| Saturday,
October 28, 2000 A serious matter to
discuss, but first, regarding the QAZ virus which I warned subscribers
about months ago:
Jerry,
Now I for one would think this would have been worth
a $20 subscription to Bill Gates. ;-)
JH in Chicago
Yeah!
Dear Dr. P,
I thought I'd pass this along for you. I wrote it
for a military journalist's edification but it might be of interest to
others. I added definitions for the acronyms, since I noticed a complaint
about that before.
FOGM (Fibre Optic Guided Missile). Since I was
involved in the AH-64 Apache program, I can give you a bit of background
on why the US Army didn't take FOGM in the late 70s. It was a correct
decision then, given that the Army was designing to fight and win at 1-3
reverse odds. The concept of modifying the AGM-65 ( Army Ground Missile
65) TOW (Tube Launched Optically Tracked Wire Command Link Guided Missile)
missile with fibre optic cable and a tv (television) seeker warhead was an
Army MICOM (Missile Command) engineer's idea dating from 1975. The U.S.
Army in fact invented the concept of FOGM. As an exercise in low cost
creative thinking it was brilliant. Here's why Hellfire was chosen over
FOGM in the 1970s.
a. Hellfire had a designed range of 18 kilometers,
compared to FOGM's then and still current 10km. Since the Hellfire range
was classified (public references only said "in excess of 3750
meters") outsiders were confused. They didn't know it was going to be
5 TIMES in excess. This range of course put the AH-64 (Attack Helicopter
64) Apache well outside the current and 20 year projected Soviet SHORAD
(Short Range Air Defense) umbrella. You know the 'upsided down wedding
cake' model for ADA (Air Defense Artillery) coverage.
b. Hellfire, as a LOS (line of sight) laser
designated weapon had a guidance package about the same price as the FOGM
TV (television) package promised. But FOGM has to carry all its optics
with it, and they're destroyed with each round. Apache carried all the
computers, thermal sights (very expensive and still large back n the
1970s), IR etc with it in its TAADS package (Target Acquisition And
Designation System). FOG-M therefore would only be a daylight VFR (Visual
Flight Rules) weapon with about 60% of Hellfire's range. FOGM accuracy
didn't promise to be nearly as good, either. The TAADS is stabilized in 2
axes. In the 1970s the computer technology simply didn't exist to enhance
the returned FOGM picture back and stabilize it. TV guided bombs are
released at targets known to exist and whose location is well fixed. FOGM
has to acquire its targets during its cruise, and the cruise time is
limited.
The vast advances in computer technology since the
1970s have resolved most of this problem, of course. Advances in optics
technology have improved the raw picture, reduced the seeker package price
and increased the night/low visibility capabilities.
c. FOGM is an indirect fire weapon and therefore
ground mounted. The shorter range FOG-M package rolling on wheels simply
wouldn't give division and corps commanders the capability to RAPIDLY mass
decisive anti-tank fires at the criticial point, at least not like the
AH-64 Apache . The whole AH-64 organization stays outside the range of
enemy artillery. Apache rearms/refuels outside enemy artillery and quickly
shuttles in. Although we pushed AH-64 battalions down to division, this
organization was subject to detachment by the Corps commander at a
moment's notice. With two divisions' AH-64 battalions, plus three more at
Corps level, the Corps commander had the theoretical capability to mass 5
x 18 = 90 Apaches x 16 Hellfires = 1,440 Hellfires at a threatened
breakthrough.
Casualties and serviceability rates would reduce
this optimal number, but there in a nutshell is how Generals Meyer &;
Starry planned to DESTROY (not 'attrit', 'delay', or 'stop') an invading
Warsaw Pact force. FOGM then and even now doesn't promise that kind of
battlefield decisiveness. General Meyer was not kidding when he told
Congress in 1980 that if they cancelled the Apache he would have to
redesign the entire U.S. Army.
