Run Them Pockets, Fool!

[varkam]

Note: This is a post I wrote a couple days back from my blog, but I figured it would fit in nicely here as well. Some editing has been done to make it slightly less divisive

In an earlier post, I noted that one common criticism of allopathic medicine is that there is too much money involved in the system. I think that’s a criticism that is largely justified, but then proponents of alt-med use that to springboard into singing the praises of all sorts of stuff from therapeutic touch to reflexology to homeopathy, and so on and so forth.

I have contended in discussions that I have had in the past that there’s a good deal of money in alt-med, as well. I mean, I know that alt-med practitioners really care about their patients and would do it out of the goodness of their hearts if they could (unlike those evil western doctors) but they’ve got to eat, too.

That in mind, I went looking for the data. Honestly, I was pretty surprised by what I found.

One of the first studies on the topic that I found was from way back in 1993 that noted about 1/3rd of the US population used CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) and spend approximately 10.3 billion dollars out of pocket on CAM (1). That’s a lot of lettuce.

That same group performed a follow-up study in 1997, which found that use of CAM continued to grow to roughly half of the population using at least one alt-med treatment at a cost of 27 billion out-of-pocket expense (which the study noted exceeded the “projected out-of-pocket expenditures for all US physician services”) (2).

Fast-forward to 2000, when an Australian group took up the topic of CAM. They found roughly the same results as the 1997 Eisenberg study in that roughly half of the population engaged in some use of CAM, but put the cost much higher - 34 billion dollars (which the study noted was “nearly four times the public contribution to all pharmaceuticals) (3). It wasn’t clear to me, however, whether or not that figure included treatments covered by managed care or purely out-of-pocket expenses. Given the increases noted by the Eisenberg studies, it would not surprise me if that was all out of pocket.

While one the subject, a common meme among alt-med proponents is that many of their treatment modalities are being adopted at hospitals and clinics across the United States such as Reiki with the implication being that hospitals would not engage in such activities if they did not help people.

With the amount of money floating around out there in alt-med, the reasons should be fairly self-evident. Marketing wonks at clinics and hospitals see that people will pay for alt-med, and so they start offering it if only to recoup the cash - not that there’s any sound science behind it that justifies it’s use - but in a state of affairs where hospitals are forced to try and make as much money as possible, that is plenty justification.

It should go without saying that the idea of alt-med being so innocuous on the financial front is pure BS. It’s about the guap, so run them pockets, fool!

1. Eisenberg, D.M. et. al. (1993). Unconventional Medicine in the United States — Prevalence, Costs, and Patterns of Use. Journal of the American Medical Association, 328, 246-252.

2. Eisenberg, D.M. et. al. (1998). Trends in Alternative Medicine Use in the United States, 1990-1997: Results of a Follow-up National Survey. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 1569-1575.

3. MacLennan, A.H., Wilson, D.H., & Taylor, A.W. (2002). The Escalating Cost and Prevalance of Alternative Medicine. Preventative Medicine, 35, 166-173.

[Celebration]

1. Yeah, and people are willing to pay for it out of pocket

Because they LIKE It. Massage feels good, reiki feels good, acupuncture feels good. That is the best marketing in the world. "Hey it made me feel GREAT." "Really? I think I'll try it amd see if I like it."

[varkam]

2. Irrelevant to the point of my post, but okay.

For the record, I am fine with people spending money on things that make them feel good. I, for instance, spend money on going to the movies or dining out because they make me feel good.

The problem, however, is that such activities don't masquerade as treatments for either short-term, chronic, or life-threatening medical conditions - nor does anyone claim that they are.

Moreover, I am fine if people want to pay out their hard-earned money to get Reiki or drink some homeopathic water, that's their deal. A problem, as I wrote in my post, is that many alt-med proponents claim either explicitly or implicitly that alt-med isn't about money. Well, it seems to me that when people are spending more money on alt-med than on pharmaceuticals, that argument falls flat on its face.

[Celebration]

4. why is an Australian group studying US CAM $$?

That is kind of strange.

[varkam]

5. They studied both the AU and US population. eom

[Celebration]

6. And that is almost all of the figure you quoted--

Very few plans cover CAM, but especially in 2000. Practically all of it was out of pocket. So, no, I am not getting your objection.

Speaking of money, national health care expenditures in 2001 were $1.4 trillion dollars. If you are interested in actual cost savings, I think there is probably plenty in there to work on. Vioxx sales were $2.5 billion dollars a year--we can start there. And insurance, government, etc. paid for that.

[varkam]

7. Well, the point of my post was not about cost savings.

I would appreciate it if you would not change the subject.

[Celebration]

8. well I am still not getting it

Hospitals, etc. offer reiki because patients like it and say it feels good. Hospitals offer people private rooms rather than semi-private because patients like them and say it helps them feel better. Are there any studies that show that private rooms cure people of cancer? No!! Think of the waste!! Furthermore, building hospitals is big business. The construction industry makes a lot of money building more hospital rooms. I daresay that hospital construction costs run into the billions of dollars.

That about sums up your argument.

Edited to say: My analogy isn't that great because hospitals actually incur those construction costs. They don't even incur the costs of CAM that you quoted.

[varkam]

10. You're right - I don't think you are getting it.

I'll try to explain it.

Hospitals, etc. offer reiki because patients like it and say it feels good. Hospitals offer people private rooms rather than semi-private because patients like them and say it helps them feel better. Are there any studies that show that private rooms cure people of cancer? No!! Think of the waste!! Furthermore, building hospitals is big business. The construction industry makes a lot of money building more hospital rooms. I daresay that hospital construction costs run into the billions of dollars.

That about sums up your argument.

Well, it sums up your characterization of my argument, anyway.

Your analogy is off because no one claims that private rooms are a medical treatment in and of themselves. Furthermore, no one is criticizing there being an excess of money in the semi-private room business and that is a reason why the private room business is a better option. Also, "hospitals offer reiki because patients like it" is just another way of saying "hospitals offer reiki because patients will pay for it" - and, if the figures in the OP are any indication, will pay a lot for it.

As I wrote in the OP, many hosptials have to try to turn a profit. Many departments are money-losers, and so the marketing and financial directors have to figure out a way to recoup that cash - offering CAM is one way of doing that. The point that I was trying to make, though, is that when alt-med proponents submit the fact that many hospitals offer it as evidence of efficacy they are missing the point.

