From: Mark Probert on
On Oct 11, 10:04 am, "Existential Angst" <UNfit...(a)UNoptonline.net>
wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6f235396-4aac-4704-befd-569fcf15bd69(a)m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 9, 4:55 pm, PeterB <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 9, 4:29 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 9, 3:48 pm, "trigonometry1...(a)gmail.com |"
>
> > > <trigonometry1...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 9, 12:28 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...(a)sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Excellent article in New England Journal of Medicine
> > > > > about contamination in the severly underregulated
> > > > > dietary supplements business. Many products contain
> > > > > dangerous, unapproved drugs, and yet the public is
> > > > > largely unaware how bad the situation is. A majority
> > > > > of the public and even a third of medical students
> > > > > wrongly believe that supplements have to be approved
> > > > > by a government agency.
>
> > > > >http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2017&query=home
>
> > > > > The dietary supplement industry is a dirty business,
> > > > > sorely in need of reform.
>
> > > > Ha unapproved drugs they call them. I'll bet
> > > > they include alot of perfectly safe ingredients
> > > > in their list of "unapproved drugs,"
> > > > I wouldn't trust most proposed reforms other than
> > > > perhaps a bit more funding and monitoring to prevent
> > > > pharma drugs and toxics being slipped in by
> > > > crooks.
>
> > > I would like to see:
>
> > > 1. Mandatory reporting of all adverse events, lawsuits, etc.
>
> > > 2. Complete disclosure of all ingredients, and banning the term
> > > "Proprietary bland" etc.
>
> > > 3. Requirement that there be some standard of efficacy.
>
> > > For starters.
>
> > There is substantial "GMP" compliance by most of the reputable
> > manufacturers, and many provide certified assays on request.
>
> Years ago, a doctor gave me a can of a supplement touted to treat
> ADHD. It smelled pretty good, so we decided to try it on my son.  The
> problem was, it would not dissolve. It created a thick, gritty soupy
> material that he would not touch, and, I found unpalatable.
>
> I wrote to the manufacturer who refused to tell me the contents (that
> is what a proprietary blend is).
>
> Since we could not use it for the intended purpose, I used it in my
> vegetable garden along with home made compost.
>
> Best vegetables ever.
>
> So, I wrote the manufacturer an endorsement of their product as a
> fertilizer. I even sent them a zucchini, just so they could see how
> good it was and posted it on their website.
>
> They were not too happy.
> ===========================================
>
> Really?  You deluded yourself with the notion that they did anything more
> than delete you note?

Could you explain that as soon as you figure out what you said?

>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Since a
>
> > large percentage of these products are made using pharmaceutically-
> > made materials,
>
> That bears being proven by you.
>
> > some of this problem rests with the drug makers.-
>
> Nah. The problems rest with the whole idea of supplements. A balanced
> diet does a fine job and no supplements are needed.
> ===============================================
>
> So I guess you re-balance yer diet each time the RDA is changed, eh?
>
> Let's see....  How can I quantify the ignorance of your statement....
> Let's see....  OH, I GOT IT!!!
>
> ""Even the AMA endorses multivites!!!""

So? I make sure my diet is balanced. I do not care what the RDA's are,
as I consume enough to ensure I am well. My recent full physical went
well, with an extensive blood work up that was totally normal.

> Which makes YOU an even more useless source of info than Big Pharm/Big Med!!
> Congrats.

Well that stupidity lets me know you are an idiot.

Thanks for removing all doubt in one post.
I

From: D. C. Sessions on
In message <1dc61f98-40e0-45b7-9a80-f60946e81385(a)o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, PeterB wrote:

> There is substantial "GMP" compliance by most of the reputable
> manufacturers, and many provide certified assays on request. Since a
> large percentage of these products are made using pharmaceutically-
> made materials, some of this problem rests with the drug makers.

Hell, a lot of these products *are* pharmaceuticals. They include
anything and everything from lead oxides to sildenafil citrate
and barbiturates, with side trips into the amphetamine family.

The only difference is that they're strictly /caveat/ /emptor/
with no requirements that the purchaser even be informed what's
in them. Turn the clock back to the 19th century and Lydia
Pinkham's Elixir.

