From: Jan Drew on
On Oct 11, 12:13 am, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)> wrote:

> On Oct 9, 4:30 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)> wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 4:11 pm, "trigonometry1...(a) |"
> > <trigonometry1...(a)> wrote:
> > > On Oct 9, 1:01 pm, catherine hoffman <choffman0...(a)> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 9, 12:28 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...(a)> 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > The dietary supplement industry is a dirty business,
> > > > > sorely in need of reform.
> > > > WoW!,
> > > > 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?
> > > Its not they don't have enough authority rather they choose
> > > not to enforce it.
> > Incorrect. They do not have enough authority. DSHEA.
> Why organized medicine wants to outlaw nutrition and turn healers into
> criminals
> by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
> How about some truth for a change about the Food Supplements Directive
> in the European Union? The proponents of this directive say that it's
> about protecting patients from all these dangerous vitamins, minerals,
> supplements, plant extracts and antioxidants that are so dangerous for
> people. They say, "We're going to keep you safe!" Let me tell you what
> I think. It's an attempt to outlaw nutrition. It is an attempt to
> criminalize those who would offer nutritional products that can
> actually prevent and even treat chronic diseases.
> Why would anyone want to do this? Well, look at what it's trying to
> ban. One of the things it's trying to ban is tocotrienols, which are
> various forms of vitamin E. These are naturally occurring antioxidants
> that are found in the plant world. You can find them in whole grains,
> nuts, seeds and a variety of different plants. Why would they want to
> ban these ingredients and make it a crime to sell these to people?
> Well, think about it folks. These ingredients prevent chronic disease
> better than prescription drugs, without the side effects, and without
> the profitability of prescription drugs. If people really knew just
> how much they could prevent chronic disease with these plant extracts,
> medicinal herbs, vitamins, minerals, and supplements, the
> pharmaceutical industry would collapse overnight.
> The defenders of "Big Pharma" and of organized medicine have realized
> that they can't win the information war. They can't prevent people
> from finding out how to be healthy. Believe me, they've tried! They've
> tried through censorship, oppression, influence, and even attempts to
> regulate medical information on the internet. They have tried to
> create a total blackout of information, but they've failed. Thank God
> we live in a (relatively) free society where the internet still
> operates and people have access to independent information. As people
> are increasingly finding out that prescription drugs actually kill
> you, while vitamins, nutrients, and plant-based supplements actually
> save your life, organized medicine had to go to Plan B. Plan B is to
> outlaw nutrition, which is what the European Union Food Supplements
> Directive is all about.
> Let's take this one step further here. Let’s assume they succeed in
> outlawing this nutrition. It's suddenly illegal to buy any amount of
> vitamin C over 50 mg, for example. It's illegal to buy various
> minerals, such as vanadium or boron. It becomes illegal to buy
> tocotrienols, or other antioxidants derived from plants. Well, what's
> the next step? It is, of course, to outlaw medicinal foods entirely!
> Can you imagine a world in which it would be illegal to purchase and
> consume garlic? It sounds ridiculous, right? You say, "Oh, come on,
> that's just exaggeration!" But is it really? Garlic is one of the most
> medicinally potent foods in the world. This is a product that prevents
> and treats topical and internal cancers. Raw garlic juice is one of
> the most potent anti-cancer supplements you can consume. You can go to
> a grocery store right now, buy garlic, and make this yourself. This is
> more powerful than many drugs out there. It's a broad-spectrum
> antibiotic. It's antiviral, antibacterial, anti-cancer and anti-tumor.
> This is an amazing healing food.
> Would they try to outlaw that? Right now, they're trying to outlaw
> extracts from different plants. It's only a small step for them to
> actually outlaw these foods. You'd have to have a prescription to buy
> garlic. It would be a controlled substance, and if you grew it in your
> own garden, you'd be arrested as a criminal. Don't believe me? Just
> try to grow omega-3-rich hemp seeds in your backyard and see how long
> it takes for the DEA to show up at your doorstep.
> You have a great number of foods out there that actually treat, not
> just prevent, chronic diseases. Molasses, for one, is a nutrient-rich
> sweetener. It's made from the byproduct of whole grain processing. If
> people ate more molasses or used it in their cooking or their oatmeal,
> they would get more B vitamins, more magnesium, more zinc. They would
> be healthier. We'd see a drop in the rate of Alzheimer's disease,
> nervous system disorders, and behavioral disorders, such as Attention
> Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and other so called "behavioral
> diseases."
> You may think it sounds crazy that these foods would some day be
> banned. But I think it's crazy to ban extracts of these foods. They're
> trying to ban these natural ingredients right now. Beyond the fact
> that I think it is unethical to do so, it is a crime against humanity
> to restrict people from access to the gifts provided by Mother Nature.
> As human beings, we have a God-given right to eat plants, to use the
> medicinal herbs found in our natural environment, and to heal
> ourselves using these gifts provided by nature. I believe any attempt
> to criminalize our connection with nature is itself a crime, and
> should be treated as such.
> Nutrition is bad for you, didn't you know?
> The Food Supplements Directive (in Europe) and this whole effort by
> the FDA (in the U.S.) to outlaw certain medicinal herbs and eventually
> nutritional supplements is based on the outlandish premise that
> prescription drugs are good for you and nutrition is bad for you. This
> is such a reversal of reality that it's absolutely astounding they can
> get away with even talking about it without being laughed off of the
> television show or radio interview.
> If you think about it, prescription drugs are what's killing people.
> Prescription drugs are extremely dangerous, even according to the
> statistics put out by organized medicine. We have one class of drugs,
> Cox-2 inhibitors, which, all by itself, is responsible for at least
> 144,000 heart attacks in the United States alone. Over 40 percent of
> those are fatal. The FDA admitted all of this information, yet said,
> "That's not dangerous enough for us. Let's put this drug back on the
> market." They rubber-stamped it "APPROVED BY THE FDA." This is now
> safe for consumption, according to the FDA.
> Meanwhile, a Chinese herb, ma huang, or "Ephedra," as it's better
> known, is blamed for the death of a few dozen individuals who
> overdosed like crazy trying to lose weight. A few dozen people and the
> FDA said, "This is dangerous! We have to take this off the market!
> It's unregulated. It's a Chinese herb. It will kill you!" It is now a
> crime to sell Ephedra. They're criminalizing medicinal herbs, while
> legalizing the drugs that kill you. This is what's going on today.
> It's really about control
> There's a lot at stake here -- a lot of power, control, and, of
> course, a whole lot of money. The people at the top of organized
> medicine's hierarchy, the FDA, the American Medical Association, top
> doctors, surgeons, hospitals, and so on, have all realized that if
> nutrition succeeds, and if people become educated about how to prevent
> disease through simple, easily available foods, then they are going to
> lose a lot of money. They're going to lose a lot of patients, whom
> they're depending on. You have drug companies looking at the coming
> wave of Alzheimer's and jumping up and down with joy, thinking, "Look
> how many customers we're going to have. Let's come up with an
> Alzheimer's drug!" Research then comes out showing that Alzheimer's
> drugs cause dementia. Yes, it's true. Pain drugs cause heart attacks,
> antidepressant drugs cause people to pick up automatic weapons and
> blow away their classmates; you can just go on down the list. These
> drugs are designed to treat disease and improve people's lives but
> they only destroy lives. Nevertheless, that doesn't stop the drug
> companies from being excited about the opportunity to sell these drugs
> to people.
> It's all about selling the drugs. Really, the FDA is just one
> gatekeeper by which these drugs can be sold. The FDA is being
> exploited and controlled by drug companies. The FDA rubber-stamps
> drugs that are highly toxic and extremely dangerous. These drugs
> continue to be sold to people all around the world at ridiculously
> high prices. It's a big scam, and there's big money at stake.
> That's why they've got to attack nutritional supplements. They've got
> to outlaw vitamin C, vitamin E, and minerals that prevent disease.
> They've got to criminalize them. Their strategy right now is to
> protect the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. This whole Food
> Supplements Directive in Europe is really nothing more than an attempt
> to protect profits. By doing that, they're committing a crime against
> humanity, in my belief. They're trying to say that it should be
> illegal for people to choose foods, medicines, ...
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -

From: Jan Drew on
On Oct 11, 1:12�am, "trigonometry1...(a) |"
<trigonometry1...(a)> wrote:
> On Oct 10, 7:31�pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)> wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 1:02�am, "trigonometry1...(a) |"
> > <trigonometry1...(a)> wrote:
> > > On Oct 9, 1:30�pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 9, 4:11�pm, "trigonometry1...(a) |"
> > > > <trigonometry1...(a)> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 9, 1:01�pm, catherine hoffman <choffman0...(a)> wrote:
> > > > > > On Oct 9, 12:28�pm, Mark Thorson <nos...(a)> 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The dietary supplement industry is a dirty business,
> > > > > > > sorely in need of reform.
> > > > > > WoW!,
> > > > > > 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?
> > > > > 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.-
> > The passage of DSHEA was riddled with clear conflict of interest of
> > Orrin Hatch of Utah, which was, at that time, a major manufacture
> > state of supplements. Hatch's son has been a lobbyist for supplement
> > manufacturers.
> > And, DSHEA gutted the FDA and FTC's authority. Said gutting lead to
> > the death of a son of a friend of ours.
> No laws are perfect. And all laws are made like sausage.
> As to the death, it likely was an ephredra related.
> Many of those who ran it problem i.e. death very took large
> doses. Ephredra is in a class of drugs that have
> a NARROW safety margin. It has been use to
> good effect in persons with COPD in the past.
> Though it had a dose standardisation issue.
> Taking it as stimulant is not a wise action and
> a clear misuse of it drug action.
> Even the relatively safe stimulant caffeine
> gets people into the hospital all the time.
> I still say the "gutting" was a VERY good
> thing overall. Remember Tylenol like products
> have been damaging people for decades and
> it still lacks black box warning.
> I daily use materials that are preserved by DSHEA.
> And they make a huge difference in my personal
> quality of life and the effects are profound. We can
> discuss specifics if you want. I can put a face
> to the value of the DSHEA just as Mark seeks
> to put a face to a specific (now banned) supplement's
> risk.
> Can we imagine ethanol and coffee/caffeine making
> it to the market in the modern world? The
> nervous nellies would have surely ban them.
> As they in fact did over the objections of others.
> I do agree to an extent that herbal substances
> can contain powerful drugs and one needs to
> be informed and take it slow. Nonetheless, it
> can be useful to have an end run around
> big pharma the ignorant MDs. And I
> must admit most of my end runs haven't been
> herbal but rather hormonal i.e. melatonin and
> nutrient like i.e. betaine HCL. Just to mention
> two items. Nonetheless the FDA has messed
> with flavonoids in the past even though
> they quite benign materials. They have
> sought at times to restrict vitamin levels
> in supplements to very low levels. There
> is a history Mark and mainstream media
> ignore of bad deeds by the FDA past. The
> FDA banned folinic acid in the past.
> Now it is the favored form of the vitamin
> for some with a common metabolic defect.
> Albeit it is under a new name and under
> a patent by Merck as I recall. And though
> it is available (again) OTC which is good.
> leave it to a lawyer or ex-lawyer
> to imagine more regulation is
> the solution..................................Trig- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -

From: D. C. Sessions on
In message <aa44fbda-9e3b-48a8-a651-399c60058fd0(a)>, trigonometry1972(a) | wrote:

> Vitamins and nutrients are not drugs.

Of course not. That's why anyone bringing a new product
to market should call it a "dietary supplement" or
"nutrient" instead. Boyd Haley, for instance, has
discovered that a chemical used for cleaning up
Superfund sites is a nutrient and is marketing it
as such, with the usual wink and nudge about how it
might chelate vaccine-induced toxins from children.

His safety trials consisted of his cat and some

| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <dcs(a)> -+
From: trigonometry1972 on
On Oct 12, 5:23 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...(a)> wrote:
> "trigonometry1...(a) |" wrote:
> > Yes my position moved. And it wasn't
> > the abstract you cited, it was one of
> > the ones that I provided to this discussion.
> The one about the liver lesions?  Even I didn't
> know about that one.  If tocotrienols start to
> get any traction in the alternative medicine
> community, I'll have to do a thorough literature
> search on its safety issues.  It looks really bad.
> With regard to the line between nutrients and
> drugs, the same compound can be both.  Tryptophan
> is an essential amino acid, so there is a nutritional
> requirement for it.  Usually that comes from a
> balanced source of amino acids, like meat or eggs.
> But when that one amino acid is isolated by itself
> and used for a specific non-nutritional purpose
> like as an aid to sleep, it's being used as a drug.
> (Tryptophan is a precursor to important
> neurotransmitters.)  Pure tryptophan supplements
> and other isolated "nutrients" with claimed specific
> drug-like uses should be regulated as drugs.  That
> would have prevented the epidemic of eosinophilic
> myalgia caused by tryptophan supplements 20 years
> ago.

That was a peak X problem. An impurity.
Nothing is without problems. Simply banning the product was wrong,
demanding purity would have been the right move. Indeed there is form
of this
product on the market. Moreover, it remained in use in baby formula
and as a prescription item.
The problem manufacturer is said to have
changed it process.

Standard foods are risky, for example.
wheat and gluten products. That not
a reason to make them prescription items.
Indeed, a relaxing of regulation on bread
would result in relatively healthier products i.e. high bran breads.
High bran breads for those who
tolerate gluten are a relatively good way to prevent
and TREAT certain GI tract problems.

I can see it now prescription bread.

