|
Misinformation About Pan, & Increased Regulatory Control of Alternative Medicines in Australia & NZ: Codex & the Global AgendaAnti-nutrition Bias, & Bizarre Beliefs About Codex and Pan: don't let the truth get in the way of a good biased storyIs the 'Natural Products Industry' Complaining About False Advertising in Support of the Natural Products Industry?
Who is Doing the Scaremongering and Who is Telling the Truth?
|
|||||||||||||||
Anti-nutrition Bias, & Bizarre Beliefs About Codex and Pan: don't let the truth get in the way of a good biased story |
|||||||||||||||
| Orthodox medicine has a very long history of vitaminphobia or
anti-nutrition bias (Medical Bias,
Nutrition is for the
Birds, Nutrition and Megavitamins,
Dietary Supplements,
Functional Foods or Dietary Supplements,
Nutrition Breakthroughs, Pan Crisis).
Deliberate medical bias of course is rooted in the desire to deceive and
mislead, usually for personal or commercial gain, and therefore
represents an abandonment of science (Medical Bias). I have repeatedly drawn attention to the false, misleading, or
scientifically baseless statements made by governments, health
authorities and others as a result of the Pan witch hunt
(see Pan Crisis,
Alternative Medicine Takeover,
Response
to Government Inquiry,
Therapeutic
Products Bill,
Regulatory Changes in the Land of the Free).
Since those who have made such false or misleading statements have
consistently refused to apologise or explain their actions one is left
with the distinct impression that their actions represent a deliberate
and devious attempt to justify the increased control of alternative
medicines by causing widespread
fear and panic about the safety of such products. Any deliberate
attempts to exploit the fears of consumers are absolutely despicable,
especially if such exploitation is based upon deliberate deceit. Some of the bizarre beliefs demonstrated by opponents of alternative medicine or those who have been relentlessly pursuing increased regulatory control of complementary or alternative medicines include the following:
There has also been a consistent campaign to discourage the public from establishing any connection between the simultaneous campaigns to control dietary supplements which are occurring in numerous countries throughout the world (TGA & Pan, Codex in Australia, Pan Crisis & Future of Alternative Medicines, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Therapeutic Products Bill, Regulatory Changes in the Land of the Free, Dietary Supplements, Dietary Supplements or Functional Foods, Nutrition Breakthroughs). Those pursuing increased regulatory control of alternative medicines in Australia and New Zealand for instance, consistently try to distance themselves from simultaneous campaigns to erode health freedoms in other countries, especially by stating "Codex" does not apply to Australia (Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Therapeutic Products Bill). Since they deny a common global theme for these changes promoters of such campaigns have demonstrated the following beliefs.
Since I have already considered the above matters elsewhere (Pan Crisis, TGA & Pan, Codex in Australia, Pan Crisis & Future of Alternative Medicines, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Therapeutic Products Bill, Regulatory Changes in the Land of the Free, Dietary Supplements, Dietary Supplements or Functional Foods, Nutrition Breakthroughs) I would like to focus here on recent claims in New Zealand that supporters of complementary medicine in that country have resorted to false advertising in their attempts to prevent the passage of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill (Therapeutic Products Bill).
|
|||||||||||||||
Is the 'Natural Products Industry' Complaining About False Advertising in Support of the Natural Products Industry? |
|||||||||||||||
On 2nd May 2007 an organisation called 'Natural
Products New Zealand' (NPNZ) issued a media release stating that they
had lodged a complaint with the
Advertising Standards Authority alleging that an advertisement
opposing the
Trans Tasman Bill placed in the New Zealand Herald by Health Freedom
New Zealand involved false claims (1).
