Is libertarianism a reasonable approach to availability of nutritional substances?

May 3, 2007

Hi

Nice to hear from you. I agree with you to a point. Libertarianism is a two

edged sword: On the one hand, I believe firmly that governmental intervention

ala " Big Brother " is a very dangerous evil. On the other hand, I believe that

there are too many desperate ignorant people who gullibly are sold a bill of

goods by salespeople, some scrupulous and just ignorant, and some obscenely

unscrupulous. I think, personally that it is criminal that billions are spent

on health and nutrition in the form of vitamins, minerals, nutriceuticals and

herbs based upon the advise of on line doctor/advisors who have never once seen

their patients or " nutritional consultants " who work at health stores, who have

maybe read a book or taken a course or two, often paid for or sponsored by the

company selling the product.

I therefore respectfully disagree and believe that the approach which you

support is also ethically unacceptable. There is a time and a place for

regulation, and appropriate regulation should be reasonable and fair.

Maimonides describes this approach at length as the " golden mean " or middle

path.

That should mean, IMO, the following:

1. In order to purchase herbal medicines or nutraceuticals one should provide

evidence that they are competently educated in the indications and

contraindications, either as a practitioner by passing a test, or provide

evidence that they are attending a qualified course, or are attending an

apprenticeship under the sponsorship of a practitioner.

2. Those selling products or formulae should list information much as an

entry is presented in a materia medica, or Merck manual, rather than jazzing up

a sales presentation which could be misconstrued.

3. Practitioners should be required to see patients face to face, at least

initially and on some reasonably regular basis in order to prescribe herbal

medicines or nutriceuticals for them.

4. Consumers should have some kind of ombudsman service to adequately protect

their interests and help them articulate their needs if necessary.

Yes, you should be able to buy whatever you want, but no, John Doe down the

block shouldn't be allowed to go into his local health food store or website for

that matter, and throw down hundreds of dollars for products claiming to

increase his libido or muscles, lower his blood pressure and resolve his

migraine headaches, while at the same time buying organic cigarettes, Terra

fried chips, sugary energy bars, and little or no real whole organic food.

Nutritional consultants should advise people how to eat properly, how to prepare

foods and how to stay healthy, not play doctors.

Wishing you much success,

Yehuda

wrote:

I do agree that the licensed profession of TCM should be able to treat

medical diseases and claim to do so if they do the research to prove it.

However, I would strongly oppose any regulations that interfered with the lay

practice of herbology for health maintenance. No law should restrict the use of

natural plants nor, at the very least, the right of laypersons to treat

themselves, their families, and their friends. Laypersons should also be able to

treat strangers for profit as long as they disclose their training and do not

make medical claims. I have always believed that libertarian and regulated

commerce can coexist. Those who feel comforted by rules and regs can avail

themselves of them and those who could care less are free to live without them.

Caveat emptor. You only get hurt this way if you choose to see a layperson. You

always have the choice to see a licensee. Fact is that some of the best

herbalists in this country do not have a license and it would

be unethical to re

strict their trade on many levels (injury to patients and source of income, for

example). I no longer have a license (though I do not mean to imply I am one of

those unlicensed " best) and have no intention of ever practicing again, but if

any law is passed that prevents me from purchasing herbs to treat myself, I will

be willing to take up arms to regain my rights. Be very clear, the number of

people in this country who support free access to herbs is far in excess of

those who practice with a license. You will lose this battle and suffer greatly

in the public eye for fighting it if this is the road you choose.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

> Thanks Doc,

>

> That's very kind of you. But I must respectfully decline! I am too old

> chonologically, too young in experience, much too much of a free spirit to

lead

> others politically, and too ethnic looking to be considered and judged

> objectively. But you can count on my involvement!

>

> Thanks everybody for making this so much fun.

>

> Yehuda

>

> " Dr. W. W. Waldrope DOM AP " <dr.w.w.waldrope wrote:

> All,

>

> Thanks to Yehuda and everyone for your eloquence.

> Once again, I apologise for my RANT but I am gratified by the response.

