From: cathyb on

David wrote:
> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>
> > Yes, ALL drugs (including currently illegal ones BTW). Again, the
> > government has no ethical right to dictate what people can and cannot
> > put into their own bodies.
> >
> > As to the consequences, there would probably be good and bad ones, as is
> > usually the case with freedom. The same arguments for strict regulation
> > could be applied to current OTC drugs and a great many other things.
>
>
> I see your points, and I can certainly empathize with them. I just
> don't believe that such a libertarian philosophy would ultimately be
> realistic in practice, and that the overall negative consequences would
> outweigh the positive ones. I used to be very much for drug
> legalization (including Schedule I controlled substances), but I've
> lost faith in the "wisdom of the masses", for lack of a better term.
> Letting the average person into a drug store where ALL drugs are
> over-the-counter would be like turning a mentally retarded person loose
> in a bomb factory with a cigarette lighter.

The over- and inappropriate use of antibiotics alone would be so
detrimental to everybody that the idea is absurd. In the same way that
free speech stops at being allowed to yell "Fire!" falsely in a crowded
theatre, freedom to put whatever you like into your body stops when it
puts all of the population at risk.

From: Jason Johnson on
In article <1153354485.981038.314870(a)p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"David" <david.sprouse(a)gmail.com> wrote:

vernon wrote:
> Chemically made Lovistatin has been proven to have deleterious side effect.
> THAT is why it is "CONTROLLED"
> Thus far, with equal testing, red yeast rice has not shown that negative
> (dangerous) side effect.


>From now on, please check your facts and do some research before
opening your mouth:

J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006 Apr;54(4):718-20.
Chinese red rice depletes muscle coenzyme Q10 and maintains muscle
damage after discontinuation of statin treatment. PMID: 16686894

Br J Nutr. 2005 Jan;93(1):131-5.
Acute administration of red yeast rice (Monascus purpureus)
depletes tissue coenzyme Q(10) levels in ICR mice.

In this study, we attempted to evaluate the effect of
administration of a high quantity of red yeast rice on coenzyme Q10
(CoQ10) synthesis in the tissues of ICR mice. Eighty-eight adult male
ICR mice were housed and divided into control and experimental groups
for red yeast rice treatment. Animals were gavaged with a low (1 g/kg
body weight) or a high dose (5 g/kg body weight, approximately five
times the typical recommended human dose) of red yeast rice dissolved
in soyabean oil. After gavagement, animals of the control group were
immediately killed; mice of the experimental groups (eight for each
subgroup) were killed at different time intervals of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 4 and
24 h. The liver, heart and kidney were taken for analysis of monacolin
K (liver only) and CoQ10 analysis. Liver and heart CoQ10 levels
declined dramatically in both groups administered red yeast rice,
especially in the high-dose group, within 30 min. After 24 h, the
levels of hepatic and cardiac CoQ10 were still reduced. A similar trend
was also observed in the heart, but the inhibitory effect began after
90 min. The higher dose of red yeast rice presented a greater
suppressive effect than did the lower dose on tissue CoQ10 levels. In
conclusion, acute red yeast rice gavage suppressed hepatic and cardiac
CoQ10 levels in rodents; furthermore, the inhibitory effect was
responsive to the doses administered.
PMID: 15705235

South Med J. 2003 Dec;96(12):1265-7.
Chinese red rice-induced myopathy.

A middle-aged man presented with joint pain and muscle weakness
that had begun 2 months before presentation. Three months before
presentation, he had begun to take the herbal preparation Chinese red
rice. Laboratory testing revealed a moderately elevated creatine
phosphokinase level. Symptoms and laboratory abnormalities resolved
with discontinuation of the Chinese red rice. Eight months later, he
resumed the product and his creatine phosphokinase level rose again.
Lovastatin is a naturally occurring component of Chinese red rice and
was the probable cause of his myopathy.
PMID: 14696880

Transplantation. 2002 Oct 27;74(8):1200-1.
Rhabdomyolysis due to red yeast rice (Monascus purpureus) in a
renal transplant recipient.