According to Natural
Products New Zealand (NPNZ), which claims to represent (1)
"a substantial portion of the Natural Products industry"(1):
While NPNZ makes claims they represent a "substantial portion of the Natural Products industry" they do not claim to represent consumers of natural health products or health freedom advocates. In fact they carefully emphasize that they have a commercial agenda which is (2) "focused on international trade" and full membership of the organisation will not be granted unless the applicant is involved in the exporting of natural health products. Unlike consumers of natural health products however, NPNZ is an extremely new kid on the block, having been in existence for only 4 years (3). Interestingly, according to the New Zealand Health Trust, claims that NPNZ represent the natural health industry in New Zealand are (4) "demonstrably false" since they claim it (5) "does not represent the views of the majority of NZ businesses in the natural health sector" (4). It should be noted that when I recently contacted NPNZ and asked them the following question I received no response:
While false advertising cannot be justified regardless of who is responsible for it, when an organisation which claims to support complementary medicines complains about an advertisement which supports the retail complementary medicine industry and the maintenance of health freedoms it is worth a closer look. It is vitally important that the public is not misled by claims that an organisation represents the "natural products industry". Why would an organisation which claims to support the complementary medicine industry complain about the allegedly misleading nature of advertisements supporting consumers of complementary medicines? Are they simply impartially seeking truth in all advertising? Do they have a clear track record of impartially criticising all types of misinformation in the public health arena or is there evidence of selective concerns? It would seem to me that most organisations concerned with public health and safety of complementary medicines would object most vocally to those matters which pose the greatest public health risk OR which represent the most severe injustice and departure from truth. The most serious public health matter as far as therapeutic substances are concerned continues to be the scientifically proven dangers of pharmaceutical drugs and the complete inability of our current drug regulatory system to prevent the thousands of deaths which occur every year as a result of consumption of drugs which have allegedly been shown to be safe by double blind trials. This is an absolute scandal which should be at the top of the list of concerns for anyone genuinely interested in the safety of therapeutic products. On the other hand, the most important injustice and departure from truth in the natural health industry in Australia and New Zealand in the past 5 years has undoubtedly been the condemnation of complementary medicines when the pharmaceutical drug Travacalm was shown to be toxic (Pan Crisis). Condemning all complementary medicines when a drug was shown to be toxic represents a new low in dishonesty and mass deceit and a new high in the exploitation of consumers and the propagation of misinformation. Especially since the proposed legislative changes and tighter control of complementary medicines in New Zealand are clearly based upon the misinformation resulting from the Pan witch hunt (Therapeutic Products Bill) it is most noteworthy that NPNZ makes very little comment about this falsely based exploitation of fear (6):
While acknowledging that "the proximate cause of the further scrutiny of Pan was not a natural product, but was an over-the-counter pharmaceutical product" according to their media releases (7) NPNZ avoid any specific reference to the monumental injustice and mass deceit perpetrated upon the New Zealand people by this attempt to falsely blame complementary medicines for the toxicity of a pharmaceutical drug. Neither do their media releases (7) mention the enormous insult to the collective intelligence of the New Zealand people perpetrated by those who seem to expect New Zealanders to believe that all complementary medicines should be blamed for the toxicity of a pharmaceutical drug. And neither did they complain (7) when the New Zealand government sought to exploit the falsely based fears generated by the Pan debacle to justify a legislative campaign (Therapeutic Products Bill) to harmonise with Australia and introduce tighter control of complementary medicines (Therapeutic Products Bill). Not only did NPNZ fail to issue any media release about this monumental injustice (7), other than the brief mention above they completely avoided these matters in their news releases (7). Of course this matter may be partly rectified if NPNZ were to issue an urgent news release stating that the Pan drug crisis demonstrated once again the safety of complementary medicines (as compared to drugs) and condemning the exploitation of fear about the safety of such products and the use of the Pan drug crisis to justify trans Tasman harmonisation. In spite of the lack of concern displayed by NPNZ regarding the exploitation of falsely created fear amongst consumers which resulted from the Pan witch hunt, on 27th April 2007 they issued the following news release because of what they claimed was "scaremongering" and "misinformation" being circulated by people who opposed Trans Tasman Harmonisation and the Therapeutic Products Bill (which resulted from the dangers allegedly demonstrated by the Pan witch hunt) (8):
