Patenting Vitamins
in [Medication]
|
From: Jan Drew on 26 Jun 2008 20:39 "Paul T. Holland" <pholland(a)bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:4863FF8B.AC6AE374(a)bellatlantic.net... > while i am in agreement that there is much in need of change re the fda > and other gov offices as to how, why, and with whom they collaborate > in the decision making process of regulation and enforcement - this > bunch lobbies against virtually any proposal, regulation, or activity in > the name of 'protecting' the individual - all the while making an > extremely good living promoting their own products and services free > from the very same regulations that the pharmas have to abide by - > regulations that when applied fairly do help to protect the public good. > > > the website, naturenews, owned by a registered taiwanese corp - 'truth > publishing', with anonymous site registration, is situated outside the > usa 'specifically' for the purpose of not being under the jurisdiction > of any us fed or state laws > > their own words: > > "Furthermore, NaturalNews.com will never share its subscriber database > with any government agency such as the FDA. In fact, Truth Publishing > (the company that owns NaturalNews.com) operates outside the United > States and does not answer to U.S. authorities." > > > as to the statements, claims, or commentaries made - while they claim to > be so independent of advertising and the like - > > in realty they are the creation of the supplement industry and the > primary listed editor/author is a guy named mike adams - easy to find > here in the states with seminars, books, etc. Is that right? Please do show this *in reality*. Mike Adams tells it like it is. Period. > > while i have occasionally read an unbiased piece they've put out - the > overwhelming majority is so slanted it cannot be read as 'news' of any > sort - > > the 'truth' of their publishing is that they don't want to be bothered > with having you know who they really are - while they write promoting a > very particular agenda of let us do whatever we want. Not so. Mike Adams's agenda is to tell the *truth* and expose organized medicine, Which includes Big Phrama, FDA, CDC, AMA, ADA, etc., and their lies. > > they are simply pushing product, no diff from the medical pharmas that > they rail against Blatant lie. > > their interest is in trying to protect themselves from > having to be regulated as to product purity, > efficacy as shown by studies and trials vs the 'claims' made > anecdotally, > Another blatant lie. > and, they sell a lot of their books as of result of the other website(s) Correct. So what? Peter Bowditch posts his spam, books, things to sell and his many lies. It is noted you have never mentioned that. > > > > > > Ron Peterson wrote: >> >> On Jun 26, 9:53 am, "ironjust...(a)aol.com" <ironjust...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> > Health Freedom Warning: Drug Company Seeks to Outlaw Vitamin B6 to >> > Protect Pharma Profits >> >> > www.naturalnews.com/023514.html >> >> FDALawBlog gives the following less biased take: >> Medicure Pharma submitted a citizen petition to FDA that asserts that >> all dietary supplements containing pyridoxal 5'-phosphate ("P5P >> supplements") are adulterated under FDC Act � 402(f). The petition >> asserts that P5P (a form of vitamin B6) is a new dietary ingredient >> which has neither been present in the food supply as an article used >> for food in a form in which the food has not been chemically altered, >> nor has it been the subject of a new dietary ingredient notification. >> The petition further asserts that those supplements were therefore not >> lawfully marketed prior to the date on which the investigation of P5P >> as a drug triggered the dietary supplement exclusionary clause in FDC >> Act � 201(ff)(3)(B)(ii). The petition asks FDA to remove all P5P >> supplements from the market, or in the alternative, to initiate >> rulemaking under FDC Act � 201(ff)(3)(A) to exclude them from the >> statutory definition of a dietary supplement. Medicure Pharma is >> investigating a drug product under an Investigational New Drug >> Application that contains P5P as its active ingredient, and the >> company contends that marketing of P5P supplements undermines the >> company's incentive to continue developing its drug product. >> >> The success or failure of the petition will turn on a few issues. >> First, the petition contends that P5P is a new dietary ingredient >> because it was not marketed before October 15, 1994. This is certain >> to prompt a thorough search on the part of P5P supplement >> manufacturers for evidence of marketing prior to that date. Second, >> the petition contends that P5P has not been "present in the food >> supply as an article used for food" within the meaning of FDC Act � >> 413(a)(1) because the presence of P5P in foods is "incidental." >> However, the Institute of Medicine recognizes that P5P is one of the >> major forms of vitamin B6 in animal tissues, and that animal tissues >> are a source of vitamin B6. Third, the petition contends that even >> extensive marketing of a dietary supplement does not forestall >> application of the dietary supplement exclusionary clause if the >> supplement