Diet Supplements and Safety

While reading this keep in mind that supplement producers are not
required to report adverse effects of their products, as even aspirin
produceres are required. This looks at adverse effects from another
source and likely represents a fraction of actual adverse events.

Diet Supplements and Safety: Some Disquieting Data

By DAN HURLEY

In October 1993, during a Senate hearing on a bill to regulate herbs,
vitamins and other dietary supplements on the presumption that they
were safe, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, spoke up in
their defense. Herbal remedies have been on the market for centuries,
he said, adding: In fact, most of these have been on the market for
4,000 years, and the real issue is risk. And there is not much risk
in
any of these products.

That benign view was written into the bill when it was passed by both
houses the following year. While the law, the Dietary Supplement
Health and Education Act of 1994, forbade manufacturers to claim that
their products treat, cure or prevent any disease, it allowed them to
make vaguer claims based on a standard that did not require them to
do
any testing. And it stated that dietary supplements are safe within a
broad range of intake, and safety problems with the supplements are
relatively rare.

But hiding in plain sight, then as now, a national database was
steadily accumulating strong evidence that some supplements carry
risks of injury and death, and that children may be particularly
vulnerable.

Since 1983, the American Association of Poison Control Centers has
kept statistics on reports of poisonings for every type of substance,
including dietary supplements. That first year, there were 14,006
reports related to the use of vitamins, minerals, essential oils
which
are not classified as a dietary supplement but are widely sold in
supplement stores for a variety of uses and homeopathic remedies.
Herbs were not categorized that year, because they were rarely used
then.

By 2005, the number had grown ninefold: 125,595 incidents were
reported related to vitamins, minerals, essential oils, herbs and
other supplements. In all, over the 23-year span, the association a
national organization of state and local poison centers has received
more than 1.6 million reports of adverse reactions to such products,
including 251,799 that were serious enough to require
hospitalization.
From 1983 to 2004 there were 230 reported deaths from supplements,
with the yearly numbers rising from 4 in 1994, the year the
supplement
bill passed, to a record 27 in 2005.

The number of deaths may be far higher. In April 2004, the Food and
Drug Administration said it had received 260 reports of deaths
associated with herbs and other nonvitamin, nonmineral supplements
since 1989. But an unpublished study prepared in 2000 for the agency
by Dr. Alexander M. Walker, then the chairman of epidemiology at the
Harvard School of Public Health, concluded: A best estimate is that
less than 1 percent of serious adverse events caused by dietary
supplements is reported to the F.D.A. The true proportion may well be
smaller by an order of magnitude or more.

The supplements linked to the most reactions in 2005, according to
the
poison control centers, were ordinary vitamins, accounting for nearly
half of all the reports received that year, 62,446, including 1
death.
Minerals were linked to about half as many total reports, 32,098, but
that number included 13 deaths. Herbs and other specialty products
accounted for still fewer total reports, 23,769, but 13 deaths.
Essential oils were linked to 7,282 reports and no deaths.

Among herbs and other specialty products, melatonin and homeopathic
products prepared from minuscule amounts of substances as diverse as
salt and snake venom had the most reports of reactions in 2005. The
poison centers received 2,001 reports of reactions to melatonin,
marketed as a sleep aid, including 535 hospitalizations and 4 deaths.
Homeopathic products, often marketed as being safe because the doses
are very low, were linked to 7,049 reactions, including 564
hospitalizations and 2 deaths.

But most other types of herbs and specialty supplements also appear
in
the annual report. In 2005, the poison centers received 203 reports
of
adverse reactions to St. Johns wort, including 79 hospitalizations
and
1 death. Glucosamine, with or without chondroitin, was linked to 813
adverse reactions, including 108 hospitalizations and 1 death.
Echinacea was linked to 483 adverse reactions, including 55
hospitalizations, 1 of them considered life-threatening. Saw palmetto
was not listed on the report.

Injuries to children under 6 account for nearly three-quarters of all
the reports of adverse reactions to dietary supplements, according to
the poison centers. In 2005, the most recent year for which figures
are available, 48,604 children suffered reactions to vitamins alone,
the ninth-largest category of substances associated with reactions in
that age group.

Major medical groups and government agencies do not generally
recommend vitamin or mineral supplements for children who are
otherwise healthy. But an analysis of the National Maternal and
Infant
Health Survey, published in the journal Pediatrics in 1997, found
that
54 percent of parents of preschool children gave them a vitamin or
mineral supplement at least three days a week.

