Time to reconsider "alternative" drugs

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:27:16 GMT, Peter Bowditch
wrote:

snip
It's a great pity that now there is no patent on aspirin, nobody will
bother to sell it.

Wait a minute ...

The "it can't be patented" excuse for not testing snake oil is so weak
that I can't understand how alternauts don't get embarrassed using it.

Oh, horse****.

The pharmaceutical industry likes to claim it costs nearly a BILLION
dollars to bring a drug to market. Even if the truth is closer to $200
million as some aver, most dietary supplements do NOT garner the
multiple BILLIONS in sales that a well-pushed drug will garner.

The difference in scale is vast and perverted. And the effect has been
to cause increased distortions in the science, etc.

Many perfectly good, off-patent drugs get sidelined in favor of
over-priced patented medicines that are very often no safer nor more
effective--just popular and lucrative and with a lot of marketing.

There are huge and hideous distoritons in the intellectual property
area of discovery. I believe STRONGLY that we need science to be
brought back.

Patents should be for DISCOVERERS to stimulate discovery, not for
companies stimulating stock and financial portfolios.

Costs of clinical trials can be brought down substantially.

There's a LOT to this issue that this artificial and lethal divide
between drugs/devices and diagnostics and dietary supplements
illuminates.

George M. Carter

snip--someone with the rather despicable handle of "coonskin" wrote
I agree with what you said, except that I think the vast majority of
supplements are as useless as snake oil, so the public would not be
losing anything if they disappeared.
On 29 Nov 2006 13:18:17 -0800, "PeterB" wrote:

There is no evidence the same is not true of the vast majority of
pharmaceutical drugs.

I think that both statements are merely absurd and polemical.

Dietary supplements in the US are generally recognized as Safe (GRAS)
(including colloidal silver, grandfathered in). They include a lot of
different agents.

There is no FDA mechanism for evaluating effects of DS on mitigating
or curing diseases. FDA is corrupt and stinks worse than it ever has,
a puppet to pharma. It took 40 years, for example, for FDA to
recognize that folic acid supplementation can prevent neural tube
defects.

Some DS and some drugs are quite clearly beneficial. Many are abused,
but the abuse by pharma is both more costly and FAR more likely to be
more dangerous.

Read Overdosed America. Great book.

George M. Carter

"Dietary supplements in the US are generally recognized as Safe (GRAS)
(including colloidal silver, grandfathered in). They include a lot of
different agents."

No, only such things as vitamins and minerals etc. are accepted as "safe
and effective". These nutrients are different from the "alternative
drugs" in question. If their contents were so recognized then they
could recieve otc drug status, such as aspirin. That is different then
fda prescription drug status where effect and safety must be
demonstrated.

"There is no FDA mechanism for evaluating effects of DS on mitigating or
curing diseases. FDA is corrupt and stinks worse than it ever has, a
puppet to pharma. It took 40 years, for example, for FDA to recognize
that folic acid supplementation can prevent neural tube defects."

Three points here, there is under food and drug and cosmetics laws a way
for "alternative drugs" to be accepted as otc, like aspirin. Whatever
the flaws of fda it does not excuse the many many times worse oversight
applied to "alternative drugs" under the almost useless laws applying to
them. The fda does not initiat medical research as in folic acid. Who
in the end did recognize on a scientific basis its benefit?

GMCarter wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:27:16 GMT, Peter Bowditch
wrote:

snip
It's a great pity that now there is no patent on aspirin, nobody will
bother to sell it.

Wait a minute ...

The "it can't be patented" excuse for not testing snake oil is so weak
that I can't understand how alternauts don't get embarrassed using it.

Oh, horse****.

The pharmaceutical industry likes to claim it costs nearly a BILLION
dollars to bring a drug to market. Even if the truth is closer to $200
million as some aver, most dietary supplements do NOT garner the
multiple BILLIONS in sales that a well-pushed drug will garner.

The difference in scale is vast and perverted. And the effect has been
to cause increased distortions in the science, etc.

