Guest guest Posted November 13, 2008 Report Share Posted November 13, 2008 , I quote you: " I am not about to accept whatever I am accused of regardless - nor be silenced. Nor am I adverse to looking at myself. " This is rather contradictory. If you are critical of other people and expect them to change their way of thinking, you should be also prepared to take critism and see other people's view. Nobody is going to lynch you. It's just that you continually twist what other people say...It makes me wonder if your approach to SR stems from similar misinterpretations... --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2008 Report Share Posted November 13, 2008 The more people we treat, the more they benefit, the more they want herbs. Governments and medical practitioners (who are the people who currently run the health service) only respond, they do not lead. It is our responsibility to be well trained, competent and bring the benefits of herbs to as many people as possible. This, to my mind, is the emptiness of political discussions because it distracts us from our work. We are not at the stage where we have the luxury of time, money and power to discuss the finer points of political structures. I think the emphasis of our energy needs to be on our work. Regards Gascoigne Email: mailto:drgascoigne@... Web: http://www.drgascoigne.com oenetheras wrote: > > Divide and rule comes to mind. I'm not into conspiracies at all but > it just comes to mind on reflection of all this SR stuff. The oldest > trick in the book. Food for thought maybe. > > I want to see herbal medicine available on the NHS. People have to > demand it. How can we achieve that? > > > > > > > > Dear > > > I have no pro Sr stance - I simply dont know which way I feel > > but I > > > do know as I said earlier to you that you have the knack of > > turning > > > around every comment made to you about the way you " > > communicate " > > > into one of amazed befuddlement as to how any one can think > that > > of > > > you and point the finger back at everyone else who does not > like > > your > > > tone of voice. everyone else is wrong except you is always your > > > attitude. > > > annette > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 I am absolutely in agreement with you. That is very well said. I would only add that it is also our responsibility to research, as the 'response' is also to research, the 'evidence base' as with everything these days. The value of it is another debate. For instance the idea of children being Visual Auditory or Kinesthetic learners was wholeheartedly put into practice in education only for new research to say we're all a little bit of all three! Unsurprising! And the carrots can cause cancer one. Not to mention the randomised clinical trial problems for herbalists. Nevertheless 'research led practice' is the way decisions are made and certainly in the NHS. So our energies should be there. Joanna  ________________________________ To: ukherbal-list Sent: Thursday, 13 November, 2008 21:19:11 Subject: Re: Re: SR The more people we treat, the more they benefit, the more they want herbs. Governments and medical practitioners (who are the people who currently run the health service) only respond, they do not lead. It is our responsibility to be well trained, competent and bring the benefits of herbs to as many people as possible. This, to my mind, is the emptiness of political discussions because it distracts us from our work. We are not at the stage where we have the luxury of time, money and power to discuss the finer points of political structures. I think the emphasis of our energy needs to be on our work. Regards Gascoigne Email: mailto:drgascoigne@ drgascoigne. com Web: http://www.drgascoi gne.com oenetheras wrote: > > Divide and rule comes to mind. I'm not into conspiracies at all but > it just comes to mind on reflection of all this SR stuff. The oldest > trick in the book. Food for thought maybe. > > I want to see herbal medicine available on the NHS. People have to > demand it. How can we achieve that? > > > > > > > > Dear > > > I have no pro Sr stance - I simply dont know which way I feel > > but I > > > do know as I said earlier to you that you have the knack of > > turning > > > around every comment made to you about the way you " > > communicate " > > > into one of amazed befuddlement as to how any one can think > that > > of > > > you and point the finger back at everyone else who does not > like > > your > > > tone of voice. everyone else is wrong except you is always your > > > attitude. > > > annette > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Dear , would you like to expand your arguement in order to elucidate the points you are making; at the moment it just does not hang together for me and I would love to understand. I am on the receiving end of a lot of critercism at the moment. How do you know I cannot take valid critercism? Am I supposed to accept every critercism here without discrimination? How do you know I cannot see another point of view? Is that what you believe when I do not agree with something you believe, or accept something as true? If it is not! Please explain, give examples. Or perhaps it is when my view threatens your own? Where do I say I expect others to change their way of thinking? Think that might take an enormous amount of time and energy without any success. Where (give examples) do I twist what people say? Please tell me about (explain) your wonderings of my mind and how it might affect my " approach to SR (which) stems from similar misinterpretations... " ? H'mm thought I had quite a discriminating mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Hello All, Firstly, thank you to Jacqui for reminder of reflection, I too have found myself pondering on these matters. Some of the issues (in no particular order) re: SR seem to be: 1) about freedom - we are used to freedom to practice whilst the current climate is about control via many draconian policies by processes that remain unclear. 