Following the above allegations about scaremongering in April 2007, NPNZ lodged their complaint with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in May (1) and the ASA upheld the complaints on 10th July and released the results on the 19th July (9,10,11,12). Since those who supported the Trans Tasman Bill and the control of complementary medicines in NZ have enthusiastically embraced the findings of the ASA, describing those who opposed the Bill as (10,11,12) "going ballistic", "telling lies", "chanting", and "scaremongering", it is vitally important we take a closer look at the initial complaint by NPNZ (1) and the findings of the ASA (9). Indeed, according to Annette King (10), "this decision epitomises the misinformation and lies that a minority of opponents used to pervert the democratic process." But these concerns about the democratic process are not consistent with the fact that Ms King preferred to do a deal in parliament rather than take the matter to the New Zealand people (10). Recently Gordon Copeland has again challenged Ms King to adopt a more democratic approach by listening to the people (13):
If democracy is uppermost on the mind of Ms King why the reluctance to take the matter to the people? Truth and the democratic process also seemed to be shamefully inconspicuous when Ms King used the Pan drug crisis to justify harmonisation and enhanced legislative control of supplements in NZ (14). And Michelle Beckett of NPNZ apparently claimed that those who opposed the Bill have (15) "vested interests" in the industry and (15) "her group will continue to give what she calls the honest version of what the bill is about." But if Ms Beckett is concerned about the corrupting influence of vested interests why not be guided by consumers rather than by the commercially motivated NPNZ? Perhaps Ms Beckett is recommending the matter should be taken to the people in a referendum so that the influence of vested interests may be minimised. Anger from doctors and medical associations in New Zealand (12) which has been directed at the complementary medicine industry because they claim defeat of the Bill will result in more difficulty (12) "accessing new and improved drugs", is also seriously misdirected to say the least. If doctors will be unable to access "new and improved drugs" then this would be the direct result of the intransigence of both Australian and New Zealand governments who have both absolutely refused to accept a compromise solution by exempting complementary medicines from the Bill (16, 25, 26). The anger of New Zealand doctors should therefore be directed totally at both Australian and New Zealand governments who have persistently refused to pass the Bill the doctors require. Their anger certainly should not be directed towards the complementary medicine industry since they have done absolutely nothing to reduce access to ""new and improved drugs". Are the conclusions of the ASA consistent with all the available evidence? And why would an organisation which claims to represent the natural products industry fail to issue any public complaint about probably the most monumental injustice ever perpetrated upon the natural products industry (the Pan debacle) and yet issue media releases and complaints about advertisements in support of natural products? Do the above matters justify expressing more concern than the misinformation resulting from the Pan witch hunt which the New Zealand government used to justify the current legislative crackdown on complementary medicines? Why express more concern about alleged "scaremongering" in support of complementary medicine while ignoring "scaremongering" which is falsely critical of complementary medicines? Does NPNZ consider scaremongering which falsely criticises complementary medicines to be unimportant? If so, why? It is worthwhile examining the basis for the concerns of NPNZ and the conclusions of the ASA.
|
|||||||||||||||
Who is Doing the Scaremongering and Who is Telling the Truth?
|
|||||||||||||||
| The details of the complaints to the ASA by Michelle Beckett of NPNZ (9)
are reproduced below in
Appendix 1. I will consider each of the nine complaints separately, all of which were
subsequently upheld by the ASA, followed by the response of the
advertiser. The comments below should be read in conjunction with the
response of Health Freedom to the ASA decision (17). 1. NZ Govt Moves to Outlaw Vitamins The advertiser offered the following statement in response to this complaint (9):
In my view the claim that "NZ Govt Moves to Outlaw Vitamins" is unnecessarily vague and I take little issue with this complaint although in the world of false advertising, concern about this statement seems to me to be extremely petty, if not mischievous. Supporters of dietary supplements have so much factual information at their disposal it is disappointing that sometimes ammunition is given to opponents of natural health by poorly expressed publicity campaigns. If this statement had been qualified as being the opinion of the advertisers it would have been acceptable. Alternatively, it could be stated thus: "NZ Gov Fails to Guarantee Future Availability of Present Range of Retail Supplements." 2. Did you vote for Australian Bureaucrats to make your health decisions? The advertiser offered the following statement in support of this claim (9):
There are two issues here, although it must be noted that this is a question and not a statement of fact. How can a question be incorrect? Firstly, does the Bill have the potential to affect the "health decisions" of consumers? There is absolutely no doubt that this is so since there is no argument that the Bill will effect the cost and/or availability of supplements (Therapeutic Products Bill). Even NPNZ, who lodged the complaint with ASA, have acknowledged this is so in a news release entitled "Good Health Comes at Increased Cost" (7). According to NPNZ (7):
This has also been confirmed by many others (see Therapeutic Products Bill) including Dr Jonathan Coleman, National Party MP for Northcote and Associate Health Spokesman, who stated in regard to the proposed Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill (18):