[Celebration]

12. Yup, I DID GET IT!!!

Do the hospitals say that they offer reiki as a medical treatment that cures people????? No, it is a marketing technique. All the ads for hospitals on television are also marketing techniques. Having private rooms is a marketing technique. Fountains in the middle of gardens is a marketing technique. Are you against fountains? How about televisions?

I guarantee that the first reiki practitioner in a hospital setting that says they can cure cancer will be out on his ear.

You aren't even close to making a decent argument.

[varkam]

14. Sigh.

Do the hospitals say that they offer reiki as a medical treatment that cures people????? No, it is a marketing technique. All the ads for hospitals on television are also marketing techniques. Having private rooms is a marketing technique. Fountains in the middle of gardens is a marketing technique. Are you against fountains? How about televisions?

Oh good god, what hospitals say is completely irrelevant to the point.

I guarantee that the first reiki practitioner in a hospital setting that says they can cure cancer will be out on his ear.

Strawman.

You aren't even close to making a decent argument.

Uh-huh.

[Ian David]

3. K&R! n/t

[supernova]

9. I think it means something lacking in western medicine

That's not to say western medicine based in science doesn't work. It does. People get their cancers excised and treated every day. People, like me, born with defective hearts get those defects corrected and patched up and go on to live normal life spans. Joints give out and we can get those replaced with newer metal ones. Now there is the tantalizing possibility of having gene therapy for defective DNA that would produce illness down the line, and stem cells to replace more invasive current therapies. Let's hope so.

The problem is, I think the mind-->body connection. There's a kind of myth about western medicine that says that if we solve your body problem all will be well. You don't have to think about it anymore. We treat the body in the west very well. But the mind and soul still reel from the experience. There's no where to go with those feelings and sensations. Support groups help, but only up to a point. There's no where to reset your mind to a healthy state when the body recovers. And any good western doc will tell you that a positive outlook is one of the best indicators for recovery.

This is where I think CAM fills the void. It's no small thing that a lot of these alternative therapies also help to quiet the recently ill mind. Take massage for example. It's not uncommon to experience a crying jag after a good massage -- a real massage from a licensed masseuse, not the "massage" you get at the I-95 service road cathouse. :P

So, whether or not individual CAM practices are of any scientific use, if they help people feel better, along with their official treatment, what's the problem?

[varkam]

11. .

Like I posted above, if people want to spend their money on things that make them feel good, I have no problem with that. I spend my money on things like movies and food, and that makes me feel good.

The problem, however, is when these activities purport to have some actual medical value. For example, reflexologists claim a whole host of diseases can be cured by manipulation of nerves in the feet - which is utter nonsense. Snake-oil salesmen of old made people feel good, too, but that doesn't mean that the stuff they were pushing had any value outside of the placebo effect.

Moreover, why I wrote this was in response to the common refrain that there is too much money involved in allopathic medicine along with the assumption that the same is not the case with CAM treatments - which is pretty clearly not the case. As the one study I included noted, the public spends more money on CAM than they do on pharmaceuticals - which honestly surprised me.

In sum, the issue for me here was mostly a rhetorical one. CAM advocates often argue that CAM is a better choice since there isn't as much money involved in it (a claim which is made implicitly).

[supernova]

13. I think you're being unnecessarily hard on people

when there gets to be a CAM company that rakes in the dough like SKB or Abbot Labs, then I might agree with you. Right now, it's just a bunch individual, boutique practitioners. Do some people charge out the wazoo? Of course, but then again, we are free to be fleeced too.

Have you ever had a serious illness or chronic condition? It isn't always easy to live with. Some days it's damn difficult. Some mornings you just want to sit on the edge of the bed and :cry: People will try to find whatever solace and comfort they can.

Also FYI --


http://www.med.unc.edu/wrkunits/2depts/phyrehab/pim/?searchterm=alternative+medicine

and here (Year II):

http://medschool.duke.edu/modules/som_curriculum/index.php?id=3

[varkam]

15. Dude.

Go back and re-read the figures in the OP. CAM rakes in the cash - moreso than what people pay to pharmaceutical companies.

[supernova]

16. Not a dude, dude

You are very ignorant of the way people handle illness.

You don't get it at all.

[varkam]

17. Didn't mean to imply I thought you were a dude, dude.

And the point of my post was not concerning "the way people handle illness". Feel free to call me names, though. It's pretty popular around these parts.

[Celebration]

19. still can't figure out the point of your post..........

You don't think hospitals should offer reiki, even though they do many other things that please patients like having a television in the room. Reiki should not be offered because some reiki practitioners actually try to do academic published studies that show its effectiveness for various diseases. They have been successful in getting such studies into peer reviewed journals. Thus, they contend that reiki has efficacy for certain things. Because reiki practitioners do this, and come to various conclusions in peer reviewed journals, reiki should not be allowed in hospitals. Even though patients like reiki, and don't even know about the studies, and are not told about them by reiki practitioners at hospitals, reiki should not be offered as a service by hospitals because of these published articles and their conclusions.

Furthermore, reiki is comparable to big pharma because people spend a lot of money on things like massage, acupuncture, chiropractors and reiki practitioners. Because it is big business, with all these practitioners added up (making forty to fifty bucks an hour, each) it is all about the money. Reiki, acupuncture, massage, and chiropractors are making so much money that their influence is such that we need to fight them tooth and nail. We must not allow any more peer reviewed studies of these techniques because some might turn out to be positive, and then practitioners could make even more claims and get even richer. It is okay if people pay for them out of pocket, though, but if they do, that will add to the total dollars spent and thus these modalities will become even more something to be fought. Only a few dollars separate them from big pharma lobbyists and influence.

TV should be in hospital rooms, but not reiki--because of all of the above. Uh huh.

[varkam]

20. We've been over this, above, itsjustme.

You don't think hospitals should offer reiki, even though they do many other things that please patients like having a television in the room. Reiki should not be offered because some reiki practitioners actually try to do academic published studies that show its effectiveness for various diseases. They have been successful in getting such studies into peer reviewed journals. Thus, they contend that reiki has efficacy for certain things. Because reiki practitioners do this, and come to various conclusions in peer reviewed journals, reiki should not be allowed in hospitals. Even though patients like reiki, and don't even know about the studies, and are not told about them by reiki practitioners at hospitals, reiki should not be offered as a service by hospitals because of these published articles and their conclusions.