A man who has eaten banned forms
of bread...................................Trig

From: PeterB on
On Oct 12, 7:17 am, "trigonometry1...(a) |"
<trigonometry1...(a)> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 12:13 pm, "Existential Angst" <UNfit...(a)>
> wrote:
> > "Mark Thorson" <nos...(a)> wrote in message
> >news:4AD228D2.C51B845A(a)
> > > "trigonometry1...(a) |" wrote:
> > >> And as to vitamin E interfering in drug
> > >> metabolism, it is the tocopherol form that
> > >> is the most active when compare to tocotrienol
> > >> in altering drug metabolism according to some research
> > >> and it takes a really whopping dose in this animal model.
> > >> PMID: 15649653
> > > The tocopherol forms do not activate the SXR
> > > receptor and the cascade of xenobiotic clearance
> > > mechanisms it controls.  The tocotrienols do
> > > activate SXR, and that is why they are a risk.
> > > If you don't understand that, you are completely
> > > clueless with regard to the hazard of taking
> > > tocotrienols.  And that's precisely why you need
> > > to be protected from yourself.  Even if you don't
> > > want this protection, there's lots of other people
> > > who might believe the line used to sell tocotrienols
> > > who do need this protection.  Tocotrienols inevitably
> > > will cause considerable mischief if made widely
> > > available to the public.
> > Sounds like this "mischief" can be used to good advantage, if strategized
> > correctly.
> > Xenophobia is not nec a bad thing.
> > Thus, Trig's point about who the real "culprit" is (drugs or trienols)
> > remains valid.
> > --
> > EA
> The following suggests a dose of tocotrienol is between
> 200 and 1000 milligrams is safe though research on the
> the potential liver problems in the murine model is more recent.
> And some of the issues mentioned in this article
> may relate to vitamin E lowering vitamin K levels.
> One of the reasons I am of the opinion taking
> a vitamin K supplement along vitamin E supplementation
> is prudent.
> And if one lives were vitamin K isn't OTC, cooking
> greens with butter maybe helpful. Parsley and
> cilantro in both salads and cooking are ways
> to increase K1 in the diet. Most get pitifully
> small amounts of any form of vitamin K in their
> diet. There is evidence that the vitamin K generated
> in the gut is unavailable to a great extent in humans
> as I recall. Though there are exceptions i.e. fermented
> soy, natto.

Thanks for the info. I like the natural K put out by Life Extension.
I agree that this is a very overlooked nutrient in our fast food

> Vitam Horm. 2007;76:203-61.
> Tocotrienols: the emerging face of natural vitamin E.
> Sen CK, Khanna S, Rink C, Roy S.
> Laboratory of Molecular Medicine, Department of Surgery, Davis Heart
> and Lung Research Institute,
> The Ohio State University Medical Center,
> Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.
> Natural vitamin E includes eight chemically distinct molecules:
> alpha-, beta-, gamma-, and delta-tocopherols and alpha-, beta-,
> gamma-, and delta-tocotrienols.
> More than 95% of all studies on vitamin E are directed
> toward the specific study  of alpha-tocopherol. The other
> forms of natural vitamin E remain poorly understood.
> The abundance of alpha-tocopherol in the human body
> and the comparable efficiency of all vitamin E molecules
> as antioxidants led biologists to neglect the non-tocopherol
> vitamin E molecules as topics for basic and clinical
> research. Recent developments warrant a serious
> reconsideration of this conventional wisdom.
> The tocotrienol subfamily of natural vitamin E
> possesses powerful neuroprotective, anticancer, and
> cholesterol-lowering properties that are often not
> exhibited by tocopherols. Current developments
> in vitamin E research clearly indicate that members
> of the vitamin E family are not redundant
> with respect to their biological functions.
> alpha-Tocotrienol, gamma-tocopherol, and delta-tocotrienol
> have emerged as vitamin E molecules with functions
> in health and disease that are clearly distinct from
> that of alpha-tocopherol. At nanomolar concentration,
> alpha-tocotrienol, not alpha-tocopherol, prevents
> neurodegeneration. On a concentration basis, this
> finding represents the most potent of all biological
> functions exhibited by any natural vitamin E molecule.
> Recently, it has been suggested that the safe dose
> of various tocotrienols for human consumption is
> 200-1000/day. A rapidly expanding body of evidence
> supports  that members of the vitamin E family
> are functionally unique. In recognition of
> this fact, title claims in publications should be limited
> to the specific form of vitamin E studied. For example,
> evidence for toxicity of a specific form of
> tocopherol in excess may not be used to conclude
> that high-dosage "vitamin E" supplementation may
> ncrease all-cause mortality. Such conclusion incorrectly
> implies that tocotrienols are toxic as well under
> conditions where tocotrienols
> were not even considered. The current state of knowledge warrants
> strategic investment into the lesser known forms of vitamin E.
> This will enable prudent selection of the appropriate vitamin
> E molecule for studies addressing a specific
> health need.
> PMID: 17628176 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Prev: Stew Bait
Next: Eulogy for Dr Hulda Clark