 |
 |
Hi Kathie: Regarding your comments > > > I looked into St. John's wort a while ago also, like Jeff I feel very strongly that many natural solutions and substances are just as potent as pharmaceuticals, and require at least prudent investigation. I have only had a couple of bad experiences with natural treatments, compared to a number of pharmaceutical nightmares. I couldn't find much negative being said about SJ's wort, but I was unhappy that there was so little data to consider. I asked a friend who is a pharmacist what she knew, and after investigation on her part she told me that she believes it is conta-indicated with Eldepryl, because it also has MAO-inhibiting properties. Your caution is to be commended. Your pharmacist friend is at least theoretically correct. Since we do not know the mechanism of action of SJ wort and it is likely to be the same as medications for depression currently on the market the risk is at least theoretically there and you caution is warranted. > > Unfortunately I also find the medical profession woefully underinformed in the area of natural substances and approaches. I am always blessed by the wonderful medical folks on this list, such as Charlie, who have broadened their horizons to try to achieve the ultimate benefit for all. My point is that I fully agree with you that we are uninformed as to the risks and benefits of these substances. As I said in my original posting because something is natural does not make it either inherantly better or worse. My concern is that people are taking substances that have not undergone serious medical testing. Many postings including my own are critical of the pharmaceutical industry and their billion dollar profits. There are also tremendous profits in the health food industry and self-interest in promoting their wares with poorly substantiated claims and minimization of risk just like the drug industry. The additional risk that we face when we accept the health food industry's claims is that "natural" remedies do not have to go through double-blind studies and risk/benefit analysis. I have written of my significant self-interest in the release of pramipexole. I am certainly against bureaucratic foot-dragging that goes on in the FDA. Yet the FDA provides a mechanism for the review of the data on new drugs. The same is not true of most "natural" remedies. If one of these remedies shows promise it should be investigated in an unbiased way. >I recently had a neurologist insist that my use of melatonin for sleep was doing me grave harm, and he cavalierly prescribed Ambien. Like a dummy I believed him. Two wretched weeks later I finally devoted an afternoon to an Internet research of both melatonin and Ambien. The most recent melatonin research I could find actually indicated that it is uniquely beneficial for Parkinson's in particular, and my Ambien research, from our own archives and some bulletin boards etc. show it to be at best a marginal drug for PWP's, and at worst the most highly addictive sleep aid yet developed. I have now returned to my previous melatonin use, and have restabilized, but I want to tell you that Ambien was one of the worst things that has ever happened to me. People's reactions do different medications differ widely. There had been anecdotal medical reports that Ambien was helpful for PD. This is not a double blind study and has no greater validity than the reports of benefits to PWP from melatonin. I am aware of some reports of adverse effects from melatonin. What happened to you with Ambien? Whether your reaction was idiosyncratic or predictable list member should know about it since Ambien is being prescribed more widely. If your reaction was an unusual one your neurologist (or you) should report it to the FDA. What is your source for the statement that "at worst the most highly addictive sleep aid yet developed"? > We all have a serious responsibility to ourselves and our families to be wise patients. There is a wealth of data available to us, we are well advised to use it. I agree- with the proviso that you consider carefully the reliability of the source. With the wealth of information available to us on the internet critical evaluation of where claims come from and who supports them is an absolute necessity. ********************************************************** CHARLES T. MEYER, M.D. MADISON, WISCONSIN **********************************************************