Advocates of the products correctly point out that the poison centers
figures do not prove a causal link between a product and a reaction
and that, in any case, far more people are injured and killed by
drugs. Painkillers alone were associated with 283,253 adverse
reactions in 2005, according to the poison centers, more than twice
as
many as with supplements. But only 3.5 percent of those reactions
occurred when people took the prescribed amount of painkiller; most
were from overdoses, either accidental or intentional. The same was
true of asthma drugs (3.6 percent of reactions were associated with
the prescribed dose) and cough and cold drugs (3.1 percent).

While reactions to vitamins, minerals and essential oils occurred at
similarly low levels when people took the recommended amounts,
adverse
reactions linked to the recommended levels of herbs, homeopathic
products and other dietary supplements accounted for 10.3 percent of
all reactions to those products reported to the poison centers about
three times the level seen for most drugs.

Drugs marketed in the United States go through a rigorous F.D.A.
approval process to prove that they are effective for a particular
indication, with the potential risks balanced against the benefits.
While the approval process has come under attack in recent years as
unduly favorable to drug companies, it remains among the toughest in
the world.

There is no comparable requirement for supplements. Even so, hundreds
of millions of tax dollars have been spent since the early 1990s on
hundreds of studies to test the possible benefits of supplements. The
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine,
established by Congress in 1991 to investigate and validate
unconventional medical practices, has a 2007 budget of more than $120
million.

Since April 2002, five large randomized trials financed by the center
have found no significant benefit for St. Johns wort against major
depression, echinacea against the common cold, saw palmetto for
enlarged prostate, the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin for
arthritis, or black cohosh and other herbs for the hot flashes
associated with menopause.

A new source of data on adverse reactions to dietary supplements will
soon become available: in December, Congress passed a measure
requiring the manufacturers of dietary supplements and
over-the-counter drugs to inform the F.D.A. whenever consumers call
them with reports of serious adverse events. The bill was signed by
President Bush the day after Christmas. It is a welcome
acknowledgment
that natural does not always mean safe.

Dan Hurley is the author of the new book Natural Causes: Death, Lies
and Politics in Americas Vitamin and Herbal Supplement Industry
(Broadway Books), from which this essay is adapted.

Over-processing and over-refining of any food substance can make it
dangerous. Sugar, hfcs, flour, artificial supplements, etc.

Keep your food real and eat the freshest most nutrient-dense
whole-foods available.

Oh yeah, and as if the pharmaceuticals have a better track record. Talk
about dangerous things to add to ones diets. Yikes.

TC


wrote:
While reading this keep in mind that supplement producers are not
required to report adverse effects of their products, as even aspirin
produceres are required. This looks at adverse effects from another
source and likely represents a fraction of actual adverse events.

Diet Supplements and Safety: Some Disquieting Data

By DAN HURLEY

In October 1993, during a Senate hearing on a bill to regulate herbs,
vitamins and other dietary supplements on the presumption that they
were safe, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, spoke up in
their defense. Herbal remedies have been on the market for centuries,
he said, adding: In fact, most of these have been on the market for
4,000 years, and the real issue is risk. And there is not much risk
in
any of these products.

That benign view was written into the bill when it was passed by both
houses the following year. While the law, the Dietary Supplement
Health and Education Act of 1994, forbade manufacturers to claim that
their products treat, cure or prevent any disease, it allowed them to
make vaguer claims based on a standard that did not require them to
do
any testing. And it stated that dietary supplements are safe within a
broad range of intake, and safety problems with the supplements are
relatively rare.

But hiding in plain sight, then as now, a national database was
steadily accumulating strong evidence that some supplements carry
risks of injury and death, and that children may be particularly
vulnerable.

Since 1983, the American Association of Poison Control Centers has
kept statistics on reports of poisonings for every type of substance,
including dietary supplements. That first year, there were 14,006
reports related to the use of vitamins, minerals, essential oils
which
are not classified as a dietary supplement but are widely sold in
supplement stores for a variety of uses and homeopathic remedies.
Herbs were not categorized that year, because they were rarely used
then.

By 2005, the number had grown ninefold: 125,595 incidents were
reported related to vitamins, minerals, essential oils, herbs and
other supplements. In all, over the 23-year span, the association a
national organization of state and local poison centers has received
more than 1.6 million reports of adverse reactions to such products,
including 251,799 that were serious enough to require
hospitalization.
From 1983 to 2004 there were 230 reported deaths from supplements,
with the yearly numbers rising from 4 in 1994, the year the
supplement
bill passed, to a record 27 in 2005.

The number of deaths may be far higher. In April 2004, the Food and
Drug Administration said it had received 260 reports of deaths
associated with herbs and other nonvitamin, nonmineral supplements
since 1989. But an unpublished study prepared in 2000 for the agency
by Dr. Alexander M. Walker, then the chairman of epidemiology at the
Harvard School of Public Health, concluded: A best estimate is that
less than 1 percent of serious adverse events caused by dietary
supplements is reported to the F.D.A. The true proportion may well be
smaller by an order of magnitude or more.

