Re: SR

[Guest guest]

,

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...

---

[Guest guest]

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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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?

>

>

[Guest guest]

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?

[Guest guest]

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.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

" 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?

>

>

[Guest guest]

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?

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

,

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?

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

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?

>

>

[Guest guest]

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?

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

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?

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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).

[Guest guest]

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

>

[Guest guest]

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 .

[Guest guest]

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?

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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?

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

---

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