Secondly, since the proposed health bill would undeniably affect "health decisions", would "Australian bureaucrats" have played any role in these effects? Since Australian bureaucrats played a fundamental role in the Pan crisis and the ensuing proposed regulations in NZ (Therapeutic Products Bill), a fact which was conceded by Ms King (Therapeutic Products Bill), there is absolutely no doubt about this. I cannot therefore see anything inaccurate in asking the question "Did you vote for Australian Bureaucrats to make your health decisions?" 3. 494 pgs of `safety' legislation yet no one has ever died from supplements The advertiser offered the following statement in support of this claim (9):
Since opponents of complementary medicines and natural therapies have a long tradition of exploiting fears in consumers (Medical Bias, Nutrition is for the Birds, Nutrition and Megavitamins, Dietary Supplements, Functional Foods or Dietary Supplements, Nutrition Breakthroughs, Pan Crisis, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Therapeutic Products Bill, Regulatory Changes in the Land of the Free), and considering the fact that "fear" is central to the complaints of Ms Beckett of Natural Products New Zealand, I will consider this matter in more detail in a separate section below entitled "Fear and Its Exploitation by Opponents of Natural Therapies". 4. NZ Acting chair of the coroners council Dr Bain (a lawyer and pharmacist) states that a thorough search of all records indicated that not one person has ever died from consuming a health supplement in New Zealand's history" I will also consider this complaint below in the section "Fear and Its Exploitation by Opponents of Natural Therapies". 5. 60% of New Zealand made supplements & vitamins forced from the shelves. The following statement was offered in support of this claim (9):
The interesting thing about this claim is that the figure of 60% was cited by Tony Ryall (and not refuted), in NZ parliament, apparently from the governments own research (19). According to Ryall (19):
How is it possible to find the claim "60% of New Zealand made supplements & vitamins forced from the shelves" is untrue when it was cited in parliament allegedly from the government's own figures? It seems the ASA is not only accusing the advertiser of untrue claims, they are also accusing Tony Ryall and the government of not telling the truth. Who is telling the truth here? Is the ASA accusing the politicians? 6. Prices will increase by 20% and 100% The advertisers offered the following support of this claim (9).
Since according to Ms King (14), the proposed legislative changes in NZ have been structured in response to problems highlighted as a result of the Pan drug crisis, as also occurred in Australia, it is interesting to observe the affects of these changes in Australia according to Marcus Blackmore (20):
To suggest this claim is untrue seems petty in the extreme. As I have considered above, even NPNZ, who complained about this claim, have acknowledged there will be significant price increases. This fact is generally agreed (see Therapeutic Products Bill) so there seems no issue to complain about as far as this statement is concerned, unless of course NPNZ is preoccupied with precise percentages. However if this is so it implies a mischievous obsession with pettiness. 7. 50% of New Zealand manufacturers will close - associated loss of jobs The advertisers offered the following statement in support of this claim (9).
Widespread job losses are expected as a result of this Bill (see Therapeutic Products Bill) so there seems little to worry about with this claim although the use of the precise figure of 50% may not have been necessary. In the words of McCully (21):
8. It just gets worse - all decisions regarding what supplements and vitamins you are allowed - and levels - are to be made by unelected, unaccountable Australian bureaucrats, heavily lobbied by the pharmaceutical industry The advertisers defended this claim thus (9):
As has been noted by NZ politicians (see Therapeutic Products Bill), it is expected that the new Therapeutic Products Agency will be comprised of only about 7% New Zealanders while the remainder will be Australians. This simple fact demonstrates quite clearly that most of the bureaucratic processing will be done by Australians, unless of course Ms Beckett is suggesting the 7% of New Zealanders will do more work than the 93% of Australians! The final decision will be left to an unelected Managing Director who clearly cannot be both an Australian and New Zealander so there seems no significant error in this statement. 9. You deserve to know... that this is a move to limit your access to natural health products, thereby driving you toward pharmaceutical "solutions" The advertisers offered the following statement supporting this claim (9):
Since politicians in NZ have readily acknowledged that the proposed Bill would have the effect of reducing the availability and increasing the cost of complementary medicines (see Therapeutic Products Bill) there seems no doubt that these reduced options would tend to force consumers to utilise cheaper and more readily available pharmaceutical alternatives. In fact, according to Thomas Faunce, senior lecturer in law and medicine at the Australian National University, the ANZTPA is being deliberately structured to favour the views of the drug industry (22):
Faunce concluded that the rejection of the Bill by NZ parliament was a (22) "good thing" for NZ. It seems however, that according to the ASA, these experts are all wrong. General Comments Made By Advertiser in Support of ClaimsIn addition to these itemised explanations the advertisers made the following general comments regarding the complaint by Natural Products New Zealand (9).