There was never any chance of massing shorter range,
less accurate FOGMs on wheels that way. Apache could redeploy in 30
minutes. FOGM might make it in half a day, depending on the condition of
the lateral road network.
The deeper FOGM wants to penetrate the closer it has
to come to the enemy's forward elements, meaning it becomes vulnerable to
artillery, unless you put it inside a track.
d. Threat analysis revealed that there was one
signficant threat to the AH-64 before 2000, and it's what you mentioned:
>>Even attack helicopters would stay clear of areas where EFOG-Ms
were reported, since EFOGMs can be used against them.<<
We realized that in 1977. And when that datum fell
out of analysis, it was the end of FOGM for that generation. General E.C.
"Shy" Meyer, then Chief of Staff, crushed the FOGM boomlet
personally. Why should we do the Soviet's development for them? It took
the GRU (Soviet Military Intelligence) almost no time to get the
blueprints for most of the AH-64 itself. Only way to keep them from
getting FOG-M was to not build it, even as an R&;D (Research and
Development) project. I was told Meyer had said he would personally end
the career of anyone, military or civil service, who spent one more penny
or said one more word about FOGM. It was another example of the aluminum
strip 'window' radar jamming story from World War II. Discussion, comment
and criticism continued in thinking circles outside. But it was impossible
for anyone in possession of the facts to educate the well meaning
outsiders without educating the non-well meaning Soviets, too.
e. FOGM is still not much of a threat since the
Hellfire ranges have gone up and now the Longbow Apache has appeared. The
reason the Army is buying FOGM now is mostly for its anti-helicopter
potential. Gunships still have to close in to use guns or dumb rockets.
FOGM remains a second best weapon compared to Hellfire for anti-tank or
other hi-value ground targets. The problems of rapid lateral massing also
still remain.
The place where we're really missing out is SMALLER
FOG-M's for the infantry. The trick that was done with the TOW could also
be done with a much smaller rocket about the size of the old M-72A2 LAW
(Light Anti-Tank Weapon). Small FOGMs will displace mortars from the TOE
(Table of Organization and Equipment). Cheap rockets with cameras, fibre
optic cables and parachutes will be an excellent tactical intelligence
tool for light infantry companies and platoons. A computer mounted on a
track, HMMWV (High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle) or even an ATV
(All Terrain Vehicle) could rapidly process the imagery, giving platoon
thru battalion commanders real time on-call aerial reconnaissance and
first cut imagery analysis.
Mark Gallmeier [enigma @ gate.net]
Thank you. There's enough there that I should
take some time before commenting.
A brief history of wire guided missiles:
Since this might spark another round of debate,
here's some useful background.
The idea of wire and radio guided anti-tank missiles
originated in the German Wehrmacht about 1943. After the war both the
French (HOT radio guided missile) and the Soviets (ATs 1-3 with radio and
wire guidance) developed this idea this further for infantry use.
The continuing problem was that the gunner's human
brain had to simultaneously solve two equations to hit the target. First,
he had to acquire and track the target visually. Second, he had to
visually track and fly the missile into it, all under the stress of
combat. Even training range effectiveness with trained gunners never rose
higher than 25% or so. The U.S. Army bought some HOTs in the 1960s but the
huge training requirement was a no-go for a draftee army. There were
further experiments with helicopter mountings but accuracy remained a
problem. US Army MICOM recognized that the gunner was simply overtasked.
Enter the micro-processor. The TOW, the DRAGON and
the Hellfire all used the same target acquisition and guidance design
scheme. The human tracks the target. The computer tracks and flys the
missile and so reduces the deviation between the point of aim and the
missile flight path to zero. This design principle both reduced
performance requirements on the combat stressed human and simultaneously
gave one task to a much more efficient 'brain'. First round kill
probabilities soared. This was all under development in the late 1960s.
The TOW got its first battle test at An Loc, Vietnam in 1972. Two UH-1
Huey helicopters armed with TOWs almost by themselves stopped a couple of
NVA armored divisions. They racked up over 100 kills.