Well, you get off on the wrong foot here. The question of whether or not Reiki should be offered at hospitals, or rather whether or not I think it should, is a different question entirely as to what was brought up in the OP. Here is a selection from my original post that you should pay particlar attention to:

While one the subject, a common meme among alt-med proponents is that many of their treatment modalities are being adopted at hospitals and clinics across the United States such as Reiki with the implication being that hospitals would not engage in such activities if they did not help people.

With the amount of money floating around out there in alt-med, the reasons should be fairly self-evident. Marketing wonks at clinics and hospitals see that people will pay for alt-med, and so they start offering it if only to recoup the cash - not that there’s any sound science behind it that justifies it’s use - but in a state of affairs where hospitals are forced to try and make as much money as possible, that is plenty justification.

Note that I didn't say anything about "Reiki shouldn't be offered because some practitioners actually try to do academic...". Note that is merely your interjection. While on the subject - Reiki has been scientifically proven? Show me.

Furthermore, reiki is comparable to big pharma because people spend a lot of money on things like massage, acupuncture, chiropractors and reiki practitioners. Because it is big business, with all these practitioners added up (making forty to fifty bucks an hour, each) it is all about the money. Reiki, acupuncture, massage, and chiropractors are making so much money that their influence is such that we need to fight them tooth and nail. We must not allow any more peer reviewed studies of these techniques because some might turn out to be positive, and then practitioners could make even more claims and get even richer. It is okay if people pay for them out of pocket, though, but if they do, that will add to the total dollars spent and thus these modalities will become even more something to be fought. Only a few dollars separate them from big pharma lobbyists and influence.

Another strawman. I'm sorry that you are either unwilling or unable to understand my rather straight-forward argument, itsjustme. I never made any of the arguments that you seem to be accusing me of making.

Oh, and you don't know why I posted the OP? I direct your attention to the first paragraph:

In an earlier post, I noted that one common criticism of allopathic medicine is that there is too much money involved in the system. I think that’s a criticism that is largely justified, but then proponents of alt-med use that to springboard into singing the praises of all sorts of stuff from therapeutic touch to reflexology to homeopathy, and so on and so forth.

As hopefully you can tell from this modified passage, the point is that there is a lot of money in CAM, as well, so that the attempt at contrasting CAM from allopathic medicine on the financial front is really a lot of hand-waiving crap.

[Celebration]

21. if your sole purpose is to compare

The financial part of CAM to that of allopathic medicine, that just does not wash. There are not any multibillion dollar global corporations involved in acupuncture, reiki, and massage, only a bunch of single practitioners.

End of story. Period. There is no valid comparison in terms of the power they each wield.

[varkam]

22. Again, with the strawmen.

I'm not saying that they are the equivalent, itsjustme.

[Celebration]

26. the only thing your statistics show

Is that a lot of people like alternative medicine, and are willing to pay for it.

[varkam]

27. Which, yet again, completely misses the point of my post. Well done!

I think this might be a new record for you!

[Celebration]

32. If that is not your point

Then your op was pointless. People spend a lot of money on chiropractors, acupuncturists, massage therapists, reiki practitioners, and other alternative modalities. That proves they are popular and want to spend their money that way.

What else does this prove? Basically, nothing.

[varkam]

38. I've explained my point to you, multiple times now.

I'm not sure how me explaining it again to you would have any sort of effect.

Good day :hi:

[conscious evolution]

52. Could you clarify your point

Not seeing it myself.
Is it 1. people pay a lot for alternate medical trearments or 2. that alt medical trearments don't work.3 Soemthing else entirely.

[varkam]

71. The point was...

merely an examination of a claim that some CAM advocates make implicitly by criticizing the money they is involved in allopathic medicine.

[conscious evolution]

72. Thanks for the clarification.

[supernova]

24. You're the one who used the designation

to start with. So, it's OK if you do it, but not OK of someone else calls you on it. Gotcha.

You haven't given me any indication that you have understood a single thing I've said in this thread. If you did, you would see how short-sighted and compassionless your OP is.

It has everything to do with the way people handle illness and the care of their bodies. I really think the amount of money spent on alternative therapies is an indication of something lacking in western medicine. People aren't getting what they need when they go to the doctor. We are missing simple human contact and relationship in our medical settings anymore. And this isn't a rap at MDs or RNs either. They miss it as much as the patients. Going to an alternative practitioner OTOH is really more about the interaction with someone who knows you just as much as it is about whatever service, loopy or not, they provide.

[varkam]

28. What?

You're the one who used the designation to start with. So, it's OK if you do it, but not OK of someone else calls you on it. Gotcha.

I never said that it wasn't okay. I call all sorts of people "Dude", men and women - I didn't mean anything by it, so chill.

You haven't given me any indication that you have understood a single thing I've said in this thread. If you did, you would see how short-sighted and compassionless your OP is.

No, I've understood very well what you've been saying - it's just that what you have said has had little to do with what I wrote. If people want to pursue CAM because it makes them feel better, so be it. I'm not opposed to people doing things that make them feel better. What I am opposed to, however, is CAM masquerading as medicine, and (the point of the OP) CAM advocates implying that there's not a lot of money involved in CAM as opposed to allopathic medicine.

It has everything to do with the way people handle illness and the care of their bodies. I really think the amount of money spent on alternative therapies is an indication of something lacking in western medicine. People aren't getting what they need when they go to the doctor. We are missing simple human contact and relationship in our medical settings anymore. And this isn't a rap at MDs or RNs either. They miss it as much as the patients. Going to an alternative practitioner OTOH is really more about the interaction with someone who knows you just as much as it is about whatever service, loopy or not, they provide.

Fine, but that really doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote. Again, I didn't set out to advance a hypothesis as to why people persue CAM treatments - I imagine that people do it for all sorts of different reasons.

[salvorhardin]

18. Another way of looking at it...

In 2000, the population of the U.S. was at roughly 281 million people. 1/2 of that gives us just about 141 million people using CAM in some form. That works out to an average of just over $241 being spent per capita of CAM users.

[supernova]

23. That's basically one extra MD office visit

a year per person spent on alternative therapies.

Big whoop.

[varkam]

29. Not such a big whoop if you read the study.

34 billion, for roughly half the population, was equivalent to the public's contribution to all pharmaceuticals - so sayeth the study.