|
|||||||||||||||
Fear and Its Exploitation by Opponents of Complementary Medicines & Natural Therapies |
|||||||||||||||
HistoryMainstream medicine has a very long history of anti-nutrition bias and utilising politicians or the media to discredit and marginalise alternative medicine (Medical Bias, Nutrition is for the Birds, Nutrition and Megavitamins, Dietary Supplements, Functional Foods or Dietary Supplements, Nutrition Breakthroughs, Pan Crisis, Dispelling the Vitamin E Myths, Global Trends in Health Care). As I have stated elsewhere (Global Trends in Health Care):
One of the main tactics used to discredit complementary medicines by supporters of mainstream medicine is the exploitation of public fears about the safety of such products (Medical Bias, Nutrition is for the Birds, Nutrition and Megavitamins, Dietary Supplements, Functional Foods or Dietary Supplements, Nutrition Breakthroughs, Pan Crisis, Dispelling the Vitamin E Myths). The practice of exploiting public fears is referred to as 'scaremongering' (23). As has recently been pointed out (23); "one thing that is not seen with scaremongering tactics is reference to quality clinical trials or studies. Claims have to be substantiated with evidence to have any value." In other words, as I indicated above (Global Trends in Health Care), "it is clear that the battle will not be fought in the laboratory - and it will not be won in the laboratory. The battle will be fought in the court of public opinion, with the assistance of politicians, because medical authorities know from experience they can never obtain the dominance they seek by laboratory research and scientific evidence." This was demonstrated very effectively during the Pan drug crisis when various 'experts' caused widespread community fear and alarm about complementary medicines when a drug was found to be toxic (Pan Crisis, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry). Rather than provide scientific evidence of the alleged dangers of complementary medicines however, resort was given instead to the use of false or unscientific claims in the media (Pan Crisis, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry). Orthodox medicine has traditionally been much more interested in any claim, no matter how spurious, about the dangers of vitamins rather than scientific evidence of their effectiveness (Medical Bias). This inability to scientifically justify the widespread community fears they generate is a central part of scaremongering or the deliberate exploitation of fear. Often those who cannot prove their case adequately using scientific evidence resort to emotive terms such as "quackery", "snake oil" or "expensive urine" to support their cause (Pan Crisis, Medical Bias, Nutrition is for the Birds, Nutrition and Megavitamins, Dietary Supplements, Functional Foods or Dietary Supplements, Nutrition Breakthroughs, Pan Crisis, Dispelling the Vitamin E Myths). Supporters of mainstream or so called 'evidence based' medicine (EBM) often seem to claim that randomised clinical trials are the only scientific truth and the only way of knowing (When There is Evidence for Nutrition but Little Evidence for Evidence Based Medicine) but strangely, such advocates of EBM often claim that vitamins are dangerous although it seems they cannot cite one double blind placebo controlled clinical trial confirming the toxicity of vitamins (24). They cite double blind trials as the gold standard by which the safety and effectiveness of therapies are judged (Medical Evidence or Medical Ignorance?) but yet they totally abandon their own gold standard when it comes to the safety of vitamins, preferring instead to use other scientifically inconclusive studies (Dietary Supplements, Nutrition Breakthroughs, Dispelling the Vitamin E Myths) or unscientific emotive terms like 'snake oil' in the popular media (Pan Crisis, Nutrition and Megavitamins, Holistic or Reductionist). Another popular tactic employed by those who promote public fears about the alleged dangers of complementary medicines is to persistently avoid any scientific comparison between the safety of complementary medicines as compared to pharmaceutical drugs (Pan Crisis, Medical Bias, Nutrition is for the Birds, Nutrition and Megavitamins, Dietary Supplements, Functional Foods or Dietary Supplements, Nutrition Breakthroughs, Dispelling the Vitamin E Myths, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry). Whereas genuine concern about public health will be clearly manifested by concerns which are obviously prioritised according to degree of toxicity and evidence of known risk, in reality most medical experts seem to express the most concern about the safest products (ie. supplements) and the least concern about the most dangerous (ie. drugs)(Pan Crisis, Medical Bias, Nutrition is for the Birds, Nutrition and Megavitamins, Dietary Supplements, Functional Foods or Dietary Supplements, Nutrition Breakthroughs, Dispelling the Vitamin E Myths, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Holistic or Reductionist). Such an attitude suggests a contemptuous disinterest in scientific evidence and public health and the safety of therapeutic substances. Strangely, although NPNZ and the ASA have suggested the Health Freedom advertisements in NZ were intended to promote or "play on" community fears about the future cost and availability of complementary medicines in NZ, when it comes to the safety of such products NPNZ has taken precisely the opposite stance and claimed these products are MORE dangerous than depicted in the advertisements. In other words it seems, when it comes to the safety of complementary medicines, Michelle Beckett and NPNZ seem to be complaining that the Health Freedom advertisements do not promote sufficient community fear! While Ms Beckett expresses her concern about scaremongering in regard to Health Freedom's claims about the impact of the proposed legislation upon the marketing and availability of complementary medicines (1,8,12), it seems that when it comes to safety she is complaining that there is not enough scaremongering! So according to NPNZ it seems, we should be promoting more fear about the safety of complementary medicines and less fear about the effects of the proposed legislation on the cost and availability of complimentary medicines! But if we promote more fear about the safety of complementary medicines would not this be expected to have a negative impact upon the cost and availability of such products? Especially in view of the fact that allegations of unjustified fear, scaremongering, and the safety of complementary medicines, were absolutely fundamental to the complaint of Ms Beckett of NPNZ and the decision of the ASA, let us consider the truth about the safety record of complementary medicines and examine recent attempts to justify increased regulatory control of complementary medicines in Australia and NZ on the basis of safety or exploitation of community fears.