The came the Yom Kippur War of 1973 with the
emergency airlift of TOWs to Israel and more successes. The shake 'n bake
Israelis weren't nearly as successful as the airborne MICOM pros at An
Loc, but that fact that soldiers succeeded with just 3 days' training was
indicative itself. There was now no doubt MICOM was on the right path.
FOGM appeared exactly when the new design principle
had those two huge battlefield successes behind it, and with Hellfire
hotfoot on the way. FOGM offered the prospect of long range engagement,
true. So long range that there no real prospect of acquiring the target
before launch. Harrasing and interdiction (H&;I) fires are an
established artillery tactic, at least before effective counter-battery.
H&;I with PGMs (precision guided munitions) are not well known. From
the Army's viewpoint FOGM in its 1970s form also represented a partial
regression into the problem just solved, gunner combat task overloading
from both acquiring a target and flying the missile.
And now:
Hello, Jerry,
Normally, I'd read one of your columns, look for
some information relevant to me, and move on. This column, however,
bothered me so much I felt obligated to write you.
Chaos Manor has long shown itself to be a Microsoft
shop. Oh, yes, there's always a nice attempt to try to make it seem like
you're honestly checking out the alternatives, but, of course, they're
always the mainstream alternatives, and you pretty much dismiss those
alternatives because they're not Microsoft, or just mention them in
passing without discussing them in detail. Linux, for example, gets
mentioned often, but you neither compare distributions nor mention BSD;
instead you seem to focus upon only what's most popular. There's more to
free Unixes than Red Hat.
This week, you summarise Windows 2K by saying,
"The bottom line here is that Windows 2000 Server is the right OS for
small offices with a few to a hundred workstations." Now, that's all
fine and dandy, but I seriously doubt that you or Byte Magazine pay for
all of the licenses for all of the clients that might ever simultaneously
connect to that server. If you did, you might not recommend it so readily.
But I can overlook that. Magazines (at least
American magazines) are always testing and writing about the latest
multi-thousand dollar toys, mostly because you can. Hell, I'd play with
those toys, too, if someone sent them to me.
What I really take exception to, however, is your
assertion that "A Celeron Does Not a Server Make." To suggest
that a Celeron in a server is false economy would not raise too many
complaints (although I'd say this is much more true of Windows servers as
compared to Unix servers), but when you suggested that "It's only
when we tried to install Terminal Server that we ran up against the
Celeron's limitations", you really crossed the line.
You're not a group of kids playing with expensive
toys as a hobby. Thousands of people read your articles and use the
information contained within to make decisions; you shouldn't be so
irresponsible. Without any effort at figuring out what was really going
on, you suggest first that there might have been a problem with the
onboard ethernet (not specifically blaming Microsoft here), then
suggesting that you've run up "against the Celeron's
limitations", as if processor speed and cache determine it's ability
to run a particular application.
There are two things wrong with this scenario: one,
if an ethernet controller works fine under the basic OS but fails to run
with some added software, there is a fundamental flaw in that software. If
the added software tries to talk with the hardware directly (which would
be the only reasonable excuse for not working properly), this either
admits that the added software is poorly written or that the OS's drivers
and APIs were deficient.
Two, if software will not run because the processor
has reached it's "limitations", then, again, the software is
flawed. How is it possible that software might be designed to not run at
all on a particular processor? How can you, who supposedly works with
computers for a living, be so neglectful in your column? That is something
that a naive user might say, or an IT person who is trying to snow a non
technical person, or, (oh, my!) a salesperson!
It certainly should not be something we should hear
from you.
A server, to clarify, is something that serves. My
server is a mere 66 mhz 68060 Amiga running NetBSD, but it more than
adequately serves my 50 users and 60 domains. I guess it's a good thing
it's not a Celeron.