Many perfectly good, off-patent drugs get sidelined in favor of
over-priced patented medicines that are very often no safer nor more
effective--just popular and lucrative and with a lot of marketing.

There are huge and hideous distoritons in the intellectual property
area of discovery. I believe STRONGLY that we need science to be
brought back.

Patents should be for DISCOVERERS to stimulate discovery, not for
companies stimulating stock and financial portfolios.

Costs of clinical trials can be brought down substantially.

There's a LOT to this issue that this artificial and lethal divide
between drugs/devices and diagnostics and dietary supplements
illuminates.

George M. Carter

Very well said, George. If the tree-slapping Bowditch were here to
discuss the facts with you, he would already have responded. Enjoy
your quiet time.

pmoran wrote:
Max C. wrote:
pmoran wrote:
Robert W. McAdams wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Reclassify these agents as drugs - for this is after all how they are
marketed - and protect our patients from vile and cynical
exploitation


That'd work if the doc know a thing about nutrition or alt. health -
and the more socialized the medicine is, the less you'll be able to
find or choose one that does.

No, it wouldn't.

Let's review the economics of the drug approval process:

1) Someone invents a new drug which they believe will be successful in
treating one or more diseases.

2) The drug is patented, granting the holder of the patent a 20-year
exclusive right to control production of the drug.

3) The patent holder begins the lengthy process of trying to prove the
safety and efficacy of the drug. This process frequently takes years,
and costs a significant amount of money.

4a) If the patent holder is unable to demonstrate the safety and
efficacy of the drug to the satisfaction of the governing agency, the
drug cannot be sold, the patent is essentially worthless, and all of the
costs incurred in steps 1, 2, and 3 will constitute a loss.

4b) If the patent holder is successful in demonstrating the safety and
efficacy of the drug to the satisfaction of the governing agency, the
drug is approved and the holder can begin selling it, marketing it as a
treatment for the disease(s) for which efficacy has been demonstrated.
Doctors, however, are free to prescribe it for any condition whatsoever,
even if its efficacy for that condition has not been demonstrated.
During the remainder of the patent period, the patent holder has a
monopoly on the drug, and can therefore charge a high price, allowing
them to recover the costs incurred in steps 1, 2, and 3, as well as
losses that may have been suffered due to failed attempts to gain
approval for other drugs.


Now, let's examine how the same process would work for supplements:

1) The supplement does not have to be invented, since it is already a
known chemical, but someone has to discover that it may be useful in
treating one or more diseases.

2) Because the supplement is already a known chemical, it cannot be
patented.

3) The company that wants to sell the supplement as a treatment for the
disease(s) in question begins the lengthy process of trying to prove the
safety and efficacy of the supplement. This process frequently takes
years, and costs a significant amount of money.

4a) If the company is unable to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of
the supplement to the satisfaction of the governing agency, the
supplement cannot be sold and all of the costs incurred in steps 1, 2,
and 3 will constitute a loss.

4b) If the company is successful in demonstrating the safety and
efficacy of the supplement to the satisfaction of the governing agency,
the supplement is approved and the holder can begin selling it,
marketing it as a treatment for the disease(s) for which efficacy has
been demonstrated. Doctors, however, are free to prescribe it for any
condition whatsoever, even if its efficacy for that condition has not
been demonstrated. But since the supplement cannot be patented, other
companies can immediately begin producing their own versions of the
supplement without any need to prove safety or efficacy beyond the fact
that their version of the supplement is identical. Consequently, the
original company will not be able to charge enough for the supplement to
cover the costs incurred during steps 1, 2, and 3, and these costs will
therefore constitute a loss.

The bottom line is that any company attempting to go through the drug
approval process for a supplement would be guaranteed to suffer a loss
whether the approval process were completed successfully or not. So if
Waxman's proposal were adopted, there would be no incentive for any
company to go through the approval process for supplements, and the
effect would therefore simply be to deprive the public of the benefits
of supplements.


