Bill C-51 - prescrip. for herbs and vitamins!!! PLS. READ - WILL AFFECT YOU

[SaggyBalls]

It is entirely true that many an herb are unregulated.

As long as they are produced safely and without harmful agents or improper curing methods, it is currently up to the consumer and his/her doctors to decide which products will work best.

And while some people don't understand that these herbs might not work best for them It is not up to the government...to keep us from clinging to what we read in periodicals, on the news, and read on the internet, or even eat the wrong herbs and supplements.

Although many people look to alternative medicine as a cure all, it is quite often the case that these products work to assist our bodies in working more efficiently and with the ability to regulate itself.

With proper balance and healthy bodies, we would not require many of the pharmaceutical products that we often take.

Bill C-51 would significantly affect our abilities to utilize preemptive medicine and nutrition as a way to live naturally and healthily.

This bill may seek to dispel all unsubstianted claims about a product's effectiveness, but it's everything else that this bill gives the Government authority over than makes it entirely unjust.

To my understanding there are some holistic remedies that are very small doses of substances that would be poisinous otherwise.

Taken in tiny amounts they can kickstart the body to start working against this substance and also an ailment that shares some likenesses to said substance's effects.

If THIS is the case, then those remedies would be some of the most at risk and some of those remedies are quite often most relied on to cure or manage illnesses with fewer risks than their pharmaceutical counterparts as they are trace doses. After all, it's poison, right?

Clinical testing is entirely costly and without deep pockets, is difficult to achieve. C-51 prohibits clinical testing unless specifically approved.

So, BradM - if there were clinical tests in the works for a herbal cure for diabetes and they were not approved, even if they were able to go on with private funding with consent from those involved...

...you would never be able to find out about it and the product could bever be sold. A choice that would never be afforded to yourself or anyone else.

Maybe not an entirely horrible situation but a freedom that the Harper Government would like to pluck from your hands and everyone else's.

And MoMack, to be sure to find an 'alternative-friendly' practitioner would require a health insurance plan from work or deeper pockets than most Canadians have.

It's hard to put a price on a child's health but when a parent doesn't have the extra $200 for a Naturopath then Big Pharma wins again.

Although there may be positive points to C-51, the negatives far outweigh them IMO and this is just another way for our Government to take our time and money and have another potentially fair and positive bill fail -- for as it is, it is wrought with disease.

This bill should not be passed in any form until nutritionists, naturopaths, chinese medical doctors, and Holistic practitioners are recognized by the government as Western Medicine has been and covered by our Canadian Medical safety net.

It is unfair to all Canadians to pass this bill without ensuring that Canadians are allowed to live their lives without Governement interfering.

Bill C-51 is not about keeping Canadians Healthy or affording them the abilities and freedoms to maintain their health.

Edited May 9, 2008 by Guest
I know that this post is long.

[ollie]

...they want to feed us chemicals, so much so that we are addicted to them.

Yes. It's been a dark secret but... I'm addicted to antibiotics. Please don't judge me.

[mattm]

I agree with all that above (in yours truly's last post), it's not that the products have to be tested, it's that it takes away my choice and that is wrong and I don't care what anyone says otherwise. This bill means that only those that can afford to test will be able to test and only those that are chosen to be tested will be able to and if there's enough money to lobbyists (and the pharma's give lots and lots and lots), there is a huge potential for things to get squashed that shouldn't.

I just read the entire bill and some of it makes perfect sense and I agree that there should be some sort of regulation but it goes too far and gives too much power to individuals and corps. to take away my power of choice. If this bill passes then I will be forced to put steroids on my baby's mouth and that will impact him in the long run much more than some natural herbs. Girls are hitting puberty and starting their menses around 9 years of age now and that has been linked to chemicals, some of which are provided by the big pharma's that care oh so much for our health. Some of the medications they provide help us greatly and for that they are good but most are un-needed (ritalin and other mind controlling substances en-lieu of better teaching or understanding practices). Leading a healthy life is much better than eating chemicals but every time I've been to the doctor they want to prescribe me some. I don't usually take them, like the cilins for colds and such, because you know what, with a positive outlook and some good food, the cold goes away all on it's own, just takes a day or two longer.

What I want to see is a list of "substances", what things will be affected by this?. Will the biodegradable diapers that don't contain any bleaches and other nonsense be hit? The soaps that don't irritate the skin as they lack the strong chemical elements that poor little babies can't handle?