John Klos sixgirls.org Systems Administrator --
"... one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that,
lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their
C programs." -- Robert Firth
First, I will correct the mistaken impression I
may have left in an upcoming column. In the one that is up I did in fact
point out that the reason we could not install Terminal Server may have
had to do with the networking card, but there were other problems as
well.
However. let me say this much: anyone who
contemplates setting up Terminal Server and Citrix is going to spend a
fair amount for licenses; that's clear from the column and will certainly
be clear the moment it's tried. I believe this is an interesting solution
to certain problems, but it's not the cheap way to go; indeed it's costly
enough that the difference between using a Celeron and a Pentium III for
the server is going to be trivial in comparison, and in fact for those
contemplating professional installations I would strongly advise an
investment in a system designed to BE a server. Compaq makes some good
ones.
Next, if you can manage to take care of 50 users
and 60 domains with an elderly Amiga, that's interesting, but I am glad I
am not one of your customers. Glorying in not being Microsoft and Intel is
fine and dandy, and there is an old tradition of making do with what you
have, but that's for oneself. I do it all the time. But I generally see
that my wife has a system that's pretty standard, easily maintained, and
easily replaced; and she's the only user other than me for my systems.
Perhaps it's an achievement to serve 50 users and 60 domains with a 66 MHz
Amiga, and you are to be congratulated for being able to do it, but to
repeat, I am glad I have no critical dependence on being one of your
customers.
But your main point about this being a Microsoft
House has some merit. That's not entirely by choice; and indeed the CITRIX
article, and my interest in CITRIX and Terminal Server has been to come to
practical uses for my readership of alternatives to Microsoft, if only to
stimulate competition -- but the recent demonstrations of vulnerability to
intrusion make it even more important.
The problem is that Microsoft Applications work.
They work well. They're not all I would like them to be -- Outlook
periodically goes off on it's own to do things I don't understand, as
we'll see in an upcoming letter from Dr. Hume -- but they do work.
Unfortunately all the various office suites for Linux DON'T work very
well. And I have tried them all. I have written about them in great
excitement when I got them. Then I didn't write any more. It's not because
I didn't try them, it is because I will not recommend something I won't
use, and frankly I cannot do my work with any of those. I only wish I
could. Corel's Word Perfect as a word processor isn't bad, but the entire
office suite just doesn't do it for me, and I don't think it will for most
readers. Office 2000 has its faults but it does the job.
The CITRIX article was a venture into ways to get
Microsoft applications utility without being dependent -- at least in your
work stations and in some server operations -- on Microsoft operating
systems. Yes, it will require that you have Microsoft Terminal Server
running, but the work stations can be running Linux or any reasonable
*NIX, and I thought that was interesting and exciting.
The header on the article should have been
"A CELERON DOES NOT A TERMINAL SERVER MAKE" which remains true:
at least we were unable to make that happen, and on reflection I am not
sure I would want to; if I did have an establishment with 20 users running
Office from a Terminal Server setup, I am pretty sure I'd want a lot more
beef than a Celeron. Do note, though, that the article itself said that
the same machine had been functioning quite well as an NT4 Backup Domain
Server, and had given no problems in that role.
Your conclusion that because we were unable to
install NT Terminal Server on that Celeron shows a fundamental flaw in NT
Terminal Server software is your conclusion. I do not think you will find
that it is universal. Not all software has all drivers, nor needs to. We
didn't try installing Windows 2000 and then the Terminal Server additions
on that machine; it probably would have worked, but we decided to test out
the NT 4 version for that article.
You may or may not recall that a year or so ago
Linux was pretty particular about which chip set LAN cards used. That has
probably changed since then as new driver software was added.
We might have been able to kludge up a way to
make that Celeron with its DLINK Ethernet card run NT Terminal Server, or
Windows 2000 Terminal Server, but I don't have infinite time, nor does
Roland who was showing me how to do this, and I would assume that anyone
contemplating buying those licenses and installing this software would
count his time worth something too; and the difference in cost
between a Celeron and a bit heftier Pentium III machine is less than an
hour's time of a good man...