>

> Zev, I did not mean to imply any negative connotation by the word

> " jargon " . " Terminology " would have been a better term.

>

> At any rate, I hope everyone can see the NEED for more organization

> and discourse relating to the protection of TCM. Perhaps we should

> develop a new national organization to address these issues. [ I

> nominate Yehuda to be founding President;) ] It is unfortunate that

> we have to devote time to this, but there it is.

>

> It should be obvious that there is much to be done regarding the

> protection of TCM in this country. Ultimately, this need is more about

> our patients rather than ourselves.

>

> I look forward to David's analysis of Sen. Kennedy's bill and comments

> about the individual herb compounding issue.

>

> Regards,

> dr.w

>

> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible " new car " smell?

> Check outnew cars at Autos.

>

May 3, 2007

Yehuda

I don't believe that products should have health claims on them at all. However,

the role of government in this case should be to inform their citizens that if

they want protection from big brother, this is how one goes about obtaining it.

If you decline this protection, you are on your own. I prefer education to

regulation in almost all cases where consumer ignorance or gullibility is the

issue. I think advertisers who sell any form of medicine directly to the public

are despicable, including many in the acupuncture profession who will tell their

patient anything to make a sale. How do we go about deciding who has taken a

reputable course or how do we design a fair test. Does one need to know TCM to

take Chinese herbs for personal use. No way. China has a long folk use tradition

and british common law also preserves the rights I speak of. To do what you are

suggesting turns hundreds of years of legal precedent on its head. It is unfair

to deprive one person of his rights just beca

use another person is too stupid to exercise his judiciously. there must be

another solution that preserves liberty and also protects the public. What you

propose does not do this.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

> Hi

>

> Nice to hear from you. I agree with you to a point. Libertarianism is a

two

> edged sword: On the one hand, I believe firmly that governmental intervention

> ala " Big Brother " is a very dangerous evil. On the other hand, I believe that

> there are too many desperate ignorant people who gullibly are sold a bill of

> goods by salespeople, some scrupulous and just ignorant, and some obscenely

> unscrupulous. I think, personally that it is criminal that billions are spent

> on health and nutrition in the form of vitamins, minerals, nutriceuticals and

> herbs based upon the advise of on line doctor/advisors who have never once

seen

> their patients or " nutritional consultants " who work at health stores, who

have

> maybe read a book or taken a course or two, often paid for or sponsored by the

> company selling the product.

>

> I therefore respectfully disagree and believe that the approach which you

> support is also ethically unacceptable. There is a time and a place for

> regulation, and appropriate regulation should be reasonable and fair.

> Maimonides describes this approach at length as the " golden mean " or middle

> path.

>

> That should mean, IMO, the following:

>

> 1. In order to purchase herbal medicines or nutraceuticals one should

provide

> evidence that they are competently educated in the indications and

> contraindications, either as a practitioner by passing a test, or provide

> evidence that they are attending a qualified course, or are attending an

> apprenticeship under the sponsorship of a practitioner.

> 2. Those selling products or formulae should list information much as an

> entry is presented in a materia medica, or Merck manual, rather than jazzing

up

> a sales presentation which could be misconstrued.

> 3. Practitioners should be required to see patients face to face, at least

> initially and on some reasonably regular basis in order to prescribe herbal

> medicines or nutriceuticals for them.

> 4. Consumers should have some kind of ombudsman service to adequately

protect

> their interests and help them articulate their needs if necessary.

>

> Yes, you should be able to buy whatever you want, but no, John Doe down the

> block shouldn't be allowed to go into his local health food store or website

for

> that matter, and throw down hundreds of dollars for products claiming to

> increase his libido or muscles, lower his blood pressure and resolve his

> migraine headaches, while at the same time buying organic cigarettes, Terra

> fried chips, sugary energy bars, and little or no real whole organic food.

> Nutritional consultants should advise people how to eat properly, how to

prepare

> foods and how to stay healthy, not play doctors.

>

> Wishing you much success,

>

> Yehuda

>

> wrote:

> I do agree that the licensed profession of TCM should be able to

treat

> medical diseases and claim to do so if they do the research to prove it.