It sucks because there will always be answers like ollies above. It's funny cause, yeah, it's true, as a society (perhaps not as individuals) we have become addicted to antibiotics to the point that they have lost a lot of potency.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_03.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/science/17puberty.html?pagewanted=print

Edited May 9, 2008 by Guest

[SaggyBalls]

HA!

There's a place for all medicine. \

It's too bad that people polarize the situation.

[bradm]

So, BradM - if there were clinical tests in the works for a herbal cure for diabetes and they were not approved, even if they were able to go on with private funding with consent from those involved...

...you would never be able to find out about it and the product could bever be sold. A choice that would never be afforded to yourself or anyone else.

I doubt the situation you suggest would actually occur.

I trust in the checks and balances in the system. If an herbal treatment was effective in curing diabetes, not only would the Canadian Diabetes Association (a non-profit, non-government, charitable organization) be all over it, the people who found or developed it would be a shoe-in for the Nobel Prize for Medicine.

Aloha,

Brad

[SaggyBalls]

Maybe for Diabetes, but not for, say warts and athlete's foot or hayfever, stomach ulcers, or hangnail infections and oral health...

Anyhow, I don't want to take this thread over any more.

The situation may not occur, but it's entirely possible and in the future it could be entirely probable.

the point's been made, The Luscious BradM countered my point, but not necessarily for the entire discussion.

let's hope nobody's been silenced here other than myself (for now)

[bradm]

Anyone know any herbal treatments for lusciousness?

Aloha,

Brad

[mattm]

lol, I too am now silenced as I am migrating back to the book I'm reading, part 3 of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Now that is something truly dumb and incomprehensible that I can understand

Edited May 9, 2008 by Guest

[onthejourney]

Firstly, I just want to say that I am not pro one thing and against the other. Pharmaceuticals have their place. For God's sake, if I get hit by a bus, don't take me to a naturopath or an herbalist!! The issue, as said above, is that there is a possiblity that my right to choice is going to be taken away. This is the issue. I am not trying to say that everyone should be on natural medicine...everyone has their own needs and is on their own path...I am not here to dictate that in anyway.

In response to Momack in regards to the counterindications between herbs and pharmas is a very valid point and again, this is why there needs to be some sort of regulation or information provided with certain herbs/vitamins, or rather, people should be consulting with someone who knows what they are doing. (really this should be part of our healthcare system available to everyone but that is another story all together)

In response again to the thesis done on the diabetes "cure" herb, I am actually surprised by the word "cure" initially because you are not allowed to claim that already, as a producer, manufacturer or natural health practitioner. It is illegal to use that word specifically so I find it interesting that those touting this herb could even say that. In fact, it is illegal to even say that you can cure cancer in north america (again another story all together).

As for clinical studies, there have been literally thousands of independant clinical studies documenting various herbs and their ability to manage or even do away with certain conditions and diseases. The reason they are not readily used is because an herb can not be patented and therefore useless to big pharma.

Let me give you an example of how big pharma takes a perfectly balanced herb and changes it to a patentable sythetic version.

In the case of Valium, the origins of this drug come from the herb Valarian. Valarian can be safely used at a specific dosage without all side effects of Valium. When you look a all the chemical constituents of an herb, imagine a graph with ups and downs above each chemical constituent, showing the levels. Often with an herb there are many small ones and one or 2 big highs. The pharma comes and isolates these highs, figuring that is what make the herb work. The create this synthetically in a lab, patent it an ta-da...you have Valium for example. The problem with this is that the herb itself was pretty much perfectly balanced and all those little 'ups' although little are important to balancing or cancelling out any side effects from the big ones. That is why once they have isolated the big ones and come out with something like valium, so many side effects abound now.

I know that might be confusing and I tried to explain it the best I could without a picture.

Brad M...I am not trying to be mean, but to the post above- these associations don't do much except make new drugs to mask symptomology. There is more money in treating than there is in curing. This is a sad, disturbing fact that would take entirely too long to get into here. But I beg of you to do some research on what a lot of these charities and organizations are spending their money on. Again, I am not painting them all with the same brush, but there is a whole lot of corruption going on there.

[onthejourney]

also thank you yours truly for being able to articulate things better than I.

[CyberHippie]

I still believe in the light deep in everyone that will turn this world around. I will try hang on to that.

All we gotta do is keep that spirit alive. Each morning light always triumphs over darkness. As long as we don't eff with that, we should be ok.