2) about politics - as we all know, politics is never obvious, methods are never known & there is a vague to extreme unease about what is going on behind the scenes we see. 3) about our direction as a profession - as a group, we have mandated our voluntary councils to deal with the political directions they have taken; I for one am prepared to admit, do not have the inclination to do as my colleagues have done, and admire them for their dedicated work. The political direction taken is however not to everyone's taste, probably because many questions remain unanswered… 4) about risks - our future is uncertain and I admire the dissenters of SR for clearly stating this; their concerns perhaps remind us of our vulnerability. As it stands the rights we have to practise our craft are in law but they can, I have been told, can be rescinded at the stroke of a pen - such a vulnerability would be removed with " official recognition " of herbalists in law. 5) about our councils and their activities - as a profession, we have elected fellow colleagues to do our work for us on our behalf so we don't have to - they, I believe, have had many sleepless and fraught times dealing with the insurmountable mountains of stuff. They have made tough decisions and I am sure questioned their consciences along this difficult path. 6) about judgements - there are concerns the directions taken by our delegated representatives - I know our councils not to be fools, I believe they use legal and political advisors to help them make judgements and to determine policy - I have never seen this mentioned anywhere before. 7) about dissent re: SR - minorities have always been side-lined - I see genuine concern about the direction our profession is taking and I see questions raised unanswered, as an observation, this does not look at all transparent - at a momentous time like the one we face, transparency is more important than being political. The future we have should not be determined by a few, but by us all. 8) about passion - we as a group are passionate about our skills and abilities to help others that big brother characters just can't do or even understand - legislation is often used for more than clear simple motives. 9) about ownership - medicine belongs to medics and herbs (drugs) to pharmacists - I believe we are judged to be in the way of these professions (businesses) perceived rights of ownership! It is not unusual for legislation to allow bullies to intimidate smaller fry to take power or control… Laws are often influenced by or according to the powerful using their connections & allies; I seem to remember the brewers were attacked for dispensing medicines during the time of Henry VIII, their allies soon got protection enacted! With best regards, Benn -- Benn Abdy- MCPP Medical Herbalist 0 or 07957 65 88 90 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 Beautifully put, . Regards, Natalia > The more people we treat, the more they benefit, the more they want > herbs. Governments and medical practitioners (who are the people who > currently run the health service) only respond, they do not lead. It > is > our responsibility to be well trained, competent and bring the > benefits > of herbs to as many people as possible. This, to my mind, is the > emptiness of political discussions because it distracts us from our > work. We are not at the stage where we have the luxury of time, money > and power to discuss the finer points of political structures. I think > the emphasis of our energy needs to be on our work. > > Regards > > Gascoigne > > Email: mailto:drgascoigne@... > Web: http://www.drgascoigne.com > > oenetheras wrote: > > > > Divide and rule comes to mind. I'm not into conspiracies at all but > > it just comes to mind on reflection of all this SR stuff. The oldest > > trick in the book. Food for thought maybe. > > > > I want to see herbal medicine available on the NHS. People have to > > demand it. How can we achieve that? > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear > > > > I have no pro Sr stance - I simply dont know which way I feel > > > but I > > > > do know as I said earlier to you that you have the knack of > > > turning > > > > around every comment made to you about the way you " > > > communicate " > > > > into one of amazed befuddlement as to how any one can think > > that > > > of > > > > you and point the finger back at everyone else who does not > > like > > > your > > > > tone of voice. everyone else is wrong except you is always your > > > > attitude. > > > > annette > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 Dear , I regret I have no time to pick through your emails to quote what you have said, but just based on the last one: - you do not seem to accept that you have condradicted yourself (see the previous quote again) - you speculate that I am threatened by your views (that is exactly what I would call twisting!); why on earth would I be threatened? - I haven't noticed in your responses any indication that you see the viewpoint of the regulators, for instance, safegarding the safety of the patients and protecting the public form unqualified practitioners - right from the beginning you have been urging people to rethink their attitude to SR and follow your view - if you don't expect people to change their views, what is the point of your whole campain? Lastly, I think is is extremely easy to misinterpret people's emails and to read into the message things that were not intended by the writer. I have seen it happen on this list many times in numerous discussions. I respect your right to have different views and I only ask you to do the same.   Subject: Re: SR To: ukherbal-list Date: Friday, 14 November, 2008, 2:11 PM Dear , would you like to expand your arguement in order to elucidate the points you are making; at the moment it just does not hang together for me and I would love to understand. I am on the receiving end of a lot of critercism at the moment. How do you know I cannot take valid critercism? Am I supposed to accept every critercism here without discrimination? How do you know I cannot see another point of view? Is that what you believe when I do not agree with something you believe, or accept something as true? If it is not! Please explain, give examples. Or perhaps it is when my view threatens your own? Where do I say I expect others to change their way of thinking? Think that might take an enormous amount of time and energy without any success. Where (give examples) do I twist what people say? Please tell me about (explain) your wonderings of my mind and how it might affect my " approach to SR (which) stems from similar misinterpretations. .. " ? H'mm thought I had quite a discriminating mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2008 Report Share Posted November 16, 2008 You do sometimes hear of problems with herbs. There was a reported case of someone in Liverpool in 1989 who tripped over a box of chamomile tea in a local Holland and Barrett store. :-) Regards Email: mailto:drgascoigne@... Web: http://www.drgascoigne.com anna.newton@... wrote: > > Hi Graham, I think you are absolutely right about the safety - there > is minimal risk but a few fatal cases that were linked to dodgy > practitioners/products have created a lot bad publicity for us > (unproportional in the context of how many people die of side effects > of