[salvorhardin]

33. Well, it is a big whoop when you consider relative numbers

Assuming the study is correct in saying that the spending on CAM treatments was equivalent to the spending on pharmaceuticals in the U.S., then the per capita spending for pharmaceuticals is just under $121 per year. That means that per capita, the average CAM user spends TWICE as much on CAM treatments as pharmaceuticals. Another way of looking at it is that per capita, CAM users spend three times as much for medical treatment as those who use allopathic medicine alone.

Note: This paints an overly simplistic picture, but it does illustrate the point that varkam makes. CAM is big business.

[beam me up scottie]

25. Those are some pretty expensive blankies.

Post some facts and cue the prerequisite over the top defensive posturing.

:spank:

[varkam]

30. I'm surprised I haven't been called a shill yet.

I've been called ignorant, compassionless, and short-sighted, but not a shill. I'm sure it's coming, though.

[beam me up scottie]

31. Don't be silly, varkam.

Everybody in this group already knows you're a shill.
Gosh, I have all of your books and DVDs and someday I too will become a millionaire shilling for BIG PHARM on DU.

[varkam]

40. There's big money in shilling.

Why, it paid for the yacht, the Bentley, and the summer home.






(:sarcasm: for you humorless wretches)

[salvorhardin]

34. Yep, especially when you consider...

Yep, especially when you consider that the average CAM user is likely spending their $242 per year on CAM in addition to whatever allopathic treatments they're using. And when it comes to drugs, they're spending three times as much as non CAM users.

[beam me up scottie]

35. We should get in on that action.

Since we're all official members of The DU Evil Atheist Association, we won't have to wrestle with any moral quandaries.

[HamdenRice]

36. You seem to be missing the big economic point, here, however

The problem in corporate, alternative or even socialized health care isn't the amount of money that's spent. You seem to be implying that the alt med people are saying:

money = indicator of evil
corporate system gets money
corporate system = evil
but
alt system gets money
therefore
alt system = as evil

That is not the point at all. Whenever we look at corporate dominated systems, we analyze the way various kinds of power affect the way money is spent. It's not volume of money; it's institutional affects on the way money is sprayed into the system.

The vast problem with a corporate dominated health care system -- particularly one that has at its core, the health insurance industry, one of the largest, most politically connected group of financial institutions in the country -- is that there are, what economists call "agency problems."

Back in the olden days, people went to their doctors if they could afford to pay for health care. Many doctors had, as a result of their training, certain altruistic motives that caused them to treat people who could pay, as well as people who couldn't pay. Almost all hospitals were non-profits as well.

Then there was the first version of health insurance as the health care financing system. The problem with this system was a simple agency system -- namely, that doctors decided what services to sell and billed the insurers. In other words, the consumer had an "agent" making his consumption decisions -- the doctor -- who was also the provider of the service. This tended to inflate health care costs.

The second version of the system was one in which the health insurance industry took over decision making in order to reduce costs. Insurer owned HMOs came to dominate primary care, while hospitals were purchased by insurer as well.

Now there was a new agency problem: patient consumption choices were determined, not by patients, not by doctors, but by a new agent -- the insurer. This agent had incentives to maximize premiums while minimizing care.

Altogether it's a completely irrational system designed, purposely by the insurance industry, to maximize profits for the insurer.

Generally alternative medicine is not covered by insurance. That means that there is little agency problem. Even if the financial volume of the two industries were the same, the problems and irrationalities and unfairness (and even evils) would be different.

[Celebration]

39. thank you

You hit the nail on the head.

[varkam]

41. That's not what I said, though.

money = indicator of evil
corporate system gets money
corporate system = evil
but
alt system gets money
therefore
alt system = as evil

As I explained to itsjustme, I never compared CAM with BP on the question of who is the most evil. The problem with that quote is the "as" in the final line. I never contended that CAM is just as "evil" as BP. Rather, the OP was meant to examine a rhetorical point that CAM advocates make on occasion.

I agree with you that the two systems are different, and that the money is utilized in different ways - but I think that is sort of irrelevant to the original point that I was trying to make.

[Celebration]

43. it is about relative power, not money

Money in the hands of alternative practitioners goes to pay their rent or food.

Alternative practitioners don't form oligopolies that spend huge amounts of money on lobbying. For the most part, all they get are just salaries or professional income, like everyone else who has a job or profession. Their associations are loose knit and have very little power beyond licensing procedures at the state level.

The fact that the amount has gotten more over the years just means that there are a few more of them because people like their services. It does not mean that their power to influence the federal budget or health care has increased.

[varkam]

44. Where did I compare the "relative power" of BP versus CAM? eom

[Celebration]

49. that is the problem with your post

the ONLY thing it talks about is that alternative medicine is getting more popular. That is in the "well, duh" category. We are left to guess what point you are trying to make.

[varkam]

70. The point is in the introduction of the passage, itsjustme.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HamdenRice]

47. About as thoughtful, eloquent and reasoned

as anything else you have ever written.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Evoman]

37. Lol Big Alternativa is worse that Big Pharma.

At least Big Pharma treats symptoms. Big alternativa just gives you fancy placebos. Of course, if Big Alternitiva cared about their patients, they would CURE them instead of scamming them for their billions in profits.

I'm guessing pharma has lower profit margins that alternativa. Real medicine costs money to research and develop. Lot cheaper to just sell diluted water and fake energy.

[xchrom]

45. stop talking sense -- this isn't about sense it's reiki.

and reiki 'cures? right? -- no-- well fuck

i

[Heddi]

46. I think that one thing that is really missing from this discussion

is someone pointing out the false nature of the claim that has been made here SEVERAL times: That ALL practitioners of CAM are singular individuals, that no one is making millions off of CAM, and that the only people who sell vitamins or crystals are small stores run by a single person or perhaps a group of two people.

That may be the case in SOME aspects, but I find it very hard to believe that there aren't "powerhouses" in the CAM industry. I mean, holy shit--I've picked up Alternative Medicine magazine...I had a goddamned subscription for a year!