Bob

What you say is largely true. This argument does not, however,
absolve those promoting alternative cancer treatments from producing
ANY substantive evidence that their methods do what they claim, or
excuse them for using extremely deceptive methods of promoting them.

Why not require anyone promoting alternative cancer methods as a
possible cure of cancer to produce two or three well-documented recent
examples of their ability to make serious cancers go away? I have
explained how that might work here .

http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmo...it_works_2.htm

PM

Just to exchange tit for tat, why is it that even WHEN a seller of a
specific supplement makes a medical claim that HAS been scientifically
evaluated, the FDA knocks on their door anyway telling them they can't
use that data to promote their product because it makes the product a
drug?

Example:
http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5549d.htm

Apparently statements such as this were a violation of the law:
"Researchers at Michigan State University were among the first to
identify the presence of three powerful anthocyanins in tart cherries
with the potential to inhibit the growth of colon cancer tumors ."

"Tart cherries contain anthocyanins and bioflavonoids which . . .
prevent inflammation in the body. Further investigations revealed that
daily consumption of tart cherries has the potential to reduce the pain
associated with inflammation, arthritis, and gout."

"The antioxidant activities of the anthocyanins may account for the
beneficial effects derived from the consumption of fruits and
vegetables high in anthocyanins, such as cherries, against
cardiovascular and other diseases."

And heaven forbid a site should contain testamonials!

How about this example?
http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g6034d.htm

Why should there be any question to the validity of statements such as:
"Coconut oil is . . . uniquely rich in lauric acid, which is converted
to the same disease-fighting substance--monolaurin--that nursing babies
derive from lauric acid in mother's milk. Research has demonstrated
coconut oil's anti-microbial, anti-viral and anti-parasitical
properties . . .."

That's just a fact. It's not even a questionable fact.

How about:
"Research shows that vitamin K regulates calcium and keeps it in the
bones and out of arteries-stopping heart attacks and osteoporosis at
the same time."

Dr. Mercola has links to all of the research when he makes claims such
as the one above.

While I agree that we need ways to prevent someone from putting their
yard clippings in a little baggie and selling them as a cancer cure, I
have to think that the harmfulness of that scenario is far less than
the harm caused by the supression of known, peer reviewed, scientific
facts that could potentially be used to increase the health and well
being of readers everywhere.

Max.

You may be right, although shonky concerns often allow the testimonials
to make the more outrageous claims for their products, and that may be
what prompted action in the first case.. And I assume the research
on lauric acid refers to in vitro studies that can be reproduced by
almost any chemical in sufficient concentrations -- ones commonly not
obtainable in the human body. I haven't looked at the research on
vitamin K.

I am glad you agree that cancer is something of a special case.

Peter

Well, I believe *ANY* terminal illness is a special case, not just
cancer. Such a diagnosis can change a rational person into a snake oil
chaser. I believe it is unethical for a person or company selling a
product to knowingly take advantage of such a person with "supplements"
that have not been proven to do what they claim. It's all about
ethics.

Max.

eighthman wrote:
What needs to be held foremost in the mind is the desperation of
pharmaceutical
companies to save themselves from decline or possible extinction.

They will bribe politicians, they will design fraudulent "studies" and
they will use
lying propaganda to get their way. In particular, drug advertisements
on televsion
are immoral. You need the "little purple pill"! Do they even tell you
what the pill
is intended to do? As Chris Rock notes, the only difference between
them and
the neighborhood pusher is size.

DHEA? Fish Oil? Quick!, let's design a study that "shows" them to be
worthless!
Meanwhile, let's overlook studies that question the effectiveness of
Copaxone,
anti-depressants and countless other drugs. Let's not tell people that
many
cancer treatments are CARCINOGENIC! And let's raise doubts about
Canadian
pharmaceuticals! (in one Congressional hearing, the FDA raised the
issue of counterfeit
drugs without being able to offer a single example - what utter
frauds!)