the orthodox meds). I think regulating us is just another aspect of > overregulating syndrome of the Western governements including the bans > on conkers or Samurai swords. > > > > > From: Graham White <gcwhite@... <mailto:gcwhite%40ntlworld.com>> > Subject: SR > To: " UK Herbal List " <ukherbal-list > <mailto:ukherbal-list%40yahoogroups.com>> > Date: Saturday, 15 November, 2008, 8:35 PM > > Hi All > > Some time ago I asked for information on herbal safety and efficacy > for a talk I was going to do at the Verity conference in October. > Thanks to all who responded. I have now uploaded the entire Powerpoint > presentation into the files area of this list, feel free to use it > with the usual caveat of acknowledging where you got it from. > > Prior to doing this talk I was a lukewarm supporter of the whole SR > process but have since changed my mind. As far as I can see the sole > " admitted " regulatory aim of this process is to " protect the public " > to which I ask " Protect the public from what? " . > > To my mind the killer quote is the one from the Bain report: > > . " Despite a diligent search of Coronial records and the literature, no > instances have been found to demonstrate that in fact with these > products in NZ there is any serious public health issue or risk to the > public. The problem is clearly with prescription and other drugs and > no demonstrable risk at all with these natural products. " > > . > . " The Coronial and literature searches in so far as natural products > etc are concerned and linkages to public safety and risk can be > described legally as De minimis non curat lex. That is - of minimal > risk importance. The law (regulations etc) does not and should not > concern itself with trifles. " > > Cheers > > Graham White, B. Sc. (Herb. Med.) > Medical Herbalist > ============ ========= ======== > > PS. Anyone know why it's changed font size on me and won't let me > change back? > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2008 Report Share Posted November 16, 2008 Hi Graham, I think you are absolutely right about the safety - there is minimal risk but a few fatal cases that were linked to dodgy practitioners/products have created a lot bad publicity for us (unproportional in the context of how many people die of side effects of the orthodox meds). I think regulating us is just another aspect of overregulating syndrome of the Western governements including the bans on conkers or Samurai swords. Subject: SR To: " UK Herbal List " <ukherbal-list > Date: Saturday, 15 November, 2008, 8:35 PM Hi All Some time ago I asked for information on herbal safety and efficacy for a talk I was going to do at the Verity conference in October. Thanks to all who responded. I have now uploaded the entire Powerpoint presentation into the files area of this list, feel free to use it with the usual caveat of acknowledging where you got it from. Prior to doing this talk I was a lukewarm supporter of the whole SR process but have since changed my mind. As far as I can see the sole " admitted " regulatory aim of this process is to " protect the public " to which I ask " Protect the public from what? " . To my mind the killer quote is the one from the Bain report: .. " Despite a diligent search of Coronial records and the literature, no instances have been found to demonstrate that in fact with these products in NZ there is any serious public health issue or risk to the public. The problem is clearly with prescription and other drugs and no demonstrable risk at all with these natural products. " .. .. " The Coronial and literature searches in so far as natural products etc are concerned and linkages to public safety and risk can be described legally as De minimis non curat lex. That is - of minimal risk importance. The law (regulations etc) does not and should not concern itself with trifles. " Cheers Graham White, B. Sc. (Herb. Med.) Medical Herbalist ============ ========= ======== PS. Anyone know why it's changed font size on me and won't let me change back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2008 Report Share Posted November 16, 2008 Dear , I guess it is because I do not care about the safety and wellbeing of others, hence my attitude. As for the rest I cannot be bothered to answer; you are welcome to your highly enlightened opinions and interpretations which you can hold knowing you have every right to do so. > > > Subject: Re: SR > To: ukherbal-list > Date: Friday, 14 November, 2008, 2:11 PM > > > > > > > Dear , > would you like to expand your arguement in order to elucidate the > points you are making; at the moment it just does not hang together > for me and I would love to understand. > > I am on the receiving end of a lot of critercism at the moment. How > do you know I cannot take valid critercism? Am I supposed to accept > every critercism here without discrimination? > > How do you know I cannot see another point of view? Is that what you > believe when I do not agree with something you believe, or accept > something as true? If it is not! Please explain, give examples. Or > perhaps it is when my view threatens your own? > > Where do I say I expect others to change their way of thinking? Think > that might take an enormous amount of time and energy without any > success. > > Where (give examples) do I twist what people say? > > Please tell me about (explain) your wonderings of my mind and how it > might affect my " approach to SR (which) stems from similar > misinterpretations. .. " ? H'mm thought I had quite a discriminating > mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2008 Report Share Posted November 16, 2008 " I think regulating us is just another aspect of overregulating syndrome of the Western governements including the bans on conkers or Samurai swords. " I think it might be a little bit more than that somehow... It is an awful lot of work if that is all they are after... > > > Subject: SR > To: " UK Herbal List " <ukherbal-list > > Date: Saturday, 15 November, 2008, 8:35 PM > > > > > > > Hi All > > Some time ago I asked for information on herbal safety and efficacy for a talk I was going to do at the Verity conference in October. Thanks to all who responded. I have now uploaded the entire Powerpoint presentation into the files area of this list, feel free to use it with the usual caveat of acknowledging where you got it from. > > Prior to doing this talk I was a lukewarm supporter of the whole SR process but have since changed my mind. As far as I can see the sole " admitted " regulatory aim of this process is to " protect the public " to which I ask " Protect the public from what? " . > > To my mind the killer quote is the one from the Bain report: > > . " Despite a diligent search of Coronial records and the literature, no instances have been found to demonstrate that in fact with these products in NZ there is any serious public health issue or risk to the public. The problem is clearly with prescription and other drugs and no demonstrable risk at all with these natural products. " > > . > . " The Coronial and literature searches in so far as natural products etc are concerned and linkages to public safety and risk can be described legally as De minimis non curat lex. That is - of minimal risk importance. The law (regulations etc) does not and should not concern itself with trifles. " > > Cheers > > Graham White, B. Sc. (Herb. Med.) > Medical Herbalist > ============ ========= ======== > > PS. Anyone know why it's changed font size on me and won't let me change back? > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 At the risk of just adding more confusion, I think that the real problem we have in this country is caused by a feeling of hopelessness caused by the insidious reversal of Anglo-Saxon law throughout all areas of public and private life. European law (particularly in the south) is proscriptive: it is illegal to do anything under European law unless the law specifically allows you (i.e. you are licensed). That's why everything from conkers to cucumbers must be regulated! The basis of English law was (until handed away) that you are free to do as you wish, unless a law prevents you. The difference between these two cultures is polar, yet most Brits still don't realise this has happened to us. It seems to me that the issue isn't really whether or not SR is good thing but (a) if we continue to be subsumed under this revisionist sort of Code Napoléon (se footnote) ( how to make the best of this brave new world (that was designed purely to bring lots of economic benefits in the mindset of 1950s politicians). I shall think about this next time I vote, because a referendum on Europe is the only way out of this mess. (Code Napoléon originated after French Revolution in an attempt to rationalise the common law of the north with Roman law of the south.) > " I think regulating us is just another aspect of overregulating > syndrome of the Western governements including the bans on conkers or > Samurai swords. " > > I think it might be a little bit more than that somehow... It is an > awful lot of work if that is all they are after... > > > > > > > > > Subject: SR > > To: " UK Herbal List " <ukherbal-list > > > Date: Saturday, 15 November, 2008, 8:35 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All > > > > Some time ago I asked for information on herbal safety and efficacy > for a talk I was going to do at the Verity conference in October. > Thanks to all who responded. I have now uploaded the entire > Powerpoint presentation into the files area of this list, feel free > to use it with the usual caveat of acknowledging where you got it > from. > > > > Prior to doing this talk I was a lukewarm supporter of the whole SR > process but have since changed my mind. As far as I can see the > sole " admitted " regulatory aim of this process is to " protect the > public " to which I ask " Protect the public from what? " . > > > > To my mind the killer quote is the one from the Bain report: > > > > . " Despite a diligent search of Coronial records and the literature, > no instances have been found to demonstrate that in fact with these > products in NZ there is any serious public health issue or risk to > the public. The problem is clearly with prescription and other drugs > and no demonstrable risk at all with these natural products. " > > > > . > > . " The Coronial and literature searches in so far as natural > products etc are concerned and linkages to public safety and risk can > be described legally as De minimis non curat lex. That is - of > minimal risk importance. The law (regulations etc) does not and > should not concern itself with trifles. " > > > > Cheers > > > > Graham White, B. Sc. (Herb. Med.) > > Medical Herbalist > > ============ ========= ======== > > > > PS. Anyone know why it's changed font size on me and won't let me > change back? > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 , Yes. That was somewhat tongue in cheek! The problem is mainly with either contamination (the recent baby milk poisonings from China are a case in point) or with substitution of other species/varieties. The Aristolochia problem came to light in Belgium in a slimming clinic where women suffered kidney failure. We discussed this recently in this list - medical doctors (not trained in herbs) were using a cocktail of herbs and drugs. Guess which was blamed - neither the doctors nor the drugs. Other difficulties have arisen because of unsupervised administration of powerful herbal formulae. Most of these problems are the results of an arrest of common sense. Don't take anything unless you know what is in it, seek professional help for on-going chronic conditions, seek help from qualified professionals (i.e. herbalists, not doctors). Basically, the more we take responsibility for our health, the healthier we will be. There is a great lack of understanding generally though about herbs. I have heard from several patients recently that their consultants do want them to take herbs because 'they contain steroids' and someone was told (by a homoeopath) that people should not take herbs for longer than 3 months because of the problems with liver toxicity. As a profession, we have a lot of work to do with education and information. Regards Email: mailto:drgascoigne@... Web: http://www.drgascoigne.com anna.newton@... wrote: > > Hi , > there have been a few more serious cases than that (Aristolochia, > Cimicifuga etc). The main problem, as I understand, is with the > Chinese and Ayuverdic products coming from China and India. > > > > > > From: Graham White <gcwhitentlworld (DOT) com <mailto:gcwhite% > 40ntlworld. com>> > > Subject: SR > > To: " UK Herbal List " <ukherbal-list@ yahoogroups. com > > <mailto:ukherbal- list%40yahoogrou ps.com>> > > Date: Saturday, 15 November, 2008, 8:35 PM > > > > Hi All > > > > Some time ago I asked for information on herbal safety and efficacy > > for a talk I was going to do at the Verity conference in October. > > Thanks to all who responded. I have now uploaded the entire Powerpoint > > presentation into the files area of this list, feel free to use it > > with the usual caveat of acknowledging where you got it from. > > > > Prior to doing this talk I was a lukewarm supporter of the whole SR > > process but have since changed my mind. As far as I can see the sole > > " admitted " regulatory aim of this process is to " protect