox beliefs and lifestyles.

[Terse]

I think it should be the case that people should have the choice what to believe in health, as they do in religion.

Including the health equivalent of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[triskelion]

The method we like to refer to as 'Science' cannot by definition deal with metaphysics.

Yes, but only because science only deals with stuff that exists in the real world.

 

Health and medicine are not matters of personal preference - either something works or it doesn't. How can you argue that patients should not necessarily use the best medicines?

[Chinahand]

Chinahand - Regarding the Verkerk quote about limitations of double blind randomised controlled trials, I think he is trying to say that they eliminate the metaphysical element to medicine from the hypothesis to be tested.

 

 

I think it should be the case that people should have the choice what to believe in health, as they do in religion. If you insist that people should only have the right to use 'the best' and 'most advanced' medicines, you make the push for Orthodoxy of modern science and the WHO/WTO look like the Catholic church's inquisitions to root out heretics in the 12th-16th centuries... or possibly the effort of the German administration in the 1930's and 1940's to root out unorthodox beliefs and lifestyles.

Interesting points Hermes, but ones I find very problematic.

 

I agree that the "power of the healer" or whatever the words are, is important in medicine. But the simple fact is that some treatments are more effective than others, and some treatments can actually do harm - how do you examine a medicine's claims? If the treatment is so weak that its effects totally collapse under test conditions then I do not believe it is effective.

 

The double blind test is, in my mind, by far the best way to do this, and I am skeptical that some effective treatment will suddenly evaporate when tested - by what mechanism?

 

Most importantly what do you mean by metaphysics - I have great difficulty in accepting a non-causal intervention. The placebo effect has psychological and physiological effects - they can be measured and examined - it is not some ineffable metaphysical manefestaton.

 

If you are going to insist that NHS treatment must accept any untested treatment - with an automatic get out of jail card because because of some unexaminable metapyshical element then I have to strongly disagree with you.

 

I sympathize with your saying people should have freedom of choice - but that has to be an informed choice and I worry very much about people enforcing their opinions on children. For example, many people claim that prayer is a viable effective treatment, and refuse to allow themselves or their children to recieve modern medicine. This results in multiple deaths and serious conditions which could have been easily dealt with via antibiotics or other standard treatments.

 

If an adult understands the risks - fine, but no I do not think they should be allowed to enforce that belief on their kids. And quite definitely I do not think the state should be paying for treatments with no record of success, meaning that resources which could be better used elsewhere are wasted.

[knox_knox]

"The ANH is mainly financed by donations from private individuals and vendors of dietary supplements. Its support base consists of Complementary Health Associations, Consumer & Health Advocacy NGOs, Innovative manufacturers, suppliers & distributors, and Trade Associations"

Says it all really.

of course they support it - the profit margin on these totally unnecessary supplements is enormous - many of these supplements can be dangerous if overdosed - I'm all for Europe treating these as any other pharmaceutical product.

Totally unnecessary supplements?

Firstly - many sufferers of chronic illnesses find that supplements do indeed help them. Many of these sufferers take heavy medication which may suppress symptoms but for some strange reasons pharmaceutical companies don't seem to be offering so many cures. One of the reasons that these supplements have not been subjected to scientifically approved double blind tests is a financial one. You can't patent herbs and vitamins therefore there is little money to be made there and so pharmaceutical companies have no interest in them.

 

Secondly, this is being viewed from a very Anglo Saxon viewpoint. Usual procedure is something like this: go to doctor, doctor listens to problem/ symptoms and is already typing out a prescription before you've finished talking. In some other countries (with superior health services btw) it is normal to check out the patient properly. They may well try hands-on treatment and mild medication first before resorting to heavy medication. Frequently, natural products are tried first. For instance, German camomile is prescribed - and is excellent - for relieving external inflammation. Sinusitis? The normal prescription for that is Sinupret. Only vegetable ingredients and I have never known it to fail.

 

Thirdly, there are supplements such as CoQ10. Doctors in other countries are convinced of the efficacy of this supplement. But not only in other countries. A local nurse told me that it is the most prescribed heart treatment in Japan. I first became aware of this supplement through information from a professor at Nottingham University.

 

Codex Alementarius if passed will lower standards of organic foods. More chemicals will be permitted. In other words it will be very difficult to obtain unadulterated vegetables etc. If you prefer the chemical cocktails - fine - but please allow others the choice to purchase natural fruit and veg.

 

As for comments about needing protection from supplements, I would also like to be the judge of that myself. I really don't need Big Brother to decide what's best for me. And who protects me from the known dire side-effects of many medications? That's just an acceptable part of pharmaceutical profits apparently.