If you want me, or anyone else, to believe that the only people who sell CAM products or services are 'single indivuals' that aren't making shitloads of money, then PUHLEASE explain companies like these, that advertise LIBERALLY in NUMEROUS magazines aimed at those who use and are interested in various forms of alt-med

http://www.kibowbiotech.com/our_products.php?from=naturalsolutions

http://www.amajordifference.com/

http://www.naturoli.com/store/naturolinuts.html?source=NSMROS1

http://www.naturaleyecare.com/

http://www.sacrowedgy.com/

http://www.naturalcanine.com/

http://drclarkstore.com/

http://www.ecopureliving.com/

http://www.purecaps.com/

And this is just a very small SAMPLE of companies that have placed ads THIS MONTH. Very small sample.

Alllllll of the companies that feature, produce, procure, or perform CAM are small private enterprises, solo practitoners working out of their basement?

I don't think so.

---

However, is there a large contingency of people who do massage or reiki or accupuncture that ARE the business, meaning, it's just them doing their thing. Maybe they work in a studio with others, or maybe they advertise and do the on-site massage type thing? Absolutely.

I live in Seattle and if I had the gumption, I could find easily 100 people advertising private sessions of reiki, massage, pilates...all kinds of things. Are they getting rich? Well, I suppose that depends on many things. Are they good? Can they market themselves? Do they have a way to network and find new clients on a regular basis to replace those that leave for whatever reason? What did it cost them to gain education or skill at this, and are they able to recouperate the costs of that education through practice?

I'm sure some of them do make money. One gal I know does massage therapy (she's licensed) as a "when I want to" type of thing for some quick extra cash. Otherwise she works a day job totally not connected with massage or anything like that.

HOWEVER--it is dishonest and false to state that there are not people...corporations...that are QUITE profitable. I mean, there are a SHITLOAD of companies whose sole business purpose is to make supplements. Or whose sole purpose is to produce ionic bracelets, or kinoki foot pads, or crystal laser machines, or whatever.

These companies exist, and they exist not because people willy nilly decided that they'd like to own an ionic bracelet. Rather, the purchaser of the Ionic Bracelet was swayed in one way or another through some marketing campaign that inferred directly or indirectly that the ionic bracelet provides SOME benefit. Now, they don't have to prove that it produces that benefit. They can just strongly suggest that it will provide this benefit. Maybe it DOES WORK. Maybe it doesn't. But it's a money maker, and I doubt after the first million ionic bracelets are sold, that the company can be accused of providing bracelets for altruistic reasons. They are doing it for profit.

I find it hard to believe that the majority of supplements are made by 90-year old Wise-women, crouched over a wooden mortar and pestle, personally putting each grain of supplement into every individual cellulose pill jacket. Come on. That is not the case at all, yet it's being spouted here like it is.

[Celebration]

48. of course there are some incorporated businesses

When you find one that is one percent of the size of Merck, get back to me.

[Heddi]

51. Why does it have to be the size of Merk?

Why can't you and others admit that alt-med is VERY profitable, and for some people it is SUPER profitable, especially if that "person" is a corporation that churns out one product after another. You make it sound like 99% of those that sell products or services related to alt med are all individuals with nothing more than a Jetta Wagon to carry around their massage table and a bag of therapeutic oils. While that certainly is the case for MANY practitioners of Alt Med, it is very dishonest to portray the entire industry as being this low key, grass roots, no profit involved, just making candles and pills in our spare time weekend and free time side business.

And it's more than "some" incorporated businesses. This is an INDUSTRY just like any other, from degree mills that charge $4500 for a two day seminar on crystal cleansing, to the ads in the alt med publications for this juice or that supplement or the other copper bracelet or homeopathic shoes.

I have subscriptions to these magazines. The back 5 or so pages are FULL of different institututes and weekend classes and degrees and certificates. None of them are cheap, and certainly none of them are free. I see ads for various contraptions and devices that cost HUNDREDS of dollars. I see ads for supplements that are very expensive. Someone is making a profit off of them. Is it the lady down the street that does massages on Saturday and Thursday afternoons? Probably not. But the fact that the profit isn't equatable to Merck is hardly relevant.

Why don't you look at percentage of profit vs. percentage of total monies spent on alt med and then look at profit of pharm co's vs. money spent on western med. I guarantee you that the percentages would be the same, even if the profit is much less than what Merck rakes in.

There is also a disconnect in that:

Pharmaceutical Co's are Bad because they derive ridiculous profit on products that may or may not work
Alt Med Co's are better because they derive ridiculous profit on products that may or may not work

Why is one held to a different standard than the other? If Alt MEd were so altruistic, then ALL the supplements and Crystal Readings and weekends spent getting in touch with your inner dolphin wouldn't be so RIDICULOUSLY expensive. Have you ever just visited a website, or made a call to see how much these "weekend" classes and help sessions are? They are THOUSANDS of dollars. People are asking others to spend, and others are happy to spend THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to spend a weekend at the facilitator's townhouse with 6 other couples and listen to canned platitudes about how our energies can be redirected through visualization.

I suppose that we can never complain about anything unless we are absolutely sure that there is NOTHING WORSE in the world. We cannot complain, or even point out the gross profits made by alt med because gosh darn it, the pharmaceutical co's make more. That's not a logical way to debate the point.

That's like saying we can't really say anything negative about the Iraq War because there are other causes of much more death and suffering in the world. It's an illogical and ridiculous argument.

[Celebration]

53. Because people making money is fine with me

There is nothing wrong with making money. It should not be fraudulent, and if people make money fraudulently, they should be prosecuted under state laws that forbid that.

The problem that I have with the Mercks of the world is the power that they wield due to their size, their ability to influence policy by hiring hoards of lobbyists, their sponsorship of various things at medical schools, their hiring of writers and statisticians in medical studies, their ability to influence journals because of ordering reprints of articles very profitable to those journals, their advertisements promoting medications that are paid for with tax money or my insurance premiums, etc.

The result of all this is that Americans pay a higher price for prescription drugs than any other country, and are not allowed to shop elsewhere in the world for them, despite "free trade" being policy.

It isn't the profit that is disturbing, it is the way the profit is used to buy influence and to personally cost me, as a taxpayer and consumer, a whole lot of money.

[Heddi]

54. so then you favour regulations and standards on alt-med?

Since you state that making money should not be fraudulent, and those who make money via fraudulent means should be prosecuted under state laws, then you would agree that in order to find out if a product or therapy is or isn't fraudulent, then there must be a set of standards and qualifications for those products or therapies, right?

Or do you believe that "fraudulent" is either in the eye of the beholder, or dependent upon who is selling the product?