the public " > > to which I ask " Protect the public from what? " . > > > > To my mind the killer quote is the one from the Bain report: > > > > . " Despite a diligent search of Coronial records and the literature, no > > instances have been found to demonstrate that in fact with these > > products in NZ there is any serious public health issue or risk to the > > public. The problem is clearly with prescription and other drugs and > > no demonstrable risk at all with these natural products. " > > > > . > > . " The Coronial and literature searches in so far as natural products > > etc are concerned and linkages to public safety and risk can be > > described legally as De minimis non curat lex. That is - of minimal > > risk importance. The law (regulations etc) does not and should not > > concern itself with trifles. " > > > > Cheers > > > > Graham White, B. Sc. (Herb. Med.) > > Medical Herbalist > > ============ ========= ======== > > > > PS. Anyone know why it's changed font size on me and won't let me > > change back? > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 Hi , there have been a few more serious cases than that (Aristolochia, Cimicifuga etc). The main problem, as I understand, is with the Chinese and Ayuverdic products coming from China and India. > > From: Graham White <gcwhitentlworld (DOT) com <mailto:gcwhite% 40ntlworld. com>> > Subject: SR > To: " UK Herbal List " <ukherbal-list@ yahoogroups. com > <mailto:ukherbal- list%40yahoogrou ps.com>> > Date: Saturday, 15 November, 2008, 8:35 PM > > Hi All > > Some time ago I asked for information on herbal safety and efficacy > for a talk I was going to do at the Verity conference in October. > Thanks to all who responded. I have now uploaded the entire Powerpoint > presentation into the files area of this list, feel free to use it > with the usual caveat of acknowledging where you got it from. > > Prior to doing this talk I was a lukewarm supporter of the whole SR > process but have since changed my mind. As far as I can see the sole > " admitted " regulatory aim of this process is to " protect the public " > to which I ask " Protect the public from what? " . > > To my mind the killer quote is the one from the Bain report: > > . " Despite a diligent search of Coronial records and the literature, no > instances have been found to demonstrate that in fact with these > products in NZ there is any serious public health issue or risk to the > public. The problem is clearly with prescription and other drugs and > no demonstrable risk at all with these natural products. " > > . > . " The Coronial and literature searches in so far as natural products > etc are concerned and linkages to public safety and risk can be > described legally as De minimis non curat lex. That is - of minimal > risk importance. The law (regulations etc) does not and should not > concern itself with trifles. " > > Cheers > > Graham White, B. Sc. (Herb. Med.) > Medical Herbalist > ============ ========= ======== > > PS. Anyone know why it's changed font size on me and won't let me > change back? > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 So , do you think this might explain why the Spanish (in my opinion) and French perhaps are far more anarchistical in nature than the law abiding English?! Yes a referendum would be a way forward. > > > > > > From: Graham White <gcwhite@> > > > Subject: SR > > > To: " UK Herbal List " <ukherbal-list > > > > Date: Saturday, 15 November, 2008, 8:35 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All > > > > > > Some time ago I asked for information on herbal safety and efficacy > > for a talk I was going to do at the Verity conference in October. > > Thanks to all who responded. I have now uploaded the entire > > Powerpoint presentation into the files area of this list, feel free > > to use it with the usual caveat of acknowledging where you got it > > from. > > > > > > Prior to doing this talk I was a lukewarm supporter of the whole SR > > process but have since changed my mind. As far as I can see the > > sole " admitted " regulatory aim of this process is to " protect the > > public " to which I ask " Protect the public from what? " . > > > > > > To my mind the killer quote is the one from the Bain report: > > > > > > . " Despite a diligent search of Coronial records and the literature, > > no instances have been found to demonstrate that in fact with these > > products in NZ there is any serious public health issue or risk to > > the public. The problem is clearly with prescription and other drugs > > and no demonstrable risk at all with these natural products. " > > > > > > . > > > . " The Coronial and literature searches in so far as natural > > products etc are concerned and linkages to public safety and risk can > > be described legally as De minimis non curat lex. That is - of > > minimal risk importance. The law (regulations etc) does not and > > should not concern itself with trifles. " > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Graham White, B. Sc. (Herb. Med.) > > > Medical Herbalist > > > ============ ========= ======== > > > > > > PS. Anyone know why it's changed font size on me and won't let me > > change back? > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 To explain more what I mean: Near where I live there were long drawnout protest against building a Macdonalds, we do not need it, takes business out of town, multinational, we have lots of small cafes in town, 'alternative' town etc. They build it anyway. In France I read of a similar situation but instead they go into the building site and dismantle it! Yes, proactive or what! > > > > > > > > From: Graham White <gcwhite@> > > > > Subject: SR > > > > To: " UK Herbal List " <ukherbal-list > > > > > Date: Saturday, 15 November, 2008, 8:35 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All > > > > > > > > Some time ago I asked for information on herbal safety and > efficacy > > > for a talk I was going to do at the Verity conference in October. > > > Thanks to all who responded. I have now uploaded the entire > > > Powerpoint presentation into the files area of this list, feel > free > > > to use it with the usual caveat of acknowledging where you got it > > > from. > > > > > > > > Prior to doing this talk I was a lukewarm supporter of the > whole SR > > > process but have since changed my mind. As far as I can see the > > > sole " admitted " regulatory aim of this process is to " protect the > > > public " to which I ask " Protect the public from what? " . > > > > > > > > To my mind the killer quote is the one from the Bain report: > > > > > > > > . " Despite a diligent search of Coronial records and the > literature, > > > no instances