Was Hep C and Interferon; Now Patent Medicines

[Guest guest]

At the end of Doug's post, he uses the words " patent medicine. " Some

time ago I wrote the following article on why I believe we are

shooting ourselves in the foot when we use this extremely out-dated

and factually incorrect term. Sorry, it lost its formatting and

endnotes when copied here.

 

Why We should Not Use the Term " Patent Medicines "

 

by

Bob Flaws, Lic. Ac., FNAAOM (USA), FRCHM (UK)

 

 

Keywords: Chinese medicine, Chinese herbal medicine, patent medicines,

ready-made medicines

 

Most acupuncturists and practitioners of Chinese medicine in the West

refer to ready-made Chinese medicines (cheng zhong yao) as " patent

medicines. " For years now I have been arguing against this term. Not

only is it factually inaccurate, it also stigmatizes our medicines in

the eyes of those who actually know what patent medicines are. The

following is a definition of patent medicines I found on the Web:

 

The words " patent medicine " refer to products that were marketed,

mostly in the 19th century, as medicines that would cure a host of

diseases. Many of the diseases which these medicines were supposed to

cure are still not curable today – cancer and diabetes, for example.

Why did people buy these products? Well, given that the access to

medical practitioners was limited, especially in rural areas, and the

state of medical technology in the 19th century, who wouldn't buy

these products? After all, going to your general store and purchasing

a prepared medicine was a lot easier and a lot more pleasant than

going to a doctor and having him perform blood-letting!

 

In other words, " patent medicines " refer to 19th century " snake oil, "

and the use of this term plays directly into the hands of those who

would denigrate our medicine as quackery. Why were these 19th century

ready-made medicines called patent medicines. The explanation is given

by the same e-source:

 

In mid 18th century England, some producers of medical preparations

applied for and obtained Royal Patents for their products. The patents

protected the owners' rights to the products and gave some prestige to

the medicines. Robert Turlington was one of the very first to receive

a Royal Patent for his " Balsam of Life. " Later on, the term patent

medicine was applied to any of this type of product, whether patented

or not.

 

The fact that this term is pejorative and detrimental to the public

perception of our medicine is aptly demonstrated by the following FDA

page on patent medicines published under the title, " The Patent

Medicine Menace. " Because it is the " official " U.S. governmental

position on patent medicines, I am presenting it here below in its

entirety. It should be a wake-up call to all those within our

profession who insist on using this archaic, inaccurate, and

defamatory term.

 

Patent medicines have had a long and ignominious history in the U. S.,

reaching their zenith in the late 19th century. As the population

became more urban and somewhat more capitalized, a ripe target emerged

for some post-industrial entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs who would thrive

in a marketplace best characterized by the dictum, 'caveat emptor'.

Communications had expanded, and the printed word became a crucial

venue for the proliferation of patent medicines. The rise of

advertising in America, not coincidentally, paralleled the rise of

nostrums. At the same time, the biomedical sciences in this country

were still in their infancy, and medicine was ill-equipped to deal

with most diseases. An army of enterprising individuals were prepared

to step in and alleviate the suffering.

 

Nostrums permeated American society by the late 19th century. Products

appealed to exotica, the medical knowledge of Native Americans, death,

religion, patriotism, mythology (a natural for this industry!), and

especially new developments in science. There was nothing to stop

patent medicines makers from claiming anything and putting anything in

their products, clearly seen in the famous morphine- and alcohol-laced

soothing syrups for teething and colicky babies. Cancer and arthritis

cures, baldness remedies, bust developers, manhood restorers –

wherever a need existed, patent medicine makers stepped in. They did

not have a monopoly on the market, though. The ethical pharmaceutical

industry, those firms that advertised for the most part directly to

health professionals, sold their share of nostrums as well.

 

Quacks developed successful marketing techniques, but they also

promoted their interests in more surreptitious ways. For example, they

subdued any curiosity in the press with their economic strength. By

the 1890s, patent medicine manufacturers used so-called " red clauses "

in the their advertising contracts with newspapers and magazines.

These muzzle clauses voided the contract if a state law regulating

nostrums were passed. Thus, not only were many editorials silent on

the need for such laws, they actively campaigned against them.

 

But quacks and their trade associations were not able to stifle the

entire fourth estate. A few muckraking journalists helped expose the

red clauses, the false testimonials, the nostrums laden with harmful

ingredients, the unfounded cures for cancer, tuberculosis, syphilis,

narcotic addiction, and a host of other serious as well as

self-limited diseases. The most influential work in this genre was the

series by Samuel Hopkins Adams that appeared in Collier's on October

7, 1905, titled " The Great American Fraud. " Adams published 10

articles in the series which concluded in February 1906. He followed

this up with another series on doctors who advertised fake clinics.

The shocking stories of the patent medicine menace were accompanied by

startling images, such as " Death's Laboratory. "

 

That same month saw the publication of another work which, more than

any other single event, spurred on passage of the 1906 act. Socialist

writer Upton Sinclair published The Jungle, a fact-based novel about

immigrant life in the meat-packing industry of Chicago. Sinclair's

shocking and revolting story, verified by government undercover

investigators, primed the final push for a federal law.

