Why own pure medicine NOT be studied next to impossible to tell apart rigor as Rx medicine?
So much effort (and money) is put into finding topical medicines out of synthetic chemicals as dead set against natural. Why not start next to what has "worked" for 100's and 1000's of years? Why not prove or discredit the crude remedies (which may have a reduced amount of side effects) first before jump into creating something from nothing?
Answer:
Pharmaceutical companies own most of the money for researching cures and they cannot patent untaught remedies. It's no more complicated than that.
one word
PROFITS
Because pharmaceutical companies have big bucks and big lobbyists. There only just simply isn't the money in unprocessed remedies.
The synthetic drug can be PATENTED. Money Honey.
I think for matching reason pot is not legitimate and that is because the goverment cannot control it.
It's because adjectives or most of the "natural" remedies have already be exploited during the last two centuries to the point that their usefulness own gone to zero. That's to read out, there's nothing more to be gain from them until some new "natural" substance is discovered. The stuff that made them work have been well-mannered and processed to where we own them as old and/or current drugs. Now, these infirm drugs are being modified to project into enhanced properties and possible "cures" for different diseases. Some work, but many others don't and are simply toxic to humans. The drug companies don't start out near just any synthetic chemical(s) to come up near a new medication. They starte near a known substance beside known properties. They modify it surrounded by various ways to enhance labour, effectiveness and possibly treat different diseases. In a few instances, they may come up next to something for which there is no agreed disease or symptom - then it's posterior to the drawing boards. New medications are one developed and are taking a shorter time to come to the marketplace. Example: one older med may have taken 25 years to be developed and approved for use. However, a small modification of that med would hold enhanced the benefit and only rob seven years to be developed and approved for use. That's a benefit for all. The problem is the unusual drug, while cheaper to have developed, replaces the outmoded one and the company would charge the public 10 times the cost. That's the shame of it.
Occasionally, research of this type does happen. The results hold usually been disappointing, which lead to lack of interest contained by any further research. But the "natural medicines" live on, mostly through folklore, despite failing contained by research studies.
They can't be patented or controlled and the cost of research to get a 'drug' approval is astronomical and cannot be recoup.
see references below for info on unconscious medicine and treatments
Because doctors own gone to school and they ruminate chemicals are better than natural remedies.
Pharmaceutical drugs can be similar to smoothly occurring drugs, but derivatives often own to be synthesized because the natural drug simply DOES NOT WORK. I am not clich¨¦ that synthesized drugs are superior to natural drugs, they are adjectives drugs anyways. They each enjoy their own effects/ side effects. As far as not using drugs that are believed to have "worked" for 100s of years. this is assuming these drugs in fact worked in the first place. Many inborn drugs are simply derivatives of commonplace painkillers that are on the market today. The users feel temporary nouns from the painkiller and mistook it for a cure for their bug.
I am also not suggesting we avoid researching natural chemicals. I am purely answering your question beside reasons why!