have been found to demonstrate that in fact with > these > > > products in NZ there is any serious public health issue or risk > to > > > the public. The problem is clearly with prescription and other > drugs > > > and no demonstrable risk at all with these natural products. " > > > > > > > > . > > > > . " The Coronial and literature searches in so far as natural > > > products etc are concerned and linkages to public safety and risk > can > > > be described legally as De minimis non curat lex. That is - of > > > minimal risk importance. The law (regulations etc) does not and > > > should not concern itself with trifles. " > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > Graham White, B. Sc. (Herb. Med.) > > > > Medical Herbalist > > > > ============ ========= ======== > > > > > > > > PS. Anyone know why it's changed font size on me and won't let > me > > > change back? > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 Hi , Not on the subject of SR but just to suggest my opinion about what I think is a common misconception about the French. As a French person, I can vouch that it is mainly the Unions that are rebellious, and for reasons that can be understood, but far from protecting freedom etc, the French are mainly worried about their state pension and how many days holidays they receive each year. It is very deceiving but, the French are actually far from being Anarchistical, in practice anyway. Bove (i.e. Mc s incident) was an isolated event. Just look at the percentage of working people employed by the government, 25%! Here it is 15%. The French are actually very much law-abiding, security (rather than freedom) driven people in my experience. But thinking about it, maybe that anarchistical spirit is there somewhere and has something to do with the near 20% unemployment figure? Milena Re: Re: SR Verge wrote: > > To explain more what I mean: > > Near where I live there were long drawnout protest against building a > Macdonalds, we do not need it, takes business out of town, > multinational, we have lots of small cafes in town, 'alternative' > town etc. They build it anyway. > > In France I read of a similar situation but instead they go into the > building site and dismantle it! Yes, proactive or what! > > > > > > > > So , do you think this might explain why the Spanish (in my > > opinion) and French perhaps are far more anarchistical in nature > than > > the law abiding English?! > > > > Yes a referendum would be a way forward. > > > > > > . > > , I guess it depends on whether liberty is a universal or a cultural artifact. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1793 - Release Date: 16/11/2008 19:58 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Dear Just a correction to what you wrote below. The EU evolved and grew to become what it is today, but its origin was actually the European Coal and Steel Community. That was set up in 1951, if memory serves me correctly, and its primary raison d'etre was to prevent another war between France and Germany over the iron and coal fields of Alsace-Lorraine. What they did was to create a situation where the two countries resources were so linked it would make war not only unthinkable but actually materially impossible. I think the French foreign minister whose idea it was, used those words almost exactly. The Treaty of Paris ended up being signed by 4 other countries (Italy and Benelux) but its primary aim was not economic benefit but to prevent war. Coming at this time of year, rather poignant considering the millions (soldiers and civilians) who died in two major wars in Europe in 20C, don't you think? Best wishes ( how to make the best of this brave new world (that was designed purely to bring lots of economic benefits in the mindset of 1950s politicians). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Dear Benn thank-you very much for you thoughtful consideration of all these valid points. I just wanted to ask if anyone could give some clarity around the point 4 that you made. I have pasted it below for ease. I have also read such a statement. I would really appreciate it if someone involved in the process could explain why this is considered to be the case. Why or how is it that our right to practice in law could be repealed at any moment; why are we considered so vulnerable at present? If indeed it is the case why should SR give us any greater sercurity? As we are already recognised in law. " 4) about risks - our future is uncertain and I admire the dissenters of SR for clearly stating this; their concerns perhaps remind us of our vulnerability. As it stands the rights we have to practise our craft are in law but they can, I have been told, can be rescinded at the stroke of a pen - such a vulnerability would be removed with " official recognition " of herbalists in law. " Thanks, > > Hello All, > > Firstly, thank you to Jacqui for reminder of reflection, I too have > found myself pondering on these matters. Some of the issues (in no > particular order) re: SR seem to be: > > 1) about freedom - we are used to freedom to practice whilst the current > climate is about control via many draconian policies by processes that > remain unclear. > > 2) about politics - as we all know, politics is never obvious, methods > are never known & there is a vague to extreme unease about what is going > on behind the scenes we see. > > 3) about our direction as a profession - as a group, we have mandated > our voluntary councils to deal with the political directions they have > taken; I for one am prepared to admit, do not have the inclination to do > as my colleagues have done, and admire them for their dedicated work. > The political direction taken is however not to everyone's taste, > probably because many questions remain unanswered… > > 4) about risks - our future is uncertain and I admire the dissenters of > SR for clearly stating this; their concerns perhaps remind us of our > vulnerability. As it stands the rights we have to practise our craft are > in law but they can, I have been told, can be rescinded at the stroke of > a pen - such a vulnerability would be removed with " official > recognition " of herbalists in law. > > 5) about our councils and their activities - as a profession, we have > elected fellow colleagues to do our work for us on our behalf so we > don't have to - they, I believe, have had many sleepless and fraught > times dealing with the insurmountable mountains of stuff. They have made > tough decisions and I am sure questioned their consciences along this > difficult path. > > 6) about judgements - there are concerns the directions taken by our > delegated representatives - I know our councils not to be fools, I > believe they use legal and political advisors to help them make > judgements and to determine policy - I have never seen this mentioned > anywhere before. > > 7) about dissent re: SR - minorities have always been side-lined - I see > genuine concern about the direction our profession is taking and I see > questions raised unanswered, as an observation, this does not look at > all transparent - at a momentous time like the one we face, transparency > is more important than being political. The future we have should not be > determined by a few, but by us all. > > 8) about passion - we as a group are passionate about our skills and > abilities to help others that big brother characters just can't do or > even understand - legislation is often used for more than clear simple > motives. > > 9) about ownership - medicine belongs to medics and herbs (drugs) to > pharmacists - I believe we are judged to be in the way of these > professions (businesses) perceived rights of ownership! It is not > unusual for legislation to allow bullies to intimidate smaller fry to > take power or control… Laws are often influenced by or according to > the powerful using their connections & allies; I seem to remember the > brewers were attacked for dispensing medicines during the time of Henry > VIII, their allies soon got protection enacted! > > With best regards, > > Benn > -- > Benn Abdy- MCPP > Medical Herbalist > 0 or 07957 65 88 90 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Stannard wrote: > > > Dear > > Just a correction to what you wrote below. > > The EU evolved and grew to become what it is today, but its origin was > actually the European Coal and Steel Community. > That was set up in 1951, if memory serves me correctly, and its > primary raison d'etre was to prevent another war between France and > Germany over the iron and coal fields of Alsace-Lorraine. What they > did was to create a situation where the two countries resources were > so linked it would make war not only unthinkable but actually > materially impossible. I think the French foreign minister whose idea > it was, used those words almost exactly. The Treaty of Paris ended up > being signed by 4 other countries (Italy and Benelux) but its primary > aim was not economic benefit but to prevent war. > > Coming at this time of year, rather poignant considering the millions > (soldiers and civilians) who died in two major wars in Europe in 20C, > don't you think? > > Best wishes > > > ( how to make the best of this brave > new world (that was designed purely to bring lots of economic benefits > in the mindset of 1950s politicians). > > > > Thanks . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Hi , and all, Being Spanish, i think the Spanish might have been anarchical in the past but at the present time that is an old romantic story. In Spain everything is regulated and you can't start any business without the corresponding qualification and then have to conform to the limitations and boundaries that the law imposes for that particular business. You can't start up something new that does not exist in the books either . The Spanish seem to be quite content with the system and a great majority pursue a permanent and safe job that will guarantee their mortgage and their pension. This 'proscriptive system' as points out, tends to breed people that like to conform and never to stick their heads above the parapet. This for me is a sad state of affairs for people's freedom and independence of thought. However the 'prescriptive system' of the UK is actually one of the things i most like about Britain (a shame about the weather! ;-) ). In UK you can still think up something new, original, different and put it into practice. In the world of social enterprise, the last 10 years in particular, many interesting and out of the ordinary companies have been set up, this would have not been possible in Spain. I sincerely hope this continues. I must say i do worry about over-regulation and the desire to be regulated in order to shut some charlatans up (i personally have never come across one) and protecting the public's safety from herbs ?!?; is the public protected from prescribed medicines, despite all the regulation? the answer is NO, which interestingly contrasts to the UK's risk-aversion tendency with '''Heath and Safety''' (the banning of conkers, flowers in hospitals, nuts in schools, etc...) Regards licia SR > > To: " UK Herbal List " <ukherbal-list > > > Date: Saturday, 15 November, 2008, 8:35 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All > > > > Some time ago I asked for information on herbal safety and efficacy > for a talk I was going to do at the Verity conference in October. > Thanks to all who responded. I have now uploaded the entire > Powerpoint presentation into the files area of this list, feel free > to use it with the usual caveat of acknowledging where you got it > from. > > > > Prior to doing this talk I was a lukewarm supporter of the whole SR > process but have since changed my mind. As far as I can see the > sole " admitted " regulatory aim of this process is to " protect the > public " to which I ask " Protect the public from what? " . > > > > To my mind the killer quote is the one from the Bain report: > > > > . " Despite a diligent search of Coronial records and the literature, > no instances have been found to demonstrate that in fact with these > products in NZ there is any serious public health issue or risk to > the public. The problem is clearly with prescription and other drugs > and no demonstrable risk at all with these natural products. " > > > > . > > . " The Coronial and literature searches in so far as natural > products etc are concerned and linkages to public safety and risk can > be described legally as De minimis non curat lex. That is - of > minimal risk importance. The law (regulations etc) does not and > should not concern itself with trifles. " > > > > Cheers > > > > Graham White, B. Sc. (Herb. Med.) > > Medical Herbalist > > ============ ========= ======== > > > > PS. Anyone know why it's changed font size on me and won't let me > change back? > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Hi Licia, Beautifully but. Ah yes, flowers in hospitals. In the days before antibiotic resistant antibiotics hit main stream awareness and regulations (!) that required mountains of paper work, we pottered round every day, with a little trolley and changed all the water in flower vases by every patients bed, scrubbed the vases out and trimmed the flower stalks. (and chatted to the owner of the flowers) Doesn't happen any more, no time and they then got banned because they were found to be lovely breeding