was marketed unlawfully. Although the petition acknowledges >> that a plain reading of the exclusionary clause does not support this >> view, the petition asks FDA to read the term "lawfully" (as in >> "lawfully marketed") into the exclusionary clause on the ground that >> not doing so would yield absurd results. Finally, the petition >> contends that, even if P5P is lawfully marketed as a dietary >> supplement, FDA can prohibit any further marketing under section >> 201(ff)(3)(A) to help preserve incentives for new drug development. In >> doing so, the petition fails to acknowledge that FDA's rulemaking >> authority under FDC Act � 201(ff)(3)(A) is tied to a finding of >> adulteration under � 402(f), a finding that could be difficult to >> support in the case of a form of vitamin B6. >> >> -- >> Ron
From: Jan Drew on 26 Jun 2008 20:41 "Always Learning" <noPublicEmail(a)this.time> wrote in message news:bb18645md03987lsg1d9j32t4vu3ftvlbq(a)zzz.com... Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived. This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Jul 3, 5:11 pm). > > On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:53:48 -0700 (PDT), "ironjustice(a)aol.com" > <ironjustice(a)aol.com> wrote this stuff here : > >>Health Freedom Warning: Drug Company Seeks to Outlaw Vitamin B6 to >>Protect Pharma Profits >> >>www.naturalnews.com/023514.html >> >>(NaturalNews) Big Pharma is constantly finding new ways to destroy the >>natural supplements market, in much the same way that the American >>Medical Association once sought to destroy the chiropractic industry >>(for which it was later found guilty of conspiracy in U.S. courts, by >>the way). The latest attack against vitamins comes from an FDA >>petition filed by Medicure Pharma, Inc., which has astonishingly asked >>the FDA to ban the sale of Vitamin B6! >> >> >>Who loves ya. >>Tom >> >> >>Jesus Was A Vegetarian! >>http://tinyurl.com/2r2nkh >> >> >>Man Is A Herbivore! >>http://tinyurl.com/4rq595 >> >> >>DEAD PEOPLE WALKING >>http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk >
From: Paul T. Holland on 27 Jun 2008 18:06 jan - i'm simply not going to get into a 'liar', liar' argument with you, i will however respond to the general issue you have raised Jan Drew wrote: > > "Paul T. Holland" <pholland(a)bellatlantic.net> wrote in message > news:4863FF8B.AC6AE374(a)bellatlantic.net... > > while i am in agreement that there is much in need of change re the fda > > and other gov offices as to how, why, and with whom they collaborate > > in the decision making process of regulation and enforcement - this > > bunch lobbies against virtually any proposal, regulation, or activity in > > the name of 'protecting' the individual - all the while making an > > extremely good living promoting their own products and services free > > from the very same regulations that the pharmas have to abide by - > > regulations that when applied fairly do help to protect the public good. > > > > > > the website, naturenews, owned by a registered taiwanese corp - 'truth > > publishing', with anonymous site registration, is situated outside the > > usa 'specifically' for the purpose of not being under the jurisdiction > > of any us fed or state laws > > > > their own words: > > > > "Furthermore, NaturalNews.com will never share its subscriber database > > with any government agency such as the FDA. In fact, Truth Publishing > > (the company that owns NaturalNews.com) operates outside the United > > States and does not answer to U.S. authorities." > > > > > > as to the statements, claims, or commentaries made - while they claim to > > be so independent of advertising and the like - > > > > in reality they are the creation of the supplement industry and the > > primary listed editor/author is a guy named mike adams - easy to find > > here in the states with seminars, books, etc. > > Is that right? Please do show this *in reality*. first let me put it into the context of the article that started this thread: "natural supplements market" [>supplement industry] is a well established, well organized, well funded set of corporations, p.r. efforts, marketing entities, and independent commercial purveyors of products, literature, tapes, videos, seminars, etc. this "natural supplements market" [>supplement industry] is of itself, in it's arena, as well established and organized as 'big pharma' - with an agenda no different in intent than that of big pharma - promoting, protecting, and expanding the industry footprint in public awareness - and - in commerce. this "natural supplements market" [>supplement industry] has had since it's inception ongoing legal, and commercial conflicts with state and federal regulations here in the u.s.a, as well as virtually every other industrialized nation. issues of raw material supply and integrity of materials, processing plant procedures, purity of product, reliability of compounds, marketing claims, the list goes - note that this is, imo, no more, or less, egregious than the well documented issues extant throughout the prescription pharma industry. neither has clean hands or intent - it's commercial commerce at it's least moral. Naturally, the supplement industry evolution and organization