• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Alternative & complementary therapies: a new bimonthly publication for health care practitioners >The Evidence for Lemon Balm
【24h】

The Evidence for Lemon Balm

机译：柠檬香脂的证据

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Looking at the allopaths who fear the "dangers" of herbs, whipped into herbiphobia by an herbiphobic press-all perhaps inspired if not directly paid by a herbiphobic megapharmaceutical industry-I sometimes feel a bit Davidian as an individual in challenging this Goliath of antiherbal allies. Strangely, the herbiphobic U.S. Food and Drug Administration seems to represent Big Pharma and not the American consumer. Clearly, the pharmaceutical firms would have the most to lose if the real comparative power of herbs was fully disclosed. In fact, herbs kill fewer than 100 Americans a year, with most apparently not following dosage recommendations, while phar-maceuticals kill more than 100,000 patients who take these substances as prescribed. Indeed, the more I read, the more I think the evidence for herbs is, on average, as compelling as that for drugs, half of which will be recalled in their first decade on the market, often because of unexpected side effects that fail to show up in the average
机译：看看那些惧怕草药“危险”的同种异体病患者，他们由于受到恐同症的报道而鞭策成恐慌症，这一切都可能是受到恐怕性巨型药业的直接激励，即使不是直接得到的话-我有时会感到有点戴维安作为个人来挑战这个反草药盟友的巨人。奇怪的是，仇视美国食品药品管理局似乎代表了大制药公司，而不是美国消费者。显然，如果充分揭示草药的真正比较能力，制药公司将蒙受最大的损失。实际上，草药每年杀死的美国人不到100名，而且大多数人显然没有遵循剂量建议，而药用药物则杀死了100,000多按处方服用这些药物的患者。确实，我读得越多，我就认为草药的证据平均就比药物证据更具说服力，其中一半会在进入市场的第一个十年中被召回，这通常是由于意外的副作用未能出现在平均水平

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号