Their massive power to corrupt is why supplements must avoid ALL
REGULATION.
They- and their political lackeys - must NOT be trusted in any way.
I rejoice in seeing a divided Congress, since the best we can hope for
is them to
do nothing and leave us alone.

Good insights. You and GM should be regulars on mha!

PeterB

wrote:
Regarding "alternative drugs":

"We also don't get cancer for lack of chemotherapy, heart disease for
lack of statins, or stroke for lack of Plavix."

This is not the point, "nutritional supplements" such as vit c and
"alternative drugs" are two different things. The recent "silver"
product is touted as such an "alternative drug" not related to nutrition
in any way.

I personally don't advocate the use of colloidal silver, except
topically.

All the drugs you mention are designed to evoke some biological pathway
or process or another to promote the bodies own self controls to work or
to prevent damage. They are not something added because something is
lacking such as the snake oil "coral calcium" and its claims, for
example.

I've been openly critical of coral calcium. Not even junk science
supports its use over other perfectly effective (and possibly safer)
forms of the mineral. What other so-alled "alternative drugs" are you
referring to?

It is also time the current "supplement" laws require industry
reporting
of adverse effects. At present if there are sideeffects they don't
become known until by word of mouth they can no longer be avoided.

"If you had reviewed the archives of Poison Control in Wash., DC , as I
have, you would know that adverse events resulting from use of
suppelments is even more minor than allergic response to bee sting. Far
more people, in fact, die from a bee sting each year (about 100) than do
those having an allergic response (or overdose reaction) to dietary
supplements."

In part we don't know about adverse effects because marketers of
"alternative drugs" are not required to report them. Does the poisin
database include the "alternative drugs" from india which are toxic?

The "requirement" to report prescription drug-related ADEs has proven
to be largely ineffective, even by FDA's own admission. Most experts
don't think it works more than 10% of the time. Also, I think poison
control data is the unsung hero of adverse event reporting in the USA,
as no one is more likely to report an unpleasant or dangerous reaction
than a consumer gasping for air. Are offshore suppliers of product an
area of concern? Of course. But education, not regulation, remains
the key to protecting consumers.

Like many examples this was found quite by accident and was in part due
to the contents of "alternative drugs" not having any meaningful
enforcement to disclose what's in them.

Once again, please provide a list of these so-called "alternative
drugs."

In my mind it is an extreme adverse effect when people are taken in by
marketing alone and desperation to use "alternative drugs" where no
scientific research can support its medical claims in the least. When a
cancer patient uses coffie enemas and a handful of dubious nostrums dies
that is the ultimate adverse effect. Are they in the database?

That is not an adverse effect, but a possible source of misinformation
about the best approach to addressing illness. While emergency
medicine has saved tens of thousand of lives, prescription drug use has
been a travesty for public healthcare in First World countries. The
lack of education on standard treatment risks far outweighs any
possible harm resulting from uninformed use of dietary supplements. In
fact, choosing an ineffective dietary supplement for one's illness is
far better than choosing a prescription drug that leads to toxicity and
fails to address the underlying ailment. I do not favor marketing hype
by any industry, but the onus is on the FDA and its sponsors (the drug
makers) to "First, do no harm."

I know what's in aspirin, I can trust the labels completely, I know its
safety record and possible side effects and can consult public databases
as to research related to it. Why don't we know about 99 percent of
"alternative drugs" at this level? How can we be informed consumers and
empowered to make health decisions when we don't have that information
at the level of aspirin?

I would like to know what 99% of so-called "alternative drugs" you are
referring to. It is certainly wise to obtain one's supplements from
well-established and reputatable manufacturers (see a partial list
below), a number of which are publicly traded and report to
shareholders. Many of these companies voluntarily conform to GMP
standards of quality production, and a growing number provide
ingredient assays (batch quality documentation) on request to their
customers. For more information on nutrition and vitamin supplements,

visit http://www.supplementinfo.org/.

