From: PeterB on
On Oct 13, 10:08 am, PeterB <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 9:26 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 12, 9:08 pm, PeterB <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 12, 2:18 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 12, 12:43 pm, PeterB <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 10, 10:29 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Oct 10, 1:00 am, "trigonometry1...(a)gmail.com |"
>
> > > > > > <trigonometry1...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Oct 9, 1:29 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.
>
> > > > > > > The last requirement is evil, wicked, and corrupt
> > > > > > > when one looks how the EU is doing it regulation of
> > > > > > > supplements.
>
> > > > > > I usully try to ignore the EU since there is enough action here..
>
> > > > > > It is all to easy for government to
>
> > > > > > > deny, drag their feet, and ignore the science and
> > > > > > > then demand excessive levels of evidence and/or
> > > > > > > wring their hands about safety to the point of
> > > > > > > absolute stupidity.
>
> > > > > > That is precisely what the FDA wrt Thalidomide.
>
> > > > > > > Vitamins and nutrients are not drugs.
>
> > > > > > However, when medical claims are made, they have to be substantiated
> > > > > > by something more than saleshype.
>
> > > > > > > Understand putting something on the market without
> > > > > > > a clear claim should be an option as well.
>
> > > > > > Caveat emptor.
>
> > > > > > > I do agree their should be full content disclosure.
> > > > > > > And I believe the US FDA already has the power on that
> > > > > > > point if they chose to exercise it.
>
> > > > > > No, they do not. I have had this issue with the FDA and FTC and
> > > > > > they do not have it.
>
> > > > > FDA may not have unique enforcement over supplements, but they have
> > > > > the power to warn the public about products (herbs, for instance) they
> > > > > consider potentially harmful.  For example, Kava.   Why isn't FDA
> > > > > warning about more than a tiny percentage of supplements?  
>
> > > > Most supplements are "do nothings", thus neither harmful or
> > > > beneficial for most people. The FDA, wisely, stays out of this
> > > > quagmire.
>
> > > False.  Most dietary supplements are designed to improve overall
> > > nutritional status and do so.  The term "do nothing" more aptly
> > > describes prescription drugs which, except for their ability to cause
> > > dangerous side effects, fail to treat or prevent almost any disease.
> > > If I'm wrong, where is the published evidence?  Oh, that's right.  You
> > > don't believe in the medical literature.
>
> > > > > It's because, despite decades of use by the public, there is little
> > > > > evidence of harm exceeding low-level allergic reactions in the vast
> > > > > majority of such products.  Even Kava is not proven to be harmful in
> > > > > isolation from pre-existing hepatic disease or the use of alcohol..  As
> > > > > for FTC, it's scope of powers combined with DSHEA does provide a
> > > > > framework for safety that has been working just fine.   Your sponsors
> > > > > may not like it, but that's too bad.
>
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/f569f86c8ed22f4e-
>
> > > > Prove I have sponsors. Oh, that is right, I gave you the opportunity
> > > > to do so, and make some money while doing it, and you weaseled
> > > > out of it.
>
> > > Your own words prove it.  As someone famously once said, "You cannot
> > > serve two masters."
>
> > Correct. I serve the truth.
>
> > Now, prove I have any other motivation.
>
> > Cue the weaseling.
>
> The weaseling begins with your inability (or unwillingness) to answer
> a question.  You did not respond to the following point:
>
> Most dietary supplements are designed to improve overall nutritional
> status, and do so.  The term "do nothing" more aptly describes
> prescription drugs which, except for their ability to cause dangerous
> side effects, fail to treat or prevent almost any disease.  If I'm
> wrong, where is the published evidence?  Oh, that's right.  You don't
> believe in the medical literature.  You can't even post a list of
> medical books or sources that would have (for a legitimate poster)
> informed your views and opinions.

<chirp>
From: PeterB on
On Oct 16, 9:52 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 16, 8:36 pm, "trigonometry1...(a)gmail.com |"
>
>
>
> <trigonometry1...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 11:15 pm, "D. C. Sessions" <d...(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
> > > In message <5d81692c-af4e-4e1e-92eb-58b4b96db...(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 <d...(a)lumbercartel.com> -+
>
> > Orin did a good job for his party during the
> > Watergate hearings unlike other members
> > of his party. Hatch is able man and if his
> > party wasn't a complete batch of fools he'd
> > would be at its head.
>
> Here is another view, from those who have had to deal with the
> problems caused by DSHEA:

We know how much your sponsors hate DSHEA as demonstrated by their
failed 1999 price fixing schemes for pharmaceutically-made vitamins
(an attempt to squeeze the baloon at the other end.) Too bad. The
consumer is better informed than you thought. That would assume you
are capable of "thought," but I digress, as always when referring to
you.

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