Rhabdomyolysis is a known complication of hepatic 3-methylglutaryl
coenzyme A reductase (HMG-CoA) inhibitor (statin) therapy for
posttransplant hyperlipidemia, and thus monitoring for this effect is
indicated. We report a case of an herbal preparation-induced
rhabdomyolysis in a stable renal-transplant recipient, attributed to
the presence of red yeast rice (Monascus purpureus) within the mixture.
The condition resolved when consumption of the product ceased. Rice
fermented with red yeast contains several types of mevinic acids,
including monacolin K, which is identical to lovastatin. We postulate
that the interaction of cyclosporine and these compounds through the
cytochrome P450 system resulted in the adverse effect seen in this
patient. Transplant recipients must be cautioned against using herbal
preparations to lower their lipid levels to prevent such complications
from occurring.
PMID: 12438974

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello,
Thanks for posting the above study results. Those results don't shock or
surprise me since Red Yeast Rice "contains approximately ten compounds
that
are similar to prescription statins, particularly lovastatin, the statin
in Mevacor." Source: WHAT YOU MUST KNOW ABOUT STATIN DRUGS AND THEIR NATURAL
ALTERNATIVES by Jay S. Cohen, M.D.

Statins cause those same side effects (including Rhabdomyolysis) mentioned
in the above report.

Red Yeast Rice (according to Doctor Cohen) is much safer than any statin.
It contains about 5 mg of lovastatin.

On the other hand, if anyone has any major side effects as a result of
taking statins, they should NOT take Red Yeast Rice.

Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Dr. Zarkov on
David wrote:
> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>
>>Yes, ALL drugs (including currently illegal ones BTW). Again, the
>>government has no ethical right to dictate what people can and cannot
>>put into their own bodies.


> I see your points, and I can certainly empathize with them. I just
> don't believe that such a libertarian philosophy would ultimately be
> realistic in practice, and that the overall negative consequences would
> outweigh the positive ones. I used to be very much for drug
> legalization (including Schedule I controlled substances), but I've
> lost faith in the "wisdom of the masses", for lack of a better term.
> Letting the average person into a drug store where ALL drugs are
> over-the-counter would be like turning a mentally retarded person loose
> in a bomb factory with a cigarette lighter.


It is not just an argument from individual rights and freedom (though
that is reason enough in itself). The overall harm to society in
general is greatly reduced when drugs are legal.

Nearly all the harmful effects blamed on illegal drugs are due to
the illegality rather than the drugs themselves--all the crime, the
spread of HIV and hepatitis virus, most of the "overdose" deaths (which
in fact are often due to contaminants or uncertainties in dose in street
drugs or other factors).
When all drugs were legal and sold OTC prior to the Harrison Act of
1914, there was none of the crime and few of the other problems
currently associated with them.
Countries that have legalized or decriminalized certain drugs (eg,
Netherlands, Switzerland) have reported significant improvements in
related problems.

I also have no faith in the "wisdom of the masses" as you put it. I
also have no faith whatsoever in the "wisdom" of government regulation.
And government not only panders to the masses but to various special
interests. The "War on Drugs" now spends at least $50 billion a year to
support an army of worthless parasites who have a vested interest in
seeing it continue.

See, for example:

"Indeed, throughout much of history, in countries where crude opioids,
such as opium, were inexpensive, socially acceptable, and were either
smoked or taken by mouth, there was little relationship between opioid
use and criminal behavior. The association between opioid use and crime
emerges primarily in countries, such as the United States, that have
tried to restrict the used of opioids to legitimate medical indications
but have been unable to eliminate illicit opioid traffic."
--Kaplan HI, Sadock BJ. Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, 4th ed.
William & Wilkins; 1985:p994.