Partial list of natural supplement companies (many of which I have used
and continue to use, some of which may no longer be around):

A.C. Grace Company (excellent vitamin E product)
Action Labs
Alacer
Allergy Research Group, Nutricology
Allergy Research Group, Nutricology
Allimax International Ltd
Almased USA
Alvita Teas
American Bioscience
American Biotech Labs
Aroma Vera
At Last Naturals
Atlas World
Avalon Natural Products
Bach Original Flower Essences
Barlean's
Benfotiamine.Net, Inc.
BIJA Teas by Flora
BioCalth International
Biomed Comm
BIOS Biochemicals
BioTech Corp
BioTech Corp
Birkmayer Health Enada
BNG Enterprises
Body Rewards by Enzymatic Therapy
Bodyonics (Pinnacle)
Bodyonics (Pinnacle)
Boericke & Tafel (B&T)
Boiron
California Health
California Life
Camo Care (Abkit)
Carlson
Club Natural
Country Life, BioChem
CreAgri
Cytodyne
Desert Essence
Doctor's Best
Dolisos
Dr. Atkins Diet
Dr. Atkins Diet
Dr. Linus Pauling by Omni Nutraceuticals
Dr. Linus Pauling by Omni Nutraceuticals
Drug Store
Earth Essence
Earthrise
Earth's Bounty
EAS, Inc.
Eclectic Institute
Effective Nutrition Inc.
Emerita
Enzymatic Therapy
Enzymedica
EPI
ERBL (Coromega)
Essential Formulas Inc (Dr. Ohhira's)
Ethical Nutrients
Flora
FoodScience Of Vermont
Fountain of Youth Technologies
Futurebiotics
Gaia Herbs Inc.
Garden of Life
Green Foods (Magma) Corporation
Grifron Maitake
Health from the Sun
Health Logics
Health Plus Inc.
Herbal Powers
Herbal-Vedic
Himalaya USA
Hyland's
Immune Tree
IQ Air
Iron Tek
Irwin Naturals
ISS Research
Jarrow Formulas
JASON
Kare n Herbs
Ketogenics
Kokoro
Kombucha 2000
Lane Labs
Lichtwer Pharma
Liddell
Life Enhancement
Life Extension Organization
Living Harvest
Long Life
Mega Food
Mt. Capra Mineral Goat Whey
Muscletech
Mushroom Wisdom
Natren
Natrol
Natural Balance
Natural Care
Natural Factors
Naturally Vitamins
Nature Works (Abkit)
Nature's Answer
Nature's Apothecary (Now Foods)
Nature's Benefit
Nature's Herbs
Nature's Secret
Nature's Way
Nutrient Carriers Inc. (NCI)
New Chapter
Novogen
Now Foods
NuAge (Hyland's)
NuNaturals
Nutiva
NutraLife
NutriBiotic
Nutrilabs
Nutritech (All One)
Olympian Labs Inc.
Organic by Nature (Formerly G.K.C. Int'l)
Pacific Biologic
Paradise Herbs
PEELU
Phi Sciences (Mega-H)
Physician Formulas
Planetary Formulas
Port Trading Co
Prevail (Enzymatic Therapy)
Proper Nutrition Inc.
Pure Essence Labs
Purity Products
Quality of Life Labs
Rainbow Light
Raintree Nutrition
RoseCreek
S. L. Sanders & Co.
Scandinavian Formulas
Silver Lake Research
Similasan
Sky Bio Health
Solgar
Source Naturals
Sun Chlorella Corp.
Super Nutrition
Sweet Leaf
Swiss Bioceutical
Symbiotics
The Republic of Tea
Thompson
Tiger Balm
Tom's of Maine
TPCS
Trimedica
TrimSpa
Twinlab
Vitality Works
Viviscal
Wakunaga (Kyolic Garlic)
Wakunaga (Kyolic Garlic)
Wellwisdom (ImmunoPro)
World Nutrition Inc. (Vitalzyme)
World Organic
Yalacta
Yerba Prima
Zand

BrentB wrote:
PeterB wrote:
wrote:
This is the most well balanced discussion I have recently seen. "Food
supplement" is obviously too broad a category which loopholes allows
"alternative" drugs to escape the usual effectivness and safety
considerations that make for the best informed and protected consumer.
We know we need vitamin c and in some specific cases consuming more then
the usual amount needed to prevent deficiency disorders is in order.