In other words, we report what we did, and report
it in some detail. Your major quarrel seems to be with a header supplied
by the editors, and the fact that I didn't make them change it. You're
right: the header was misleading. It ought to have said "does not a
Terminal Server Make" and perhaps I should have been clearer in
saying "your mileage may vary". But why that is so upsetting to
you is a bit of a mystery.
And I would say that a server is something that
serves reliably. One of my servers is an ancient Pentium I system with a
Micropolis AV SCSI 1 hard drive. It holds a bunch of utilities and games
and such like that I haven't taken the trouble to transfer to more modern
equipment. But I sure wouldn't keep anything mission critical on Spirit
despite my fondness for the old lady (built in the PC Power and Cooling
case that originally contained BIG CHEETAH, a machine I had extraordinary
regard for -- but which I retired along with my Amiga when both Cheetah
and Commodore disappeared from view). And I used to report on Amiga based
networks including at the Stanford Linear Accelerator. But that was long
ago.
Thank you for your comments.
ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE
DEBATES
Jerry,
I consider myself very open minded about
"alternative medicines" and have spend a considerable amount of
time researching those medicines used in my area of medicine, cardiology
(although this sentence makes me sound like a humorless jerk!). I consider
it important that I have an excellent understanding of what my patients
use and why. I've had discussions with a number of naturopathic physicians
and have attended naturopathic conferences. I routinely ask my patients
who see alternative physicians to request literature from those physicians
and routinely review such literature. After those discussions and review
of such literature, I've been appalled by the absence of application of
the scientific method and lack of evidence for the use of such substances.
Understand, that isn't a statement about the efficacy of such substances,
which in many cases hasn't been tested. Although, far more of these agents
have been tested than the general public appreciates. In my view, this is
an incredibly important subject. Given the respect you have earned from
your readership over the years, I offer the following for your review.
This is one of the more important editorials recently published in
medicine. Again, I can supply the original article, in addition to the
editorial, for your review. Again, I've stripped out the html links.
Finally, I'll note that there are many letters to the editor in response.
Many in support, some in opposition.
(Mark Huth, MD)
Owned, published, and (c) copyrighted, 1998,
by the MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOCIETY
Volume 339(12) 17 September 1998 pp 839-841
Alternative Medicine - The Risks of Untested
and Unregulated Remedies [Editorials]
Angell, Marcia; Kassirer, Jerome P.
What is there about alternative medicine that
sets it apart from ordinary medicine? The term refers to a remarkably
heterogeneous group of theories and practices - as disparate as
homeopathy, therapeutic touch, imagery, and herbal medicine. What unites
them?
http://www.nejm.com/content/1998/0339/0012/0839.asp
Thanks. I'll wait for people to have a chance to
read the entire editorial before I have much to say. Right now I am
collecting data...
First from Dr. Ed Hume:
Jerry
I read Marcia Angell's editorial ( http://www.nejm.com/content/1998/0339/0012/0839.asp
). She wrote it with Jerome Kassirer, her predecessor as NEJM editor. One
early quote caught my eye:
"What most sets alternative medicine apart, in
our view, is that it has not been scientifically tested and its advocates
largely deny the need for such testing. By testing, we mean the marshaling
of rigorous evidence of safety and efficacy, as required by the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) for the approval of drugs and by the best
peer-reviewed medical journals for the publication of research
reports."
In 1999 I spent four months practicing psychiatry in
New Zealand. Lovely place. Nice people. Also, a great way to dodge winter,
and the International date Line ate my 50th birthday (maybe I won't age
now).
In New Zealand people use more alternative medicine
than here. Perhaps it is because modern care is rationed. There is some
ointment called Arnica that really does soothe hurts (we brought some home
and use it). Manuca honey, when applied to nonhealing sores, does seem to
cure them. On the other hand, regular honey might do the job as well,
since sugar is used as a preservative. But while I was there I did see a
few reports on double-blind studies (one involving animals) of the
efficacy of a few homeopathic remedies. Now homeopathy ought not work: the
most powerful "dose" involve dilutions so great that there is
less than one molecule per dose (!). Yet these double blind studies were
positive.