pre-dates mike adams - he is simply too young to have been in the on the rise of the industry as a whole. now, mike adams - who is in fact a primary [if in fact not 'the'] actor in charge of naturenews it's owner truth publishing, and ancillary operations - is a highly versatile and accomplished individual. but is it as a result of the scope of the 'already' existing "natural supplements market" [>supplement industry] he found himself able to create a specific and diverse position for himself - this includes the aforementioned website [plus the various other ones also registered in taiwan [all operated under the same concept: "In fact, Truth Publishing (the company that owns NaturalNews.com) operates outside the United States and does not answer to U.S. authorities." [note: adams is astute enough to have moved those operations off-shore because of the numerous issues related to what may or may not be written, claimed, or asserted under u.s. law.] multiple publishing operations, seminars, webseed, and also includes his software company - he is the developer of the first personalized email marketing software application designed for the personal computer. his operation depends upon that self same industry, and all of it's myriad offshoots - and as such, is a 'construct' of it. mike didn't make "natural supplements market" [>supplement industry] , it's existence made his interlocking operation possible. that's how business grows and evolves. > > Mike Adams tells it like it is. partly true - anyone however, who is less than transparent with the general public as to the totality of their cross marketing is not operating purely as a voice - he is motivated by a very large commercial self-interest and as such, has less than pristine reasons for off-shore publishing. speaking only for my own orientation, i would have respect for someone who made the choice to continue to operate 'here' in the u.s.a. with any attendant difficulties - instead of using a loophole to gain a dubiously needed edge in what is allowed to be written. after all - why shouldn't information be required to have documentation of e the claims made - and the only reason i know of to be off-shore is to avoid that documentation. those that choose the loopholes are no better than the pharmco's who go to 3rd world countries to run clinical trials because the reg's are so much less onerous - both industries have their faults - both exaggerate to high heaven - both are selling and marketing, and hyping the public for sales... both are less than honest now you can say: > Period. > > > > > while i have occasionally read an unbiased piece they've put out - the > > overwhelming majority is so slanted it cannot be read as 'news' of any > > sort - > > > > the 'truth' of their publishing is that they don't want to be bothered > > with having you know who they really are - while they write promoting a > > very particular agenda of let us do whatever we want. > > Not so. Mike Adams's agenda is to tell the *truth* and expose organized > medicine, > Which includes Big Phrama, FDA, CDC, AMA, ADA, etc., and their lies. so if that were the only purpose, why would it ever be necessary to locate off-shore: "In fact, Truth Publishing (the company that owns NaturalNews.com) operates outside the United States and does not answer to U.S. authorities." a whole lot of claims and hype goes along with that publishing - and it doesn't have to answer to u.s. standards of proof. 'truth' becomes malleable and subjective when not subject to standards that all have to go by. > > > > they are simply pushing product, no diff from the medical pharmas that > > they rail against > > Blatant lie. nonsense - both are big business - both exist to sell something - both have a long history of problems of overreaching claims of efficacy, quality, and actual need for a product at all. i'm not going to give a pass to one side simply because it's 'not' pharma. > > > > their interest is in trying to protect themselves from > > having to be regulated as to product purity, > > efficacy as shown by studies and trials vs the 'claims' made > > anecdotally, > > > Another blatant lie. you can disagree without being absolutist - it's hardly a lie to point out the well documented facts that the supplement industry has had just as many problems within it's members and operations as anything that goes on with pharma - if you say otherwise, then you are undereducated for someone who claims to speak knowledgeably i've been reading of problems with factories, importers of raw materials and impurities found, bad production standards, incorrect labeling and not least - wildly exaggerated claims of potency, efficacy, claims of 'cures', ad nauseum for several decades now - FOR BOTH industries... stop with the 'blatant lie' business just because you disagree about some issue. > > > and, they sell a lot of their books as of result of the other website(s) > > Correct. So what? being familiar with a great many of them - lack of documentation for claims contained in them - is one issue - any 'expert' has, imo, an obligation to the public that they market to to have honest information - i don't find that to be the case with some of what passes thru that operation > Peter Bowditch