The recent thread about a "silver" product being touted for germicidal
use is no "food supplement" in any common sense use of that term. We
don't get an infection for a "silver" deficiency and we don't get cancer
because of a shark product deficiency as we get scurvy for not having
vitamin c.

We also don't get cancer for lack of chemotherapy, heart disease for
lack of statins, or stroke for lack of Plavix.

It is also time the current "supplement" laws require industry reporting
of adverse effects. At present if there are sideeffects they don't
become known until by word of mouth they can no longer be avoided.

If you had reviewed the archives of Poison Control in Wash., DC , as I
have, you would know that adverse events resulting from use of
suppelments is even more minor than allergic response to bee sting.
Far more people, in fact, die from a bee sting each year (about 100)
than do those having an allergic response (or overdose reaction) to
dietary supplements.

BMJ-British Medical Journal

Protect patients from exploitation by alternative medicines
industry

Shark cartilage in the water BMJ Volume 333 p 1129

It is time to protect patients from vile and cynical exploitation by
the alternative medicines industry, argues a cancer expert in this
weeks BMJ.

It is estimated that up to 80% of all patients with cancer take a
complementary treatment or follow a dietary programme to help treat
their cancer, writes Jonathan Waxman, Professor of Oncology at
Imperial College London.

Yet the rationale for the use of many of these approaches is obtuse
one might even be tempted to write misleading, he says.

See this article on Waxman's comments, at
http://www.alliance-natural-health.o...on=news&ID=261.

Indeed the claims made by companies to support the sales of such
products may be overtly and malignly incorrect and, in many cases,
the
products may be doctored by chemicals borrowed from the conventional
pharmaceutical industry. The reason that these products are
accessible
to patients is that they are not subject to the testing of
pharmaceuticals because they are classified as food supplements.

Then such products are not dietary supplements and represent a
violation of law. I would venture that 99% of such products come from
poor countries selling "cures" pitched to individuals who probably have
no covered healthcare whatsoever. No amount of regulation in the world
is going to help that segment of our society. But education might.

So why do patients take alternative medicines" Why is science
disregarded" How can it be that treatments that dont work are
regarded
as life saving"

To begin, medical science uses natural substances in human health more
successfully than any other. Look at a list of medications used in
emergency care, where life-saving drugs are frequently examples of
natural medicine, including insulin, magnesium, thiamine, adenosine,
N-acetylcysteine, and so on. Unlike the vast majority of prescription
medications designed to effect some aspect of perceptual pain,
nutrients (including certain drugs manufactured specifically to mimic
them) are essential in modern healthcare. Chemotherapy drugs, several
of which are modeled on phytochemical substances found in nature, are
effective in some cancers, but in the majority of cancers they are
completely ineffective. Is it therefore quackery to use such medicine
in patients for whom these drugs are certain to fail? Why not?

Waxman believes that it is because the complementary therapists offer
something that doctors cannot offer hope. If you eat this, take that,
avoid this, and really believe this then we can promise you sincerely
that you will be cured.

No one I know is making such promises. You can improve your odds by
taking responsibility for your own health, supporting natural immunity,
and avoiding exposure to chemical toxins, including the unnecessary use
of pharmaceuticals.

And if the patient is not cured, it is the patient who has failed,
not
the alternative therapy. The patient has let down the alternative
practitioner and disappointed his family who have encouraged his
treatment.

Ridiculous. Naturopaths do not blame their patients for not getting
better. They are more likely than conventional doctors, in fact, to
dig deeper for answers.