If we want to prohibit fraudulent practice, which you do based on your statements and I do as well, then I think it's only natural (heh. pun!) that we have a set of nationalized, maybe even international standards for supplements, therapies, and products. If you want to buy Melatonin capsules, then there should be SOME standard that anything sold as Melatonin has to meet certain standards of production, quality, and amount of active ingredient in said product.

As it is now, there is no regulation other than poorly defined "internal pressure" and "self regulation" in the alt-med industry, specifically the area of nutrients and supplements. You are taking the company's word that when you buy their vitamin C you're actually GETTING vitamin C in the product, and that you're getting a clearly stated amount of vitamin C per dose. Surely you would not suggest that Merck and Pfizer and all those companies should be allowed to just PUT a medication on the market without stringent controls and quality checks regarding the manufacture of the product, or that there should be some regulation that if you buy Medicine A, that the pill actually contains Medicine A.

And since you don't want people to suffer at fraudulent practice, then you would agree that antecdotal evidence isn't enough to prove or disprove the truthfulness of claims---that if someone suggests outright or implied that a certain therapy can reduce cancer mets, then there should be some double-blind, peer reviewed, published studies that state that Yes! This therapy DOES reduce metastasis of cancer cells.

Or that if someone is, say, marketing a copper bracelet that improves arthritis symptoms, then the onus is on the company to show proof through trials and studies and peer review that the bracelet DOES, in fact, improve symptoms of arthritis.

Because otherwise, there would be NO way of knowing whether a product was fraudulent, right?

And based on your own words, you say:

There is nothing wrong with making money. It should not be fraudulent, and if people make money fraudulently, they should be prosecuted under state laws that forbid that.

[beam me up scottie]

55. Brilliant!

:applause:

[Heddi]

56. :bows:

Just taking one statement to its logical conclusion.

oh, and I've been up for about 20 hours straight. My heart is beating funny and my neck hurts. Can't go to bed. GOING THE DISTANCE wooooo (actually I will be asleep within an hour)

[beam me up scottie]

57. You should receive a nice paycheck this week from Big Pharm.

All that overtime...Ka-CHING! :D

[Heddi]

58. Oh yeah! Personally, I'm saving mine up

so that way I can buy that 12 year old Thai slave I've had my eye on for a while. I figure his/her life will be better by cleaning my toilets for pennies a year, right? Hey, someone's gotta keep 'em employed, right, so why not me?

Although during tough times like this, I wonder how the benevolent and philanthropic Kevin Trudeau is getting by these days. I mean,he never WAS a wealthy man by any means. It's such a shame that the profit in Alt Med is so negligible to be virtually non-existent. And that Deepak Chopra or what the fuck his name is. I hope his hovel isn't *too* uncomfortable. I should send him money to buy a mattress and or a pillow. Surely he's not raking in the fucking dough by farting one empty platitude after another. Oh and he makes NO money on the 10,000 different books that are strikingly similar.

They are just urchins, livin' under the street.....

[beam me up scottie]

60. Well, it IS difficult to take advantage of gullible consumers after all.

Nah, there's no easy money to be made in an unregulated industry that brought us such useful medical devices as The Zapper.

[Celebration]

61. Really?

Not so brilliant if you don't know that fraud is already against the law in every single state of the union.

[beam me up scottie]

65. Yeah, really.

You just got a giant dose of your own medicine.

How's it taste? ;)

[Celebration]

66. Ignorance of current laws is NOT brilliance n/t

[beam me up scottie]

67. Neither is the lack of reading comprehension skills.

But please, do go on, your shrill posts always entertain. :popcorn:

[PVnRT]

69. So is murder and rape

What's your point?

[Heddi]

74. Yes, I'm aware of that

but how can you prove fraud unless you test the product to actually SEE if it works. And by product, I also mean treatments, therapies, supplements?

Unless there are universal tests that, say, all detox foot pads must meet this standard of production, this standard of product, this standard of quality control, this standard of efficacy, AND we have tested the efficacy of the product and it does work in X% of the time, or in X % of the population, how can you KNOW if a product is fruadulent?

Just because a product doesn't work doesn't mean that it's sale was fraudulent, or the claims were fraudulent. There are a number of different classes of blood pressure medicine, each of them with a different mechanism of action. If the blood pressure is because of X problem with kidneys, you take this medicine. If the problem is related to another physiologic condition, then you take Y medicine. Sometimes people have to take X & Y blood pressure medicine to get effectiveness. Just because one doesn't work doesn't mean that it's a fraudulent medicine. It just means that the reason they have high blood pressure is different than what that particular medicine treats.

But if there aren't standards in manufacture, production, ingredients, treatment, therapy, or supplement, HOW can we know if a claim is fraudulent? I know there are laws against fraud, but there is also a strict definition of what FRAUD is. Not working does not equal Fraud.

I'm not understanding why the Alt MEd community is so against actually PROVING that what they say their product will do, or treat, or cure, or make better. Why not just DO STUDIES that Kinoki Foot Pads do X. That way, when someone sells them and claims that they cure Y and Z as well, we KNOW that it's fraud because Y and Z were not proven in tests and trials.

Why is that so hard? Why is that so taboo and verbotten?

[Celebration]

59. um, fraud is already against the law!!

Look it up!! Any fraudulent practices can be prosecuted in any state in the union. There is no need for regulation of anything, because the appropriate laws are in place.

Furthermore the FDA has jurisdiction on fraudulent health claims. The FDA stopped the cherry growers association (farmers) from saying eating cherries helped the heart.

If you don't like the way the FDA or the states enforce fraudulent health claims, take it up with them.

[PVnRT]

68. FDA = Food and Drug Administration

Emphasis on food. They regulate cherry production and sales. Thus, they can catch them for fraud. They can't do anything to an industry they don't regulate; no federal agency can.

[Celebration]

62. tell me this, please

In exactly what state of the union is fraud currently legally allowed?

[Celebration]

63. Call your state attorney general

Get them to enforce state laws currently on the books.

[Celebration]

64. No Worries, the FDA is all over fraud

So, why do we need more laws, when they already have this jurisdiction?

“The FDA will not tolerate unsubstantiated health claims that may mislead consumers,” said the associate commissioner for regulatory affairs in the FDA news release. “The FDA will pursue necessary legal action to make sure companies and their executives manufacture and distribute safe, truthfully labeled products to consumers.”

