Comments on: Pan fiasco was entirely preventable http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/19/pan-fiasco-was-entirely-preventable/ now with extra source Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:13:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: MichaelT http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/19/pan-fiasco-was-entirely-preventable/#comment-7636 MichaelT Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-7636 Yes, but there is no evidence that any of the Pan complementary health products ever caused harm to anyone, so it can hardly be used as a case study of the need for more regulation of CAM. It is quite irrelevant. The harmful agent was a DRUG. <br /><br />You have mentioned one report of an adverse effects from a CAM product (on its own). By contrast, according to Dr Libby Roughead over 15,000 cases of adverse events are caused by phamaceuticals in hospitals alone each year, out of the total 150,000 hospital adverse events.<br /><br />Basic risk management principles indicate that you calculate the severity of a risk, and then the rate of incidence, and you focus on the most common and most severe risks. These do not arise from CAM products. This is not a reactionary response, but a rational one indeed. Yes, but there is no evidence that any of the Pan complementary health products ever caused harm to anyone, so it can hardly be used as a case study of the need for more regulation of CAM. It is quite irrelevant. The harmful agent was a DRUG.

You have mentioned one report of an adverse effects from a CAM product (on its own). By contrast, according to Dr Libby Roughead over 15,000 cases of adverse events are caused by phamaceuticals in hospitals alone each year, out of the total 150,000 hospital adverse events.

Basic risk management principles indicate that you calculate the severity of a risk, and then the rate of incidence, and you focus on the most common and most severe risks. These do not arise from CAM products. This is not a reactionary response, but a rational one indeed.

]]>