|
|||||||||||||||
Natural Products New Zealand and Their Complaint About Fear & Scaremongering in Advertisements Supporting Complementary Medicines: the use of fear to promote and condemn complementary medicines |
|||||||||||||||
Using Fear to 'Promote' Complementary Medicines & Restore Confidence in the IndustrySince the advertisements complained about by NPNZ were intended to support the retail complementary medicine industry it would seem, since NPNZ also claims to represent the complementary medicine industry, that NPNZ would seek to promote the industry by advertisements which contrast very sharply indeed with those authorised by Health Freedom. In regards to safety for instance, and the claims by Health Freedom (items 3 & 4) that the safety of complementary medicines is demonstrated by the fact that "no one has ever died from supplements" , Michelle Beckett of NPNZ states (Appendix 1):
Michelle Beckett of NPNZ points out that scaremongering or causing community fear is fundamental to her complaints about these advertisements. In their news release of 27th April NPNZ state (8):
And when Michelle Beckett lodged the NPNZ complaint with the ASA she stated (Appendix 1):
And when NPNZ welcomed the findings of the ASA she further stated (11):
Does NPNZ regard the Health Freedom claims that complementary medicines have caused no fatalities in NZ as scaremongering or promoting fear? Of course, if claims that complementary medicines are safe and have not been proven to kill anyone are scaremongering, then the position of NPNZ would be the opposite of scaremongering. In other words it seems, the best way to restore confidence in complementary medicines would be to make public claims such products are so dangerous that urgent legislative reforms are required! Strange as it may seem, politicians and health authorities have expressed similar views, especially as a result of the Pan drug debacle (Pan Crisis, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Therapeutic Products Bill, Regulatory Changes in the Land of the Free). Although the Pan drug debacle demonstrated yet again the safety of complementary medicines as compared to pharmaceutical drugs such as hyoscine hydrobromide (Pan Crisis, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Therapeutic Products Bill), it was astonishing to witness so many authorities or traditional opponents of alternative medicine attempting to blame alternative medicines and discredit the industry as a result of the toxicity of this drug (Pan Crisis, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Therapeutic Products Bill). After falsely condemning the safety of complementary medicines because of this example of drug toxicity for instance (Pan Crisis), the Australian government issued a media release entitled (27) "Government moves to restore confidence in complementary medicines industry". Similarly, after the Australian government and the TGA specifically targeted the safety of complementary medicines as a result of the toxicity of the drug hyoscine hydrobromide during the Pan drug debacle, Parliamentary Secretary, Trish Worth stated (28); "it is therefore important that all sectors of the community, including the Government, industry, and health care practitioners, work together to restore public confidence in the complementary medicines industry." According to then AMA President Dr Kerryn Phelps (30):
The Pan debacle demonstrated the eagerness of various authorities or opponents of complementary medicines to falsely blame such products for the safety issues resulting from consumption of the toxic drug hyoscine hydrobromide and then offer a solution for this drug toxicity problem which involved tighter regulation of complementary medicines! Claims were repeatedly made that tighter regulation of complementary medicines was necessary in order to "restore confidence" in the complementary products which made no one ill during the Pan debacle while in stark contrast no specific action was deemed necessary to restore confidence in the toxic pharmaceutical drugs which caused life threatening illness and which instigated the entire Pan drug crisis (Pan Crisis, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Therapeutic Products Bill). Expecting the community to believe that confidence in complementary medicines can best be achieved by exploitation of fear achieved by falsely blaming them for the toxicity of drugs is not just a new low in misinformation and scaremongering, it also represents an unprecedented insult to the collective intelligence of the community. The facts are of course, that complementary medicines are infinitely safer than pharmaceutical drugs or even food. Food related illness causes around 5000 deaths in the US alone each year (31) with another 100 Americans dying each year from food allergies (33). In Australia around 4 million people suffer from food poisoning each year but apparently there is so little concern about this issue that it is not even known how many of these 4 million actually die (32). Why is there so little legislative concern about food safety and restoring confidence in the food industry? Exploitation of Public Fear to Condemn Complementary MedicinesUnlike the use of fear to allegedly 'promote' complementary or alternative medicine, which seems to be a strange new phenomena, the exploitation of public fears