from emedicine (Web MD):
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1003.htm
* Furthermore, street heroin is commonly contaminated or diluted with
substances having clinical and toxic effects of their own. These include
alkaloids, cocaine, amphetamines, quinine, quinidine, chloroquine,
phenobarbital, lidocaine, benzocaine, tetracaine, caffeine,
methaqualone, fentanyl, and other opiates.
* Street samples have produced strychnine and arsenic poisoning.
* Other substances commonly used to increase the bulk of a street
sample include talc, dextrose, flour, and mannitol."
[i.e., not only toxic in themselves but can block blood vessels--Dr Z]

"I have estimated statistically that the prohibition of drugs produces,
on the average, ten thousand homicides a year. It's a moral problem that
the government is going around killing ten thousand people....[After
drug legalization] I see America with half the number of prisons, half
the number of prisoners, ten thousand fewer homicides a year."
--Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in economics
(Interview with Randy Paige on "America's Drug Forum" on public television)

Jeffrey Miron analyzed the relationship between violent crime in the
U.S. and the enforcement of drug prohibition....His results "suggest the
homicide rate is currently 25%-75% higher than it would be in the
absence of drug prohibition."
[Jeffrey A. Miron, Violence and the U.S. Prohibitions of Drugs and
Alcohol, American Law and Economics Review, 1(Fall 1999):78-114.]

"The Swiss government is...conducting a national scientific experiment
to determine whether prescribing heroin, morphine, and injectable
methadone will save Switzerland both money and misery by reducing crime,
disease, and death...preliminary findings [are]:
1) Heroin prescription is feasible, and has produced no black market in
diverted heroin.
2) The health of the addicts in the program has clearly improved.
3) Heroin prescription alone cannot solve the problems that led to the
heroin addiction in the first place.
4) Heroin prescription is less a medical program than a
social-psychological approach to a complex personal and social problem.
5) Heroin per se causes very few, if any, problems when it is used in a
controlled fashion and administered in hygienic conditions.
Program administrators also found little support for the widespread
belief that addicts' cravings for heroin are insatiable. When offered
practically unlimited amounts of heroin (up to 300 milligrams three
times a day), addicts soon realized that the maximum doses provided less
of a "flash" than lower doses, and cut back their dosage levels
accordingly. On the basis of these initial findings, the Swiss federal
government approved an expansion of the experiment."
The National Review, July 10, 1995, pp. 44-51.
http://www.pdxnorml.org/review.html

An editorial in the Illinois Medical Journal for June 1926, after eleven
years of federal law enforcement, concluded:

The Harrison Narcotic law should never have been placed upon the
Statute books of the United States. It is to be granted that the
well-meaning blunderers who put it there had in mind only the
idea of making it impossible for addicts to secure their supply
of "dope" and to prevent unprincipled people from making
fortunes, and fattening upon the infirmities of their fellow men.

As is the case with most prohibitive laws, however, this one fell
far short of the mark. So far, in fact, that instead of stopping
the traffic, those who deal in dope now make double their money
from the poor unfortunates upon whom they prey

"The study shows that morphine addiction is not characterized by
physical deterioration or i
From: calvin12 on
"and more widely available, for far less money than statin drugs - and"

It contains a statin, which is why it came under fda supervision.
From: vernon on

"David" <david.sprouse(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153350394.277558.171220(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> vernon wrote:
>
>> Chemically made Lovistatin has been proven to have deleterious side
>> effect.
>> THAT is why it is "CONTROLLED"
>> Thus far, with equal testing, red yeast rice has not shown that negative
>> (dangerous) side effect.
>
>
>>From now on, please check your facts and do some research before
> opening your mouth:
>
> J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006 Apr;54(4):718-20.
> Chinese red rice depletes muscle coenzyme Q10 and maintains muscle
> damage after discontinuation of statin treatment. PMID: 16686894

Correct as do ALL statins.. Red yeast rice is not quite as bad. Almost any
source of Red yeast rice will say to take CoQ10 with it. Some formulations
will include CoQ10.

A doctor OR the warning pamphlet for any chemical satin will NOT even
mention such, even though it is much worse than Red Yeast rice for that
attribute.


Red Yeast Rice was taken off the danger list and Chemically created statins
were not. Prescription means excess danger.