grounds for aforementioned resistant bugs. Poor old flowers - stuck in yukky stinky water. That reminds me - had some sitting in the same water for 2 weeks in my kitchen... Zoe:0) Medical Herbalist MNIMH RGN Dip Phyt. www.herbaljournal.co.uk www.zoehawes.co.uk Bath 01761 439 920 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2008 Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 Hi Licia, That's a very interesting tale of Spain. I feel sure that the disruption being caused by the SR debate in UK is due to confusion between the two main facets of the argument: 1. How to ensure patient safety and 2. How to prevent erosion of freedom. There is no doubt that the two are not incompatible but they are not mutually dependent. Nevertheless decades of poor policy making has inevitably linked them. It's sad beyond belief that our fundamental system of law has been so comprehensibly sold down the river by politicians in London, that it is now perhaps fatally weakened, compromised or undermined by Continental bureaucratic systems. The UK has (had?) a tradition of passionate defence of legal independence that can be a bit ham-fisted sometimes and it's frustrating that this very passion to defend our principles has now been organised (in the Civil Service) to mess them up big time. You can hardly have failed to notice the very recent opportunist attempt (successful I believe) to GLOBALISE the bureaucracy, emanating from our own dear 'centrists' in No.10! How long before we are all talking about GLOBAL SSR then? Months or years? In that event, we need a strong common ground. The hour is very late. Chenery Rutland Biodynamics Ltd., Growers of Organic Herbs MHRA Licensed Manufacturer of Herbal Medicines Town Park Farm, , Rutland, LE15 8DG, UK www.rutlandbio.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2008 Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 Dear Milena - shame it was an isolated incident I liked the story! Hi Licia - I have to say that I have not been to Spain for many, many years (maybe over Christmas I will go) despite being part / half Spanish myself so do not know how it is over there now. I do find though, something, sometimes more anarchistical in their spirits than the English - but not in everyone. Each nationality has different qualities. And again there was also a lot of (self) oppression and prohibition following Franco etc which as a young person coming from London to a tiny village in Andalucia I found hard to accept. Like I said I have not been there for a long time. I know in one village at least in Andalucia they continued trading in Pts rather than Euros. Made me laugh! I personally cannot bear all this regulation and mistrust hugely the volition behind it. It concerns me greatly. Things are no longer banned or censored... but for reasons of health and public safety... ly, I think the term 'regulation' will be seen as quite a sinister one in the future. We shall see... or hopefully not ...if we start being proactive and dismantling Macdonalds! Or where shall we start? Healing, using whatever modality is about facillitating freedom in the individual - control and regulation will limit the degree of healing that is possible to attain - one way or another. It works contra to healing. It is sickness itself. > > > > > > From: Graham White <gcwhite@> > > > Subject: SR > > > To: " UK Herbal List " <ukherbal-list > > > > Date: Saturday, 15 November, 2008, 8:35 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All > > > > > > Some time ago I asked for information on herbal safety and efficacy > > for a talk I was going to do at the Verity conference in October. > > Thanks to all who responded. I have now uploaded the entire > > Powerpoint presentation into the files area of this list, feel free > > to use it with the usual caveat of acknowledging where you got it > > from. > > > > > > Prior to doing this talk I was a lukewarm supporter of the whole SR > > process but have since changed my mind. As far as I can see the > > sole " admitted " regulatory aim of this process is to " protect the > > public " to which I ask " Protect the public from what? " . > > > > > > To my mind the killer quote is the one from the Bain report: > > > > > > . " Despite a diligent search of Coronial records and the literature, > > no instances have been found to demonstrate that in fact with these > > products in NZ there is any serious public health issue or risk to > > the public. The problem is clearly with prescription and other drugs > > and no demonstrable risk at all with these natural products. " > > > > > > . > > > . " The Coronial and literature searches in so far as natural > > products etc are concerned and linkages to public safety and risk can > > be described legally as De minimis non curat lex. That is - of > > minimal risk importance. The law (regulations etc) does not and > > should not concern itself with trifles. " > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Graham White, B. Sc. (Herb. Med.) > > > Medical Herbalist > > > ============ ========= ======== > > > > > > PS. Anyone know why it's changed font size on me and won't let me > > change back? > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2008 Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 --- Dear , I believe that our right to practise derives from the common law as well as the Henry 8th Statute law and elements of the Medicines Act 1968 . Common law in England essentially works on the basis that anything is legal as long as it doesn't harm anyone and isn't prohibited by statute. Everyone's rights in England are being eroded by the avalanche of statutes coming through in the past decade or more - many because of EC directives and regulations, some because we seem to have entered an era where micro-management of all aspects of our lives need to be regulated - usually with a stick rather than a carrot. I think it was Philip who said at one point that the House of Lords was the ultimate court in England - not so. Appeals can be made from there to the European court whose decisions take precedence over all UK courts. We have been very fortunate in England to be able to practise in the way we have for so long (and yes there have been some real problems along the way, but we are still here and practising aren't we?.)But I worry that unless we 'protect' our work as much as we can through the law - meaning having a legal definition of a herbalist (which does not exist at the moment)and scope of practise (currently the Medicines Act 1968) - we are at the mercy of both UK and European legislators. I think that is a dangerous position to be in. Regards Anne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.