to condemn or justify increased control of such products or practices, has a very long history indeed (Medical Bias, Nutrition is for the Birds, Nutrition and Megavitamins, Dietary Supplements, Functional Foods or Dietary Supplements, Nutrition Breakthroughs, Pan Crisis, Dispelling the Vitamin E Myths). This exploitation of fear is usually achieved by the use of loosely based or exaggerated claims about the safety of complementary medicines, most commonly made by those who have been traditionally opposed to alternative forms of health care or those who may reap rewards from legislative reforms ( Nutrition and Megavitamins, Dietary Supplements, Functional Foods or Dietary Supplements, Nutrition Breakthroughs, Pan Crisis, Dispelling the Vitamin E Myths). Additionally, those who make such claims frequently seem to avoid comparing the safety of alternative medicines with pharmaceutical drugs or expressing appropriate concern about the suffering caused by the toxicity of drugs. These practices are very popular amongst traditional opponents of alternative medicine who may feel threatened in some way by the popularity of such products (34,35,36,37,38; see also Medical Bias, Nutrition and Megavitamins, Pan Crisis). The complaint by Michelle Beckett of NPNZ regarding the safety of complementary medicines depends upon her allegation that the claim by Health Freedom that "no one has ever died from supplements in NZ", is untrue. Although NPNZ claims to represent the natural products industry they also apparently seek to point out the alleged dangers of such products by citing the report entitled "Serious Reports to Complementary and Alternative Medicines received by NZ Pharmacovigilance since 1992 to 31st December 2006" which was issued by The Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring (CARM) or the New Zealand Pharmacovigilance Centre. According to Michelle Beckett and NPNZ this report by the New Zealand Pharmacovigilance Centre disproves the claim by Health Freedom that ""no one has ever died from supplements in NZ" and therefore this report is of fundamental importance. Because of the importance of this report I contacted various sources in NZ in an attempt to obtain a copy of it and assess the reported dangers of complementary medicines. However, to date my efforts have been in vain with no one apparently wishing to release what seems to be rather secretive evidence. Indeed, when I contacted the New Zealand Pharmacovigilance Centre they informed me that the information I requested would only be released to "NZ health professionals". Even though I pointed out to them that this information was very much in the public interest my request was refused. And when I contacted Michelle Beckett of NPNZ, who supplied a copy of this report to ASA as part of her complaint, she would not comply with my request but merely referred me to CARM who had already refused to supply a copy of the report. Just why the alleged dangers of complementary medicines is such a secret is indeed a mystery. Especially since publicity of the alleged dangers of complementary medicines is of fundamental importance to those seeking to justify increased legislative control of such products, why has this information seemingly been classified 'top secret'. Let us all the see the full details of the evidence of the alleged dangers of complementary medicines. I appeal to the relevant authorities to publicise the full details so everyone can clearly see the truth. Conclusions Made in Lieu of the Refusal to Publicise Evidence of The Alleged Adverse Reactions to Complementary Medicines in New Zealand: why the secret?Regrettably I am compelled to respond to this issue without the secretive report in question and therefore I can only offer general comments. Firstly I should point out that allegations of the dangers of complementary medicine traditionally are usually based upon very flimsy evidence (Pan Crisis, Medical Bias, Dietary Supplements, Functional Foods or Dietary Supplements, Nutrition Breakthroughs, Dispelling the Vitamin E Myths, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Therapeutic Products Bill, Regulatory Changes in the Land of the Free) and this may be a very significant reason why there is such a reluctance to publicise the full details of the report in question. This is hardly surprising since health experts, including the TGA and the Australian government's own Expert Committee appointed to examine complementary medicines following the Pan debacle, have all stressed the safety of such products (Pan Crisis, Nutrition Breakthroughs, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry). Usually experts consider that adverse reactions to pharmaceutical drugs outnumber adverse reactions to complementary medicines by around 99 to 1 or, at worst, 98 to 2 (Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry), a fact which clearly indicates, given the claimed risk based nature of legislative reforms, that safety legislation should be at least 49 times more strict for pharmaceutical drugs than for alternative products. Since complementary medicines have such a long history of safe use, especially when compared to the safety of pharmaceutical drugs or foods, traditional opponents of natural medicines or supplements tend to blame such products for adverse effects even when there is no clear evidence but merely a vague 'association' with the alternative product (Dietary Supplements, Nutrition Breakthroughs, Pan Crisis, Dispelling the Vitamin E Myths). In fact, it is considered acceptable to blame alternative medicines for adverse reactions to drugs which are being taken concurrently, with some experts even suggesting adverse 'events' can be blamed on complementary medicines (39,40) "whether or not it is confirmed to be related to the therapy." According to the Australian Paediatric Surveillance Unit (39,40):