I know a nurse who used to work as an assistant for
a veterinarian. She described to me how the vet used acupuncture in doing
general (read open abdomen) surgery on animals. When the animal started to
twitch, he would twist a needle or two. Yes, I know that some
demonstrations of acupuncture used in surgery in China were faked, but an
eyewitness account of acupuncture in animals intrigued me. On the other
hand, this is mere anecdote.
I have read double blind reports of the use of St
Johns wort in patients with mild depression compared with barely
therapeutic doses of imipramine. Both worked. On the other hand, I did not
see placebo controls: in Europe researchers do not use placebo controls in
studying conditions for which there are proven treatments. The problem
with this is that placebo is an excellent drug for depression--at least
for a month or two. So perhaps St Johns wort isn't so good. At any rate,
my patients don't get much help from it.
Dr. Angell then went on: "Of course, many
treatments used in conventional medicine have not been rigorously tested,
either, but the scientific community generally acknowledges that this is a
failing that needs to be remedied."
It's good that she said this, since back surgery,
for one, has not been shown scientifically to be beneficial.
At another point she says: "Alternative
medicine also distinguishes itself by an ideology that largely ignores
biologic mechanisms, often disparages modern science, and relies on what
are purported to be ancient practices and natural remedies (which are seen
as somehow being simultaneously more potent and less toxic than
conventional medicine). Accordingly, herbs or mixtures of herbs are
considered superior to the active compounds isolated in the
laboratory."
She's right about the ideology. Even patients who
mix modern and alternative medicine have what appears to be a religious
conviction that "natural" things work better than stuff from
labs. On the other hand, preparations made from the whole plant rauwolfa
serpentina are alleged by ahuravedic (sp?) practitioners to have
properties altogether different from reserpine, which is simply the most
striking compound isolated from the plant. There are some doctors who
believe that desiccated whole thyroid produces results better than
synthetic pure T-4. In fact, there is even a T-f/T-3 combination that
seeks to mimic the proportions of hormones found in desiccated thyroid.
And nobody is sure which chemical in St Johns wort helps depression, or
even if a single chemical is responsible for the help it does provide in
mild depression.
Foxglove became digitalis. Curare was used a long
time in surgeries. Willow bark does contain salicylates which have the
same effect as aspirin (the name salicylic acid derives from the Latin
name for the willow). And we can get opiates from poppies. On the other
hand, pure caffeine is better for you than American coffee, which--because
it is filtered--is better for you than European coffees. Not everything in
a plant is good for you. Your body is set up so that your liver is in a
position to intercept toxins from plants that you might eat, for example.
Dr. Angell rightly extols the advances of modern
medicine. In my field alone I have seen new medicines arrive that have
improved the care I can deliver to patients a hundredfold (unfortunately,
some of the advances are based on careful clinical trials with individual
patients, since the psychiatric establishment has not caught the
nomenclature up with what wise clinicians know). But, topping off a
century of revolutionary progress, Dr, Angell notes:
"Now, with the increased interest in
alternative medicine, we see a reversion to irrational approaches to
medical practice, even while scientific medicine is making some of its
most dramatic advances. Exploring the reasons for this paradox is outside
the scope of this editorial, but it is probably in part a matter of
disillusionment with the often hurried and impersonal care delivered by
conventional physicians, as well as the harsh treatments that may be
necessary for life-threatening diseases."
Amen to that.
She goes on to highlight a study in that issue of
her journal showing harm that can come when one treats an ailment with an
herb rather than getting known effective modern treatment. She then talks
about how the poor FDA, which should be guarding us from quack cures and
impure remedies, has been handcuffed by Congress.