[mattm]

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=12580615687

[Hux]

I think the issue here is that people are reading the Bill and assuming that:

a) that is the final version that will be passed, and

that the discretionary powers the bill grants to the Minister will be used with almost military-like zeal, ie. the Health Canada storm troopers are going to knock down your door to seize your raisins.

Find me a country in the world where you need a prescription for vitamin C? Some of the things being assumed are in the tin-foil hat category. People should just relax a little.

[mattm]

true but I still don't want to see all the natural things I use pulled from the shelves.

[phishtaper]

People should just relax a little.

PT quietly sits in the corner and nods in agreement.

[phishtaper]

Brad M...I am not trying to be mean, but to the post above- these associations don't do much except make new drugs to mask symptomology. There is more money in treating than there is in curing. This is a sad, disturbing fact that would take entirely too long to get into here. But I beg of you to do some research on what a lot of these charities and organizations are spending their money on. Again, I am not painting them all with the same brush, but there is a whole lot of corruption going on there.

OTJ, if your intention here is to accuse the Canadian Diabetes Association, et al., of being ineffective and complacent with profit-driven pharmaceutical companies to the detriment of the Canadian public, you are very very wrong. It is beyond insulting to the thousands of volunteers and highly trained professionals that give of themselves to these associations.

I have been involved in a number of studies involving the CDA, Canadian Cancer Society, Canadian Lung Association, etc. and can vouch for the honour and hard work of the many individuals with whom Ive had the pleasure of interacting. They care for individuals affected by these chronic conditions and seek to prevent others from being affected.

While you may not have been trying to be mean, you were. Very.

[edger]

She did say that she was not painting them all with the same brush...

[Hux]

Maybe the government should speak with those on the Canadian Association of Herbal Practitioners or maybe the Canadian Naturopathic Association or maybe the Canadian Health Food Association to get a completely separate thing in regards to the natural health industry.

Penelope Marrett, president of the Toronto-based Canadian Health Food Association said there are misconceptions about Bill C-51. "People need to remember that we're an already regulated industry," she said. "Because these regulations are much newer than others, their variations [under Bill C-51] may not be as great."

Marrett said the bill does not suggest the removal of natural health products from store shelves.

"Herbalists and naturopaths will still be able to provide the products and the compounds that they do under the current situation," she said

From:

PUBLICATION: Times Colonist (Victoria)

DATE: 2008.05.12

EDITION: Final

SECTION: News

PAGE: A7

DATELINE: WINDSOR, Ont.

BYLINE: Sonja Puzic

[phishtaper]

sorry. she cant have it both ways.

she cant say "there is a whole lot of corruption going on there" and "these associations don't do much except make new drugs to mask symptomology" (whatever that actually means) and then half-assed excuse it with a "but im not saying they are all bad".

it was an enormously ignorant statement regardless of the caveat and im calling her on it.

[mattm]

http://www.vitalitymagazine.com/apr_08_helke

I like that article.

My mom has diabetes and I like the diabetes fighting people, I don't think they are bad. Still don't like the bill for other completely different reasons, mostly the power of the Inspectors and that I might no longer be able to get my nice organic shampoos and skin creams and such. No more burt's bees

[bradm]

Brad M...I am not trying to be mean, but to the post above- these associations don't do much except make new drugs to mask symptomology.

Others have addressed (better than I) how insulting your post was to the CDA and other similar organizations. But you have a couple of severely wrong misconceptions:

• The Canadian Diabetes Association does not make drugs.
  
• Insulin does not "mask" the symptoms of Type I diabetes.
  

Aloha,

Brad

Edited May 12, 2008 by Guest

[onthejourney]

okay...whoa

I am sorry if it was such an all-encompassing statement. Do you really think that I don't feel that all those people work hard and genuinely care for those afflicted, with say, diabetes? Give me a break! I know those people care! I know those people work their butts off! And I know that those with Type 1 Diabetes need insulin!

What I meant to say, is that there are some groups who, when you donate money to them, some of the money is given for research --- that is all well and good and I applaud research - I love it. But what I don't like is when money is used to get scientists and chemists to find a way to make a marketable and patentable drug for a condition, that in the end hurts people! (when there are often much safer ways) AGAIN...this is a broad statement and does not mean everyone is out to hurt people. Alot of scientists and chemists have the utmost best intention of helping people become well.

I will give you an example.

