quackbusting
I thought I'd start this blog with a look at the strongest evidence the venerable quackwatch is throwing at the herbal profession these days. Well, they don't appear to have much new to say at all. The last time the herbal section of their website was updated was in 2000. This is the strongest wording they have at that time:
"Researchers from Harvard have evaluated claims made on 443 Web sites located by searching for information about eight widely used herbal supplements (ginkgo biloba, St John's wort, echinacea, ginseng, garlic, saw palmetto, kava kava, and valerian root). [10]. The researchers concluded:
- Among 443 sites, 338 (76%) were retail sites either selling product or directly linked to a vendor.
- 273 (81%) of the 338 retail Web sites made 1 or more health claims, with 149 (55%) claiming to treat, prevent, diagnose, or cure specific diseases.
- More than half (153/292; 52%) of sites with a health claim omitted the legally required standard federal disclaimer.
- Nonretail sites were more likely than retail sites to include literature references, but only 52 (12%) of the 443 Web sites provided referenced information without a link to a distributor or vendor.
- Consumers may be misled by vendors' claims that herbal products can treat, prevent, diagnose, or cure specific diseases, despite regulations prohibiting such statements. Physicians should be aware of this widespread and easily accessible information.
- More effective regulation is required to put this class of therapeutics on the same evidence-based footing as other medicinal products."


0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home