posts his spam, books, things to sell and his many lies. pb isn't the subject of the original post, nor is his brand of presentation at issue. bringing him into this doesn't address the point that 'both' industries have significant problems - neither has 'clean hands', neither has the high road as to what they do in production, marketing, unfounded claims, etc. > > It is noted you have never mentioned that. nor any of so many others that 'could' be dragged up and dusted off - why should i have? it's well know that you and pb have tussled often and long - so what? he's not the issue here. in what manner does the action or word of one change the point or consideration of another? bluntly - bringing up another person as defense of a position is like saying: mommy! somebody is saying bad things about johhny, how can they do that? why aren't they saying bad things about billy? mommmmmmyyyyyyy billy does bad things, they should talk about him instead and leave johnny alone..... want to have a discussion on pb? fine, it'll bore the heck out of me - but that would also be a stand alone and not part of this one. anyone bored with the direction this has taken just ask for your group to be snipped and i'll be happy to oblige. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ron Peterson wrote: > >> > >> On Jun 26, 9:53 am, "ironjust...(a)aol.com" <ironjust...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> > Health Freedom Warning: Drug Company Seeks to Outlaw Vitamin B6 to > >> > Protect Pharma Profits > >> > >> > www.naturalnews.com/023514.html > >> > >> FDALawBlog gives the following less biased take: > >> Medicure Pharma submitted a citizen petition to FDA that asserts that > >> all dietary supplements containing pyridoxal 5'-phosphate ("P5P > >> supplements") are adulterated under FDC Act � 402(f). The petition > >> asserts that P5P (a form of vitamin B6) is a new dietary ingredient > >> which has neither been present in the food supply as an article used > >> for food in a form in which the food has not been chemically altered, > >> nor has it been the subject of a new dietary ingredient notification. > >> The petition further asserts that those supplements were therefore not > >> lawfully marketed prior to the date on which the investigation of P5P > >> as a drug triggered the dietary supplement exclusionary clause in FDC > >> Act � 201(ff)(3)(B)(ii). The petition asks FDA to remove all P5P > >> supplements from the market, or in the alternative, to initiate > >> rulemaking under FDC Act � 201(ff)(3)(A) to exclude them from the > >> statutory definition of a dietary supplement. Medicure Pharma is > >> investigating a drug product under an Investigational New Drug > >> Application that contains P5P as its active ingredient, and the > >> company contends that marketing of P5P supplements undermines the > >> company's incentive to continue developing its drug product. > >> > >> The success or failure of the petition will turn on a few issues. > >> First, the petition contends that P5P is a new dietary ingredient > >> because it was not marketed before October 15, 1994. This is certain > >> to prompt a thorough search on the part of P5P supplement > >> manufacturers for evidence of marketing prior to that date. Second, > >> the petition contends that P5P has not been "present in the food > >> supply as an article used for food" within the meaning of FDC Act � > >> 413(a)(1) because the presence of P5P in foods is "incidental." > >> However, the Institute of Medicine recognizes that P5P is one of the > >> major forms of vitamin B6 in animal tissues, and that animal tissues > >> are a source of vitamin B6. Third, the petition contends that even > >> extensive marketing of a dietary supplement does not forestall > >> application of the dietary supplement exclusionary clause if the > >> supplement was marketed unlawfully. Although the petition acknowledges > >> that a plain reading of the exclusionary clause does not support this > >> view, the petition asks FDA to read the term "lawfully" (as in > >> "lawfully marketed") into the exclusionary clause on the ground that > >> not doing so would yield absurd results. Finally, the petition > >> contends that, even if P5P is lawfully marketed as a dietary > >> supplement, FDA can prohibit any further marketing under section > >> 201(ff)(3)(A) to help preserve incentives for new drug development. In > >> doing so, the petition fails to acknowledge that FDA's rulemaking > >> authority under FDC Act � 201(ff)(3)(A) is tied to a finding of > >> adulteration under � 402(f), a finding that could be difficult to > >> support in the case of a form of vitamin B6. > >> > >> -- > >> Ron
From: Ron Peterson on 27 Jun 2008 19:48 On Jun 27, 6:09 pm, Always Learning <noPublicEm...(a)this.time> wrote: > Many diseases result from no bad behaviors at all. Exactly what do you > suppose women DO in order to get breast cancer for example? Women who postpone pregnancy past their teenage years are more likely to get breast cancer. -- Ron
From: Jan Drew on 27 Jun 2008 23:04
"Always Learning" <noPublicEmail(a)this.time Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived. This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Jul 3, 5:11 pm). |