From: vernon on

"David" <david.sprouse(a)> wrote in message
> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>>The right to control what we put into our own bodies is absolute--even if
>>we make bad
>>choices in exercising that right. I never asked the government for such
>>protection. I'll
>>decide what's appropriate to put into my own body and live with the
> Ok, but there are billions of other people in this world in addition to
> you. Do you care about them?

Spoken like a true socialist (Nazi). "We will tell you what you can have
and can't have."

There is a difference between government sponsored control and government
sponsored research.
Not much, but the intent is different.

>> Anyone marketing any product should be and generally is fully liable for
>> any harm that a dangerous product causes.
> Maybe in theory, but proving that a given compound caused a particular
> side effect or death is immensely difficult, expensive, and
> time-consuming, involving lawyers and lawsuits! In fact, it's nearly
> impossible to do, especially if there has been no approval process
> where a company has had to do rigorous scientific research to
> demonstrate relative safety, effectiveness, and establish any known
> side effects. If the supplement company doesn't know anything about
> the side effect or drug interaction, chances are that they're *not*
> going to be held responsible.

From: vernon on

"David" <david.sprouse(a)> wrote in message
> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>> Banning certain products
>> based on government decree takes away individual freedom and forces
>> everyone to follow the dictates of government bureaucrats.
> One could make the same argument for drugs that are currently
> prescription-only. Do you advocate making all drugs over-the-counter?
> And if so, what do you think would be the overall end result when it
> comes to drug side-effects, drug interactions, etc.?

Anyone can get any drug they want.

Pharms and Doctor associations are the recipients of ALL benefits of
control. Of course we need to keep some government clowns from starvation.

From: vernon on

"Robert W. McAdams" <rwm(a)> wrote in message
> David wrote:
>> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>>>Those "immensely difficult, expensive, and time-consuming" lawsuits are
>>>undertaken all the time in cases of drugs as well as many other products
>>>(and often won). They're called class action lawsuits.
>> Yes, but my point is that it's much more difficult to bring a class
>> action lawsuit with regard to an herbal or nutritional supplement
>> because supplement companies aren't required to do studies looking at
>> potential side-effects, potential negative drug/herbal interactions,
>> etc. Since they aren't required to do that by law, it's much more
>> difficult if not impossible for the consumer to make a case in court by
>> saying "the company knew about side effect x but didn't adequately warn
>> the consumer!"
> But if the manufacturers were required by law to carry a prominent warning
> (covering, say, half the label) whose text was written by the FDA, then
> consumers would be adequately warned.

BUT, it would have to be in Spanish also.

From: vernon on

"David" <david.sprouse(a)> wrote in message
> vernon wrote:
>> So the "government" licenses drug companies to con people and Doctors
>> into
>> the use of dangerous drugs, called prescription, while at the same time
>> insidiously rejecting safe solutions.
>> People without a medical or science degree actually believe the idiocy of
>> undereducated Doctors, the bought government and Pharms.
> Uh oh, another conspiracy theorist.

No, just plain facts from working in their world and having two VERY
successful friends who are Pharm sales people to Doctors.

Doctors get next to NO education in prevention and non-prescription answers.
The GREAT MAJORITY of what they know comes from the drug companies. It's
not a conspiracy, just the way it is.

From: vernon on

"David" <david.sprouse(a)> wrote in message
> PeterB wrote:
>> So how do you propose to protect people, other than informing them
>> about the dangers of medication, or cigarettes, or iron supplements?
> I'm not saying it would be easy (by *any* means!) to implement, but I
> believe the following would be beneficial for patients in the long run:
> 1) government regulation of nutritional supplement contents, such that
> consumers can be assured that the label is telling the truth about
> what's in the supplement. This is the #1 complaint I hear over and
> over again from medical clinicians, and it undercuts all of the other
> arguments for nutritional supplements. When a fellow clinician tells
> me, "it doesn't matter what the research may say.....if I don't have
> some independent assurance that the product at least contains what the
> label says, then I don't know what it's going to do to my patient."

Qualications of the "clinicians" is what?

> 2) for relatively benign supplements with possible (albeit minor) side
> effects--proper warning labels

Don't forget to put warning label on the major "suppliment", milk. Actually,
not a bad idea. Many people don't know they are lactose intolerant.

> 3) for supplements with possible dangerous side effects--make them
> prescription-only.

They already are where the danger level is equivalent to most prescription

>That way, medical practitioners (including
> physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners as well as
> pharmacists) can act as a safety buffer, and at the same time,
> clinicians will become far more educated about supplements since they
> would now be responsible for prescribing them.