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/02/super-reds-and-super-foods-will-more.html

[Heddi]

73. So, then, you are NOT for regulating Alt Med

and having ANY standards on quality, control, or effecacy for Alt Med.

However, you scream from the hilltops if someone gets a nosebleed from Aspirin because oh my god Big Pharma and FDA and how can these junk products be out on the street for profit and killing people blah blah blah.

You have yet to answer *HOW* a product, or a supplement, or a treatment, can be considered or NOT considered fraudulent UNLESS it there are standards set regarding quality, control, how it works, and how well it works (if at all).

Since the bulk of Alt Med practices, products, and therapies rely on anecdotal evidence, there IS no way for fraud to be proven or disproven. How can you "measure" if someone's chakra is out of line unless there is a subjective, rigorous, and faithful test that can be proven with repeatable results that a chakra out of alignment looks/acts/feels/reacts like THIS and a chakra in alignment looks/acts/feels/reacts like THAT.

But since it's all subjective, then fraud is in the eye of the beholder, it seems, at least in your mind, and only when it comes from Alt Med. Again, you hold Alt Med to a completely different standard than you do pharmaceutical companies. Why is that? Why are you SO against a set of quality standards that say "If you buy a tablet of Vitamin C, here is a stamp from a regulatory agency that ensures you are actually getting Vitamin C in that tablet"

Every. damn. day. I see threads on this forum bitching about how the FDA is willy nilly letting dangerous drugs out on the market and vaccines that haven't been rigorously tested and how can we expect gullible consumers to be guinea pigs against their will. I completely agree with that sentiment, but I wonder why that argument starts and ends with the FDA and "Big Pharma". Why aren't Alt MEd co's held to the same standards. Why do I have to wonder how scrupulous the supplement company is that I get my Vitamin C from, Or my Noni Juice, or my Melatonin? Why can I not be sure that the product I'm getting is actually what it says it is through regulation and quality control OUTSIDE of the ill defined "internal pressure"?

I just don't see why there are double standards

[Celebration]

75. Actually, I think this country has a whole lot of problems with globalization

And they are particularly applicable to the FDA enforcement. Think--dog food, heparin, and many pharmaceutical drugs and non-pharmaceutical supplements (potentially). We have more problems with this than any kind of differences about approval of various things or marketing claims. We don't have an FDA that has the resources to do all that much.

I am really interested in the quality of supplements and the amounts they contain, etc. I wish the FDA had the resources to monitor this more closely. These are the main problems.

Globalization trumps just about everything we have discussed in this thread. The thread has become a "catch all" and the arguments convoluted.

Still, it isn't that more laws are needed. Enforce the ones we have!! (And we aren't allocating the resources to do that).

Well, we *may* need more laws about importation of food, drugs, supplements, etc. and the resources to enforce those laws.

[Heddi]

76. it is impossible for you to stay on the subject

Why don't the MAKERS and SELLERS and PURVEYORS of these products submit their products, therapies, and treatments for studies and testing?

You don't trust the FDA when it comes to anything pharmaceutical related. You don't buy the "overworked, understaffed" argument when it comes to pharmaceutical drugs. Yet when it comes to Alt Med being policed, suddenly the FDA is this poor little federal agency that's just doing the best it can with scant resources.

Where's the love for the FDA and it's regulations and oversight when new drugs are put on the market? When it's pharmaceuticals, the FDA is evil, willy nilly, in the pocket of big business, has no crediblity, blah blah blah. When it comes to Alt Med, though, gosh, we sure do wish the FDA could monitor things more closley, allocate the resources, blah blah blah

There is a blatant double standard that has been brought up again and again---not just in this particular thread, but in thread after thread after thread regarding Alt Med vs. Western Med

The consensus seems to be that Alt Med can do whatever it wants, can make claims without any basis of proof, can make claims without any substantive studies, no peer review, no duplicated results via studies. Products that have not been proven effective, or even proven to contain what they say they contain, can be put on the market. Therapies and treatments can claim to treat, prevent, manage, and cure everything from headaches to brain cancer without one bit of evidence that these therapies and treatments even do what they claim to do. That these companies can swindle and swagger and make whatever claims they wish, and that fraud (when it comes to alt-med) is in the eye of the beholder, that anecdotal evidence is the same as multiple double blind, peer reviewed, repeatable and verified studies.

However, if a new heart medicine, or vaccine, or surgery is made available to the public, there is this collective wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth and worry about how such products can be put on the market without years of teststing, about adverse effects, about whether other treatments are available, about whether the rate of death during the studies is acceptable, how the gullible public are just guinea pigs for the pharmaceutical companies, how the FDA is in the pocket of big pharm, how you can't even trust the pills you're getting are safe and effective and we should just go back to eating shoots and roots for our nutrients and cancer treatments.

TELL ME WHY THERE IS THE DOUBLE STANDARD.

You have not answered this question.

Instead, you have educated us all that there are laws against fraud. Duh.

You have educated us that the Alt Med industry is just some cottage, back yard industry with no wealthy players or corporations

You have educated us that the FDA is this poor overworked, overburdened, altruistic federal regulatory agency and the Alt Med community would LOVE testing and oversight and studies, but the poor FDA just can't do it all, poor little things. Bless their hearts.

You have educated us on a whole litany of things, none of which really have to do with any subject at hand aside from whichever one it is you decide to talk about. You neither refute, nor deny, nor counter any claims that I and others have put forth in this thread. YOu jump from topic to topic, avoiding critical questions and logical conclusions. You cannot keep on track and deliberately refuse to answer questions put forth to you.

WHY IS THERE THE DOUBLE STANDARD BETWEEN WHAT WE REQUIRE FROM PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES AND WESTERN MEDICINE AND WHAT WE REQUIRE FROM ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE AND COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES?

Please. Just answer that question. I know it's going to be hard. You'll want to go off on some strange tangent. JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION FOR GOD'S SAKE

[Celebration]

77. perhaps because you are the strange tangent?? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

78. And yet another swing and a miss! Why won't you answer Heddi's question?

WHY IS THERE THE DOUBLE STANDARD?

[Heddi]

80. Is it just me

Or have I asked at least a billion times

if you were for regulation of Alt Med products so that way we could KNOW if the claims were fraudulent or not
??

is that a tangent? I think it's asking a question (repeatedly) that is conveniently ignored. I think someone's checking all their past posts to make sure they don't say something that goes against something they said in the past that could be used against them.....