 

The first federal Food and Drugs Act was passed four months later. The

exposés of muckrakers like Adams and Sinclair had a major impact on

passage of the bill, as did the untiring work of the General

Federation of Women's Clubs, state food and drug officials, the

American Medical Association, and the American Pharmaceutical

Association. Most notable among the reformers was the head of the

Bureau of Chemistry of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Harvey

Washington Wiley, who stumped for remedial legislation since his

arrival in Washington in 1883 (though Wiley was much more concerned

with food supply). The law prohibited adulteration and misbranding of

food and drugs, and though it had many shortcomings, it was arguably

the pinnacle of Progressive Era legislation. It did not put quackery

out of business; that still thrives. But it brought some disclosure

and accountability into the marketplace, an important first step in

consumer protection.

 

At this point in time, Chinese herbal medicine is experiencing an

image problem. There have been the deaths from kidney failure in

Europe and the U.S. due to aristolochic acid, there has been the

discovery and broadcasting of the adulteration of a number of Chinese

ready-made medicines with Western scheduled drugs, and, most recently,

there has been the FDA banning of Ma Huang (Herba Ephedrae) and Ban

Xia (Rhizoma Pinelliae Ternatae) from all dietary supplements. As the

FDA has made clear in public communications, if this last ban is made

to stick, it plans to ban other substances from dietary supplements,

including all of the citrus family of herbs, such as Chen Pi

(Pericarpium Citri Reticulatae), Qing Pi (Pericarpium Citri

Reticulatae Viride), Zhi Ke (Fructus Citri Aurantii), Zhi Shi (Fructus

Immaturus Citri Aurantii), and Fo Shou (Fructus Citri Sacrodactylis),

due to these herbs' inclusion of the medically active ingredient

sinephrine. Ready-made Chinese medicines sold in the U.S. are done so

legally as " dietary supplements " under DSHEA (the Dietary Supplement &

Health Education Act) even though, in actuality, that is not what they

are. At the moment, we need all the good press and PR we can get.

Therefore, I believe we should immediately jettison our use of the

term " patent medicine " and switch to the direct English translation of

what these medicines are called in Chinese, cheng zhong yao, prepared

or ready-made Chinese medicines.

 

Ready-made Chinese medicines includes all those Chinese medicines

which are available in ready-made form, such as pills, capsules,

tablets, powdered extracts, tinctures, medicated oils, and plasters,

whether made in Asia or in the West. Several years ago, the government

of the People's Republic of China realized that ready-made Chinese

herbal medicines had a problem with perceived quality. Currently,

quality control is job #1 of the Chinese medical division of the SDA,

the State Drug Administration, China's equivalent of the FDA. The

Chinese herbal business represents $25 billion dollars per year of

income to the PRC, mostly in hard currencies from countries such as

the U.S. Germany, and Canada. In fact, the U.S. accounts for 15% of

this total, more than domestic Chinese sales. So the U.S. market is

extremely important to the rulers of the PRC, and they are doing

everything they can to insure that access to this cash cow is well

protected. For instance, by governmental fiat, all Chinese drug

manufacturies must be GMP certified by the end of this year, and China

will be the first country in the world to institute Good Agricultural

Procedures (GAP, 2007) which have been specifically designed for the

Chinese herbal industry. Further, American distributors and

manufacturers of ready-made Chinese medicines have taken great strides

in the last several years to insure quality control on this end. These

companies now routinely require testing on every batch of every

medicine with set standards for microbial, heavy metal, and pesticide

residue contamination. In addition, all these American companies will

be required by the U.S. FDA in the near future to comply with GMPs,

and already all companies selling ready-made Chinese medicinals in the

U.S. must meet FDA labeling standards for herb identifications, etc.

on their packaging.

 

The point that I am trying to make is that the ready-made Chinese

medicine industry in the U.S., China, and Taiwan has greatly improved

quality control over even just five years ago, but we prescribers and

consumers continue to spread a false perception of the poor and even

dangerous quality of these products by their erroneous labeling as

" patent medicines. " I believe that, in order for this medicine to

survive in an increasingly hostile regulatory environment, we, as a

profession, need to make a concerted effort to abandon this out-dated

and pejorative label and switch to the more correct and neutral term

of prepared or ready-made Chinese medicines. If we continue using this

out-dated and erroneous label, we will only have ourselves to blame

when the FDA attempts to regulate us out of business.

 

Blue Poppy Press, 2004. All rights reserved. To see the

original article with its formatting and endnotes, go to:

www.bluepoppy.com in the Free Articles section.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " "

wrote:

>

>

> > , " G Hudson " <crudo20@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > I don't want to hijack the thread here... but would this interaction

> > > with interferon also apply to MS patients getting interferon?

> > >

> > > Geoff

>

> I can see MS and interferon having the exact same issues.

>

> To pick up on some of Misha's comments, the hospital I observed in

didn't use Chai Hu as

> they thought it was too damaging to the liver. If I can say that

they had a subsititute I

> would say they were big on Mei Gui Hua, and I've learned to

appreciate it as well.

> The one thing I can say about Chai Hu, is if it does increase

interferon levels

> then why not use it when safe to help fight the virus? After all,

one of my patients may be

> going on a super low dose of interferon. Still I haven't put Chai Hu

in my " patent " formula

> that I had made up in

> bulk.

>

> doug

> > >

> >

>