As well as the complementary medicines they take, many patients will
have changed their diets in order to cure their cancers, says the
author. But although there is a strong dietary basis to the
development of cancer, once cancer has been diagnosed no change in
diet will lead to any improvement in cancer outcomes, he writes.

It's most unlikely than any one protocol will change the prognosis for
most cancer patients, and that includes standard treatment. Placing
all hope in chemotherapy, for instance, is no better than placing all
hope in taking an extended vacation. In certain cancers, chemotherapy
is an appropriate option. In ALL cancers, increased vitamin C intake
is not only appropriate, but imperative. Patients should choose those
behaviours that have the most positive impact on natural immunity,
because ultimately, that is how you beat cancer.

Why do patients change their diet" For some it is a way of taking
back
some control of a situation that is entirely out of their control,
says Waxman. For others it is because of the pressure put on them by
families, friends or vested interest groups to go organic.

Its time for legislation to focus on a particularly vulnerable
section
of our society and do something to limit the exploitation of our
patients, he says. Why not subject the alternative medicines industry
to the level of scrutiny that defines pharmaceuticals"

Why not? Because current regulatory scrutiny does not protect the
public from dangerous pharmaceuticals, as you would have us believe.
It does not prevent unscrupulous marketing by the drug makers, nor
prevent conflicts of interest introduced by funding of FDA by the
pharmaceutical companies. Shilling for an additional layer of
bureacracy to address the hype in the dietary supplements industry is
an effort to protect drug maker profits, nothing more.

Reclassify these agents as drugs - for this is after all how they are
marketed - and protect our patients from vile and cynical
exploitation
whose intellectual basis, at best, might be viewed as delusional.

It's delusional not to know that under DSHEA, dietary supplements are
not permitted to be marketed as drugs already. Reclassifying garlic as
a drug will only make everyone a drug addict.

The
current EU initiative to bring forward legislation on this matter is
welcomed.

CODEX is not welcomed by those who appreciate taking responsibility for
their own health if it leads to the unnecessary regulation of
nutritional products, a possibility the Alliance for Natural Health
[http://www.alliance-natural-health.org] is making every effort to
prevent. It has become abundantly clear that citizenship in China
would be more agreeable to you than citizenship anywhere else, so you
may want to start packing.

PeterB

Bob and Peter, great stuff...I agree.

Concerning silver, while the noncorrupt part of our gov't has stated
ASAP has made a patentable silver "antibiotic" for human consumption
certain other gov't agencies are starting their own propaganda machine.

Consider this quote...It appears they now want to consider silver a
pesticide!?!

"This is now being considered a pesticide," Wood said. "So it does have
to be regulated under FIFRA."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/na...epa-nano_x.htm

Interesting article, Brent. Thanks for your comments.

SDer wrote:
"PeterB" wrote in news:1164829543.679834.320040
@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:

The
current EU initiative to bring forward legislation on this matter is
welcomed.

CODEX is not welcomed by those who appreciate taking responsibility for
their own health if it leads to the unnecessary regulation of
nutritional products, a possibility the Alliance for Natural Health
[http://www.alliance-natural-health.org] is making every effort to
prevent. It has become abundantly clear that citizenship in China
would be more agreeable to you than citizenship anywhere else, so you
may want to start packing.

PeterB


Amen! Such legislation is welcome only by doctors who get annoyed when
patients complain about the serious side effects caused by medical
treatments!

That polarization is sometimes quite interesting, as well. For
instance, my mother's doctor is Indian, and he is far more open to her
use of supplements than most American-born physicians. Appreciate your
comments.

PeterB

wrote:
I don't see this as relevant, if it works it would be in the stores like
aspirin regardless the system for medical funding. Recall, nutrition
is

I've read that Gingko is regulated, standardized and sold (like a
prescription drug?) in parts of Europe (with taxes paying for some or
all of this, presumably).

Again, I think the solution is to have warnings/disclaimers as large as
the scientific claims on the labels and to have some form of
standardization that won't drive the price up too much.