The new vaccine for HPV. This vaccine has already killed over 13 young girls. Over 3500 adverse events have been reported and over 400 have been reported serious (including complications like Bells Palsy, seizures, paralysis, and Guillian-Barre Syndrome). Of the 42 women vaccinated with HPV while pregnant 18 have experienced complications from fetal abnormalities to miscarriages. Most importantly, the lead researcher who spent 20 years developing the vaccine for HPV Diane M. Harper states that, "The HPV vaccine is not for younger women and that it is "silly" for anyone to be mandating it for them". She says, "The vaccine has not been tested for effectiveness in girls as young as 9 and it may not even protect them. And, in the worst-case scenario, instead of serving to reduce the numbers of cervical cancers within 25 years, such a vaccination crusade may actually cause the numbers to increase." Diane Harper, a scientist and professor states "Giving the vaccine to 11 year olds is a great big public health experiment. Not to mention that Gardisil only protects you from 4 of the 100 HPV viruses.

Now why, would the pharmaceutical company knowingly disregard that part of her research??

This is what I am bothered by. I am also bothered by the fact that if I donate money to the Canadian Cancer Society, only 2% of that money is going to preventative and natural medicine research.! Damn right this pisses me off! I have every right to be pissed off at the "big guys"!I know that there are so many people with great intentions and people who care for those in terminal illness and I would never, never say that they don't deserve respect and adulation. I am mad because I believe that health care would be so much different if people were taught proper preventative measures to health. If some of the sickening poisons we called food, we not allowed on the shelf and if some of the medicine that is approved, the company that sells it would actually follow the recommendations of the "little chemist closed up in room" figured out, instead of omitting it so that it becomes passed and people start dying!! Listen, I am not a proponent of natural health, because I take a vitamin here and there. I have been to school for various forms of natural medicine (and still going) and I have seen people become well, from serious diseases, simply by changing diet and using certain herbs and vitamins! One of my old professors who has been in this for over 40 years has seen people heal from cancer and the like. So of course I am mad, when I KNOW that people can heal without the side effects of some other treatments! and then there is a possibility of this being taken away from me and from others! I am not saying I know everything! Far from it. But what it comes down to is choice. It is my choice to heal myself the way I want to. And please, for the love of god, I never in anyway wanted to put those down that work and care so much...I know they do, and I never meant to do that. I should have elaborated more, but to be honest with you, I hate sitting on the computer and I have a habit of not realizing that when I type something, people don't always understand what I mean.

Now, I realize that the Canadian Diabetes Association is there to inform people and help people find outlets for information on drugs and diet etc. But Brad M, you were the one that stated that if there was a "cure" from natural medicine for diabetes, that they would be all over it.

Hux - the bill has already gone through 2 readings. All that remains is a third reading and then Royal Assent. I would love to updated on proposed changes to the bill by members of the house. I know there are several organizations that have put forth discussion papers to the government on clarification on terms.

Also, if you go to the Canadian Health Food Associations website, they too have letters to the gov and ways to voice your concerns over this bill.

Another thing, where Codex Alimentarus has become law in the EU (in my opinion, bill c-51 is leading up to us complying with this as well) in France, I heard that one woman got arrested for making therapeutic level Vitamin C 500mg on her own because now all they can get is low dose Vit. C.

[mattm]

http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&Chamber=N&StartList=A&EndList=Z&Session=15&Type=0&Scope=I&query=5420&List=stat

There's the link if anyone wants to follow the bill's progress...

I also spoke with my MP who is NDP (who are against the bill) and he sent me back a transcript of the NDP arguments but I can't post the pdf anywhere, although I bet it's on their site somewhere.

[onthejourney]

thank you mattm

[phishtaper]

I am also bothered by the fact that if I donate money to the Canadian Cancer Society, only 2% of that money is going to preventative and natural medicine research.!

on what are you basing this? ive worked with the research arm of the Canadian Cancer Society - the National Cancer Institute of Canada - and can attest that a great deal more than 2% of its research budget goes towards studies which examine areas of cancer prevention and natural medicine. In fact, researchers at the Centre for Behavioural Research and Program Evaluation at the University of Waterloo (funded in part by the CCS) are actively involved in exploring complementary and alternative medicine in cancer prevention and treatment, as are dozen of other funded researchers across Canada.

Moreover, a great deal of the CCS's public promotions programs specifically target healthy lifestyle choices, including risk reduction and healthy eating. It's not all profit-driven clinical trials as you seem to suggest.

You can also thank the CCS and the Canadian Lung Association for the fact that public smoking has been largely banned across the country. No small feat, and a battle that was waged for more than 3 decades.

where are you getting your information, OTJ? You are not giving fair credit to the very good work being done by these researchers. your sources seem to be not only biased but just plain wrong.