Please, Dr. Angell. The FDA showed itself a poor
steward. Let's take L-tryptophan, for example: studied and found
effective; but the FDA wouldn't develop a regulatory scheme that would
allow them to certify some of it as pharmacy grade. If they needed new
authority from Congress, they had but to ask. Instead, an impurity cased
an epidemic of a terrible allergic response. Then they banned it, as
they had wanted to all along. Hundreds of people felled to prove a
point and win a bureaucratic war. I knew people who worked there. Nice,
well-meaning people, but rigid.
It's the same problem with melatonin today. Very
important stuff, but you can't trust your supply. I wish the FDA provided
a parallel track so we could at least be sure we are getting unadulterated
melatonin and L-tryptophan. But they weren't developed by a drug company,
you see.
Did you know that you can't get the FDA to approve a
new use of an old med without spending big bucks for a study? Did you know
that no one in our government does studies to find new uses, to put them
up for the public good? If you find a use, it will have to be
unscientific, "off-label" use.
In June 1999 Solvay Pharmaceuticals took the
unheard-of step of paying for studies to get generic progesterone (the
hormone your body makes) approved for use in menopause. Their money paid
for a single dose size. Now, the FDA requires studies showing that every
dose size is effective for some segment of the population, so Solvay is
not allowed to make lower doses, even though a number of women need less.
If you want a lower dose, send your prescription to Women's International
Pharmacy in Madison, WI (Do it soon; the FDA is trying to put mail-order
compounding pharmacies out of business).
Dr. Angell says: "Herbal remedies may also be
sold without any knowledge of their mechanism of action." Guess what?
That's true of practically everything sold as a medication. We only think
we know how they work. Only one of aspirin's mechanisms has been figured
out, for example, and that came in the mid-1990's. Dr. Angell concludes:
"It is time for the scientific community to stop giving alternative
medicine a free ride. There cannot be two kinds of medicine --
conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been
adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and
medicine that may or may not work. Once a treatment has been tested
rigorously, it no longer matters whether it was considered alternative at
the outset. If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be
accepted. But assertions, speculation, and testimonials do not substitute
for evidence. Alternative treatments should be subjected to scientific
testing no less rigorous than that required for conventional
treatments." This is fine, but as long as the government interferes
and slants the table so that only the traditional drugmakers have a
chance, alternative medicine will thrive. In the absence of appropriate
FDA action, the herbal companies are working toward assembling a private
agency that can be trusted in certifying products as pure. Will we ever
trust it? Who knows?
You may have noted my excessive use of "on the
other hand." This is one of those complicated topics.
At bottom, I think that wherever you have a tyranny,
or even a monopoly, people will vote with their feet and their
pocketbooks. This explains why people fled from communism, and why people
pay for snake oil.
Ed Hume
www.pshrink.com
You are kinder to most of those nice well-meaning
people at FDA than I would be, and than I will be when Larry and I do the
next INFERNO. Control freaks who want to mind other people's business
rather than their own is closer to the mark.
Me, were I in charge, I would let the FDA do its
testing and let them label stuff. Then those who want to sell unapproved
remedies should be required to mark it plainly. THIS PRODUCT HAS NOT BEEN
APPROVED BY THE FDA. Or. THIS PRODUCT IS NOT CERTIFIED AS SAFE BY
THE FDA. Or. THE FDA HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THIS PRODUCT IS NOT MERELY
INEFFECTIVE BUT WILL GIVE YOU HIVES, CHILBLAINS, AND BAD BREATH. And
so forth.
But I would require truthful labeling. If the
bottle says "Made from the freshest of snake biles" then the
stuff must contain fresh snake biles. If it says snake oil then it has to
BE snake oil and not mineral oil. Make sure people know what they are
buying.
Then assume that each person is the best judge of
his or her own interest. But that's my view of a Republic. Empires and
aristocracies have different views, and have people whose job it is to
look out for what they think are the interests of subjects who can't
figure it out for themselves, and won't ask for advice.
TOP
|