> However, I would strongly oppose any regulations that interfered with the lay

> practice of herbology for health maintenance. No law should restrict the use

of

> natural plants nor, at the very least, the right of laypersons to treat

> themselves, their families, and their friends. Laypersons should also be able

to

> treat strangers for profit as long as they disclose their training and do not

> make medical claims. I have always believed that libertarian and regulated

> commerce can coexist. Those who feel comforted by rules and regs can avail

> themselves of them and those who could care less are free to live without

them.

> Caveat emptor. You only get hurt this way if you choose to see a layperson.

You

> always have the choice to see a licensee. Fact is that some of the best

> herbalists in this country do not have a license and it would

> be unethical to re

> strict their trade on many levels (injury to patients and source of income,

for

> example). I no longer have a license (though I do not mean to imply I am one

of

> those unlicensed " best) and have no intention of ever practicing again, but if

> any law is passed that prevents me from purchasing herbs to treat myself, I

will

> be willing to take up arms to regain my rights. Be very clear, the number of

> people in this country who support free access to herbs is far in excess of

> those who practice with a license. You will lose this battle and suffer

greatly

> in the public eye for fighting it if this is the road you choose.

>

> -------------- Original message ----------------------

>

> > Thanks Doc,

> >

> > That's very kind of you. But I must respectfully decline! I am too old

> > chonologically, too young in experience, much too much of a free spirit to

> lead

> > others politically, and too ethnic looking to be considered and judged

> > objectively. But you can count on my involvement!

> >

> > Thanks everybody for making this so much fun.

> >

> > Yehuda

> >

> > " Dr. W. W. Waldrope DOM AP " <dr.w.w.waldrope wrote:

> > All,

> >

> > Thanks to Yehuda and everyone for your eloquence.

> > Once again, I apologise for my RANT but I am gratified by the response.

> >

> > Zev, I did not mean to imply any negative connotation by the word

> > " jargon " . " Terminology " would have been a better term.

> >

> > At any rate, I hope everyone can see the NEED for more organization

> > and discourse relating to the protection of TCM. Perhaps we should

> > develop a new national organization to address these issues. [ I

> > nominate Yehuda to be founding President;) ] It is unfortunate that

> > we have to devote time to this, but there it is.

> >

> > It should be obvious that there is much to be done regarding the

> > protection of TCM in this country. Ultimately, this need is more about

> > our patients rather than ourselves.

> >

> > I look forward to David's analysis of Sen. Kennedy's bill and comments

> > about the individual herb compounding issue.

> >

> > Regards,

> > dr.w

> >

> > Ahhh...imagining that irresistible " new car " smell?

> > Check outnew cars at Autos.

> >

May 3, 2007

I agree with you that the key is objective education and equal access to

information. Unfortunately, currently, other than companies selling their

products, access to information can be confusing and oblique. So how should

this out of control " wild wild west " status quo be resolved? First as you

agree, there must be some kind of effort made to curtail " Infomercialism " , not

because people shouldn't have access, but because that access needs to be

balanced and objective. But public access to herbs and nutraceuticals? I do

agree with you that the heavy hand of government preventing access to choices in

healthcare should be constitutionally protected. Yet the practice of medicine

is not a game, and I find it equally reprehensible that anyone off the street

can walk into a store in Chinatown and buy any ready made formula in pill form

based upon what he reads in Naesser or Fratkin's book or based upon the advice

of a salesgirl without any training at all.

Of course they or raw herbs should be available to anyone who knows what they

are for and how to use them, but where do we draw the line? How can the

consumer find out indications and contraindication from an accessable and

reliable unbiased source? Take the misuse of Ma Huang as a diet aid. How can

someone know that it is contraindicated for this when one hears that her friend

used it to lose 5 lbs last week? Where do we draw the line and how do we

educate the public? I am not proposing legislation, I am simply exploring ideas

with the group to resolve what I and others feel is an unacceptable status quo.

I simply do not believe that having a buyer purchase at his own risk is

reasonable unless the playing field can be balanced with objective and informed

access.