This guilt by association or the blaming of complementary medicines for adverse reactions which may actually be caused by drugs which are being taken concurrently seems to represent a total abandonment of the normally accepted criteria for scientific evidence and therefore, in the absence of any other justification, suggests a considerable degree of desperation amongst those who seek to discredit the alternative medicine industry. Strangely, though this type of flimsy evidence is often sufficient to judge the adverse effects of complementary medicines, when it comes to the benefits of such products even anecdotal evidence from millions of people is frequently considered irrelevant. In New Zealand it seems similar principles were recently applied during a survey of the toxicity of complementary medicines by Nicholson (41). Although Nicholson found that (41) "the majority of people reported that CAM had helped them" and "reported no adverse effects from CAM", she also reported the following two "most serious adverse effects"; "The two most serious reactions reported were serotonin syndrome (when paroxetine was prescribed to a person already taking St John’s wort), and excessive post-surgical bleeding (in a patient taking Gingko biloba preoperatively)." Like so many reported adverse reactions to complementary medicines, these two incidents were also 'associated' with standard medical treatments such as drugs or surgery. Interestingly, neither of these adverse events occurred until the patients were either given drugs or surgery. It would be interesting to know how long these patients had been safely taking their alternative medicines prior to the incriminated medical interventions but unfortunately this information was omitted from the report of Nicholson. Although St John's Wort is blamed here for the serotonin syndrome when the antidepressant paroxetine was given to the patient (41), antidepressants have a well known history of causing this disorder irrespective of herb use (42). Krone and colleagues have also recently noted the low risk of alternative medicines in New Zealand and made the following recommendations (43):
Returning to the matter at hand, it is interesting to note that the CARM report cited by Michelle Beckett to refute the claim by Health Freedom that no New Zealander "has ever died from supplements" may only be a report listing an 'association' of adverse effects with "complementary and alternative medicines" (Appendix 1). Since she has claimed that the assertion by Health Freedom that " no one has ever died from supplements" is untrue, Michelle Beckett should be able to prove this is so by supplying scientific evidence. But in her statement she describes the report she uses to refute the claim of Health Freedom as merely showing adverse events which have been 'associated' with "complementary and alternative medicines" (Appendix 1):
Quite clearly, guilt by association does not necessarily prove the complementary medicines in question were at all responsible for the adverse effects reported and the determination of New Zealand authorities to conceal the full details of these cases therefore makes it impossible to draw any firm conclusions. In general terms however, the specific claim that no New Zealander "has ever died from supplements" cannot be conclusively disproved by a report which provides no scientific proof but merely describes an "association" of certain symptoms or health outcomes with the use of "complementary and alternative medicines". Given these facts it is amazing to me that the ASA could uphold this complaint of NPNZ. I can only assume they have access to concrete scientific evidence rather than reports describing an "association", however, I cannot understand their reluctance to release this information to me when I requested it. The top secret nature of the evidence in question, and the persistent refusal to publicise the full details is not in the public interest and raises huge questions about the credibility of anyone endorsing such a secretive attitude. If complementary medicines are so so dangerous why hide the facts? I challenge the authorities concerned to publicise the full details of these alleged cases of adverse reactions to complementary medicines. I expect that the urgency of their action will reflect their concerns about public health and the safety of complementary medicines. If I am provided with the required details I will happily amend this article and provide any corrections if needed. Until then......... |
|||||||||||||||
| References 1.
http://www.naturalproductsnz.org/newsfile_gateway.php?newsid=186
Natural Products NZ Lays Complaint with ASA over False Claims,
Media Release, NPNZ, 2nd May, 2007; see also
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0705/S00043.htm ,
Scoop Independent News, 2nd May, 2007. |