[beam me up scottie]

81. Nope, not you at all. That question practically defines this forum.

The frustration is also one of the main reasons why so many of us avoid it.

How can you reason with people who are not just willfully ignorant, but proud of it?

[Heddi]

84. oh my god

I think I need a valium

[beam me up scottie]

86. .

[Heddi]

79. hookay....I'll type real slow for you then

You said that money should not be gained through the sale of fraudulent items.

I asked, then, if you were for regulation of Alt Med products so that way we could KNOW if the claims were fraudulent or not

You went off about globalization

I asked, then, if you were for regulation of Alt Med products so that way we could KNOW if the claims were fraudulent or not

You then reminded everyone that there were laws against fraud

I asked, then, if you were for regulation of Alt Med products so that way we could KNOW if the claims were fraudulent or not

You then say i'm changing the subject.

So I again, I ask, then, if you were for regulation of Alt Med products so that way we could KNOW if the claims were fraudulent or not

I fail to see how I am "on a tangent" when I am continuing in the SAME VEIN the conversation I started last night.

I'm sorry that reading comprehension is so very difficult.

[Celebration]

82. try studying patent law

There is absolutely no possible way that most supplements could meet the current efficacy testing required for new drugs. They have no patent protection, and thus cannot charge the astronomically high monopoly prices of newish drugs. The economics just are not there to do the studies comparable to what is required for patentable medications. Because these things have been around for awhile, no, I am not particularly concerned about their safety (other than the globalization issues). Those economic problems are not reason enough to deprive consumers, should they choose to buy them.

But, I do feel that spot checks of all food, drugs, and supplements that are imported should be done. Do you disagree?

[Heddi]

83. you are absolutely amazing

What the FUCK does patent law have to do with ANYTHING????

So because an herb can't be patented, its efficacy shouldn't be tested?

That's the biggest load of unmitigated bullshit I think I've ever read.

You state "I'm not concerned about their safety", but those of us who ARE can go piss up a rope? The people who have been killed, injured, or permanently disabled because of bullshit herbal supplements don't matter? That caveat emptor applies to anything OUTSIDE of western medicine?

You are a walking hypocrisy. I am saving this thread for the future time when you decry some FDA-approved treatment, drug, supplement, or therapy because it's not safe enough, not tested enough, not enough known before it's put on the market.

Basically, all the Pharm co's need to do is say that Viagra is an "herbal supplement" and not a pharmaceutical treatment and they're off the hook as far as quality control, standards, and efficacy goes? That as long as something can't be patented it shouldn't be tested?

What about the products that ARE patented? The kinoki foot pads? the ionic bracelets? the cures for back pain and sciatic pain and cancer and bone problems? What about the PRODUCTS THAT ARE PATENTED and still make ridiculous claims that are without merit or base? Should THOSE not be tested either because they're part of this ever-widening "alternative and complementary therapy" bullshit scam?

For someone who decries others for not staying on topic, you certainly have a hard time staying on topic AND making logical and comprehensive arguments yourself.

What you have said THROUGHOUT this thread in too many words is "No matter what, Western Medicine is held to a different standard than Alternative Medicine, Treatment, and Therapies. I cannot explain why other than I just believe it to be so. I will not give a coherent argument as to why there is a double standard. There is a double standard and I am happy there is a double standard"


I find it amazing that you can defend this position again and again (when you're able to make a coherent argument) and actually take yourself and your argument seriously. You are admitting that you have a hypocritical stance regarding Western vs. Alt Med. That one should be tightly regulated and the other can do whatever the fuck it wants, harm whoever it wants, make whatever bullshit unsubstantiated claims it wants and that's just hunky dory with you???

[Celebration]

85. hahaha

What a diatribe! Do you feel better?

So turmeric needs to go through the three phase hundreds of millions of dollar testing that the FDA requires, when we have been putting it on our food for years? What is different about encapsulating it and using it as a spice? Are you even aware of all the studies showing that spices are good for you? Until the FDA approves it do we ban the spice, ban the encapsulation of it, or, exactly what do you want?

What about oregano oil? Recipes call for it. It is also used for health reasons. Are you going to go into people's kitchens and dictate to them how it is used? Or just ban it altogether until it is "approved." What about Vitamin C? Who exactly would pay for Vitamin C to be tested to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars? Do you want the government to do it? If not, do you want to ban it? Do you want it made a prescription drug? How could that be done when it hasn't been approved by the FDA? Do you want it to be limited to 100 mg. tablets or something? That way people could take lots of tablets and pay a whole lot more for it. Really, why should you care if someone wants to take Vitamin C?

As for bogus health claims, fraud is already against the law. If you don't like the way the law is enforced then contact the FTC, the FDA, and your state law enforcement. New laws are not needed when there are already laws on the books. "Bogus" health claims about products may cost people money, they may be a good placebo, or they might even work--since they are untested, we don't really know, do we? If a few people waste money on these things, and it is a big problem, our law enforcement can step in. There are also class action law suit threats.

FDA does have their hands full, as they can't even keep our drugs safe (Heparin) and our dogs and cats alive, and chili peppers safe. Any problem with people buying foot pads that don't work pales in comparison to the safety of our food and drugs. We really need to keep our priorities in order. What is the real problem here? How many people died using Vioxx? How many people died and got sick from chili peppers? How many people died using Heparin? How many of our cats and dogs died?

Now, how many people die of foot pads? How many people die using turmeric tablets? How many people die using Vitamin C tablets?

I personally would like to put our limited resources to work where there is the greatest risk, and the greatest risk is definitely NOT FOOT PADS. It is not turmeric, and it is not Vitamin C. But, if they are guilty of fraudulent advertising, law enforcement can deal with it.

You say I have a double standard. Maybe I do, if you call wanting to prioritize limited government resources to address actually proven health risks (such as drugs imported from China) rather than things like foot pads that can't hurt anyone.

[cosmik debris]

87. Yep, absolutely amazing

When the subject of consumer protection comes up, she won't talk about preventing it with science, she only talks about curing it with law enforcement.

When the subject of efficacy comes up, she talks about superstition, or history, or anything but the science needed to prove efficacy.

Obviously a shill for Big Woo!

I wonder if shills for Big Woo get paid more than shills for Big Pharma? I might have to switch sides!

:)

[Celebration]

88. Let's ban turmeric!!

Not.