From: vernon on

"ahmeru" <ahmeru(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153238654.374744.97790(a)35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rouz wrote:
>> Tim Campbell wrote:
>> > High Cholesterol: Red Yeast Rice is Better, Safer, and Cheaper
>> >
>> >. . .(extremely dishonest post snipped). . .
>> >
>> > Their "grounds" for suing? Red yeast rice extract contains a natural
>> > form of lovastatin , the same active ingredient found in patented
>> > Mevacor, one of the major cholesterol drugs...
>> >
>> >
>> >. . .(extremely dishonest post snipped). . .
>> >
>> > And with one stroke of the gavel, makers of safe, natural,
>> > un-patent-able red yeast rice extract suddenly found themselves in
>> > violation of Federal law.
>> >
>> >. . .(extremely dishonest post snipped). . .
>>
>> Lovastatin is an extremely powerful and useful drug. It extends life
>> for many users.
>>
>> However, like many powerful drugs it will cause dangerous side effects
>> in a small portion of users.
>>
>> Since Red Yeast Rice extract contains Lovastatin, it must be assumed
>> that Red Yeast Rice extract will cause the same dangerous side effects
>> as Lovastatin in some small portion of users, especially since the
>> Lovastatin content in the extract is neither controlled or monitored.
>>
>> Therefore, drugs such as Lovastatin or Red Yeast Rice extract must be
>> taken by knowledgeable persons, or under the supervision of
>> knowledgeable persons. Most non-medical users are not sufficiently
>> knowledgeable. Therefore, we restrict such drugs to dispensation
>> via prescription and regulate the manufacturers stringently.
>>
>> -Rouz
>
> In the land of LIFE, LIBERTY, and Happiness . . . what business does
> the "guvament"
> have to control what decisions bonafide citizens take in using natural
> substances to modify their health status. People don't know but people
> should know about CODEX.
>
> I quote:
>
> "
>
> The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) will come to be seen by
> future generations as the greatest threat to the basic human right of
> health the world has ever known. Never before in history has a special
> interest group, the pharmaceutical industry, so shamelessly tried to
> compromise the health of billions of people for no other reason than
> its desire to maintain multi-billion dollar markets for prescription
> drugs.
> What is Codex?
>
> Codex was established under the heavy influence of the pharmaceutical
> industry in 1963, following resolutions passed at the Eleventh Session
> of the Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
> United Nations in 1961 and at the Sixteenth World Health Assembly in
> 1963, as a standard setting body for global food regulations. From its
> very beginnings, Codex has been manipulated by corporate interests in
> the global pharmaceutical and food markets."
>
> This act to intervene in the use of a substance natural occuring,
> primarily, because it is not patentable by the pharmaceutical industry
> is simply in concert with what the industry and it's cohorts in the FDA
> have been planning for a long time.
>
> Once such control becomes "International Law", and when our sovereignty
> as a nation is compromised it will be too late. When governments can
> decide what an individual can and cannot ingest . . all bets on
> "freedom" as we know it . . . are off the books.
>
> We are already dangerously there.
>
> The contention here is this> Most Drugs, actually derive from nature
> in one fashion or another. We should always, under "the inalienable
> rights" understood in our US Constitution, have the right to access the
> "pharmacy created by God in nature" to administer to our own health
> care needs.
>
> Many substances found in nature are already adaptogenic to the human
> condition. Why? (Seriously)
>
> Virtually ALL:drugs created by pharmaceutical industries have serious
> and even life threatenening effects if over dosed. Why?
>
>
> Al Franusiszin
>

You are making me sick.
Why?
Because what you say is true and around the corner.


From: David Wright on
In article <44c0e4f6$0$4470$88260bb3(a)news.teranews.com>,
vernon <there(a)there> wrote:
>
>"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.

Gee, and here first you were telling us that RYR was harmless, now
it's not, but prescription drugs are all "excess danger."

Typical.


-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
From: PeterB on

David Wright wrote:
> In article <44c0e4f6$0$4470$88260bb3(a)news.teranews.com>,
> vernon <there(a)there> wrote:
> >
> >"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.
>
> Gee, and here first you were telling us that RYR was harmless, now
> it's not, but prescription drugs are all "excess danger."
>
> Typical.

What's typical is your aversion to the relative differences between
drugs and non drugs.

PeterB

From: vernon on

"David Wright" <wright(a)l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:BAXwg.71710$fb2.59030(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> In article <44c0e4f6$0$4470$88260bb3(a)news.teranews.com>,
> vernon <there(a)there> wrote:
>>
>>"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.
>
> Gee, and here first you were telling us that RYR was harmless, now
> it's not, but prescription drugs are all "excess danger."
>
> Typical.


Sufficiently "excessive" to warrant government control.
Of course the other argument is "Who gave the government the right to
control how we treat ourselves?".


From: PeterB on

vernon wrote:
> "David Wright" <wright(a)l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:BAXwg.71710$fb2.59030(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> > In article <44c0e4f6$0$4470$88260bb3(a)news.teranews.com>,
> > vernon <there(a)there> wrote:
> >>
> >>"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.
> >
> > Gee, and here first you were telling us that RYR was harmless, now
> > it's not, but prescription drugs are all "excess danger."
> >
> > Typical.
>
>
> Sufficiently "excessive" to warrant government control.
> Of course the other argument is "Who gave the government the right to
> control how we treat ourselves?".

I couldn't have said it better.