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <dcs(a)lumbercartel.com> -+
From: Existential Angst on
"Mark Probert" <mark.probert(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d5ded53-5b3e-4d4b-af61-31a09ac32a2a(a)j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 11, 10:04 am, "Existential Angst" <UNfit...(a)UNoptonline.net>
wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6f235396-4aac-4704-befd-569fcf15bd69(a)m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 9, 4:55 pm, PeterB <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 9, 4:29 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 9, 3:48 pm, "trigonometry1...(a)gmail.com |"
>
> > > <trigonometry1...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 9, 12:28 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...(a)sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Excellent article in New England Journal of Medicine
> > > > > about contamination in the severly underregulated
> > > > > dietary supplements business. Many products contain
> > > > > dangerous, unapproved drugs, and yet the public is
> > > > > largely unaware how bad the situation is. A majority
> > > > > of the public and even a third of medical students
> > > > > wrongly believe that supplements have to be approved
> > > > > by a government agency.
>
> > > > >http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2017&query=home
>
> > > > > The dietary supplement industry is a dirty business,
> > > > > sorely in need of reform.
>
> > > > Ha unapproved drugs they call them. I'll bet
> > > > they include alot of perfectly safe ingredients
> > > > in their list of "unapproved drugs,"
> > > > I wouldn't trust most proposed reforms other than
> > > > perhaps a bit more funding and monitoring to prevent
> > > > pharma drugs and toxics being slipped in by
> > > > crooks.
>
> > > I would like to see:
>
> > > 1. Mandatory reporting of all adverse events, lawsuits, etc.
>
> > > 2. Complete disclosure of all ingredients, and banning the term
> > > "Proprietary bland" etc.
>
> > > 3. Requirement that there be some standard of efficacy.
>
> > > For starters.
>
> > There is substantial "GMP" compliance by most of the reputable
> > manufacturers, and many provide certified assays on request.
>
> Years ago, a doctor gave me a can of a supplement touted to treat
> ADHD. It smelled pretty good, so we decided to try it on my son. The
> problem was, it would not dissolve. It created a thick, gritty soupy
> material that he would not touch, and, I found unpalatable.
>
> I wrote to the manufacturer who refused to tell me the contents (that
> is what a proprietary blend is).
>
> Since we could not use it for the intended purpose, I used it in my
> vegetable garden along with home made compost.
>
> Best vegetables ever.
>
> So, I wrote the manufacturer an endorsement of their product as a
> fertilizer. I even sent them a zucchini, just so they could see how
> good it was and posted it on their website.
>
> They were not too happy.
> ===========================================
>
> Really? You deluded yourself with the notion that they did anything more
> than delete you note?

Could you explain that as soon as you figure out what you said?

>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Since a
>
> > large percentage of these products are made using pharmaceutically-
> > made materials,
>
> That bears being proven by you.
>
> > some of this problem rests with the drug makers.-
>
> Nah. The problems rest with the whole idea of supplements. A balanced
> diet does a fine job and no supplements are needed.
> ===============================================
>
> So I guess you re-balance yer diet each time the RDA is changed, eh?
>
> Let's see.... How can I quantify the ignorance of your statement....
> Let's see.... OH, I GOT IT!!!
>
> ""Even the AMA endorses multivites!!!""

So? I make sure my diet is balanced. I do not care what the RDA's are,
as I consume enough to ensure I am well. My recent full physical went
well, with an extensive blood work up that was totally normal.
===================================================

And of course *you know* the statistical basis of these lab tests; *you
know* the epidemiology behind the DRIs/RDAs, *you understand* the biochem
behind these lab tests (well, clearly you don't, otherwise you wouldn't be
so smug about your """normal""" values), *you understand* the biochemistry
behind the DRIs/RDAs that can be biochemically determined, *you know* the
signficance of the ULs in the 2006 Inst of Med's summary book on the DRIs
(which you've of course read, right?), *you've read* the 1974 Annals of the
NY Academy of Sciences on Vit C, so of course you're getting enough.....
right?

You know all this, right?
Yeah, right.
You parrot what you read in the newspapers, and don't have an original -- or
correct -- thought in your flat balding head.
--
EA


> Which makes YOU an even more useless source of info than Big Pharm/Big
> Med!!
> Congrats.

Well that stupidity lets me know you are an idiot.

Thanks for removing all doubt in one post.
I


From: D. C. Sessions on
In message <5d81692c-af4e-4e1e-92eb-58b4b96db878(a)g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, catherine hoffman wrote:

> I know quite a bit about the FDA, but I didn't know that they did not
> regulate the supplements. Is that also true for MLM companies?

The DSHEA was written by MLM companies from Utah and sponsored by
Orrin Hatch.

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <dcs(a)lumbercartel.com> -+
From: D. C. Sessions on
In message <a8567f7c-4e81-4491-a467-9b853c2c64ed(a)d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, trigonometry1972(a)gmail.com | wrote:
> On Oct 9, 1:30 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 4:11 pm, "trigonometry1...(a)gmail.com |"

>> > Its not they don't have enough authority rather they choose
>> > not to enforce it.
>>
>> Incorrect. They do not have enough authority. DSHEA.
>
> Rubbish. The DSHEA is a great thing.

I'm sure you think DSHEA is great -- but the fact remains that
it removes "dietary supplements" from the FDA's scope of
authority. In fact, that rather sums up *why* you think
it's so wonderful.

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <dcs(a)lumbercartel.com> -+
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Prev: Stew Bait
Next: Eulogy for Dr Hulda Clark