The supplements linked to the most reactions in 2005, according to
the
poison control centers, were ordinary vitamins, accounting for nearly
half of all the reports received that year, 62,446, including 1
death.
Minerals were linked to about half as many total reports, 32,098, but
that number included 13 deaths. Herbs and other specialty products
accounted for still fewer total reports, 23,769, but 13 deaths.
Essential oils were linked to 7,282 reports and no deaths.

Among herbs and other specialty products, melatonin and homeopathic
products prepared from minuscule amounts of substances as diverse as
salt and snake venom had the most reports of reactions in 2005. The
poison centers received 2,001 reports of reactions to melatonin,
marketed as a sleep aid, including 535 hospitalizations and 4 deaths.
Homeopathic products, often marketed as being safe because the doses
are very low, were linked to 7,049 reactions, including 564
hospitalizations and 2 deaths.

But most other types of herbs and specialty supplements also appear
in
the annual report. In 2005, the poison centers received 203 reports
of
adverse reactions to St. Johns wort, including 79 hospitalizations
and
1 death. Glucosamine, with or without chondroitin, was linked to 813
adverse reactions, including 108 hospitalizations and 1 death.
Echinacea was linked to 483 adverse reactions, including 55
hospitalizations, 1 of them considered life-threatening. Saw palmetto
was not listed on the report.

Injuries to children under 6 account for nearly three-quarters of all
the reports of adverse reactions to dietary supplements, according to
the poison centers. In 2005, the most recent year for which figures
are available, 48,604 children suffered reactions to vitamins alone,
the ninth-largest category of substances associated with reactions in
that age group.

Major medical groups and government agencies do not generally
recommend vitamin or mineral supplements for children who are
otherwise healthy. But an analysis of the National Maternal and
Infant
Health Survey, published in the journal Pediatrics in 1997, found
that
54 percent of parents of preschool children gave them a vitamin or
mineral supplement at least three days a week.

Advocates of the products correctly point out that the poison centers
figures do not prove a causal link between a product and a reaction
and that, in any case, far more people are injured and killed by
drugs. Painkillers alone were associated with 283,253 adverse
reactions in 2005, according to the poison centers, more than twice
as
many as with supplements. But only 3.5 percent of those reactions
occurred when people took the prescribed amount of painkiller; most
were from overdoses, either accidental or intentional. The same was
true of asthma drugs (3.6 percent of reactions were associated with
the prescribed dose) and cough and cold drugs (3.1 percent).

While reactions to vitamins, minerals and essential oils occurred at
similarly low levels when people took the recommended amounts,
adverse
reactions linked to the recommended levels of herbs, homeopathic
products and other dietary supplements accounted for 10.3 percent of
all reactions to those products reported to the poison centers about
three times the level seen for most drugs.

Drugs marketed in the United States go through a rigorous F.D.A.
approval process to prove that they are effective for a particular
indication, with the potential risks balanced against the benefits.
While the approval process has come under attack in recent years as
unduly favorable to drug companies, it remains among the toughest in
the world.

There is no comparable requirement for supplements. Even so, hundreds
of millions of tax dollars have been spent since the early 1990s on
hundreds of studies to test the possible benefits of supplements. The
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine,
established by Congress in 1991 to investigate and validate
unconventional medical practices, has a 2007 budget of more than $120
million.

Since April 2002, five large randomized trials financed by the center
have found no significant benefit for St. Johns wort against major
depression, echinacea against the common cold, saw palmetto for
enlarged prostate, the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin for
arthritis, or black cohosh and other herbs for the hot flashes
associated with menopause.

A new source of data on adverse reactions to dietary supplements will
soon become available: in December, Congress passed a measure
requiring the manufacturers of dietary supplements and
over-the-counter drugs to inform the F.D.A. whenever consumers call
them with reports of serious adverse events. The bill was signed by
President Bush the day after Christmas. It is a welcome
acknowledgment
that natural does not always mean safe.

Dan Hurley is the author of the new book Natural Causes: Death, Lies
and Politics in Americas Vitamin and Herbal Supplement Industry
(Broadway Books), from which this essay is adapted.

wrote:
snip

By 2005, the number had grown ninefold: 125,595 incidents were
reported related to vitamins, minerals, essential oils, herbs and
other supplements. In all, over the 23-year span, the association a
national organization of state and local poison centers has received
more than 1.6 million reports of adverse reactions to such products,
including 251,799 that were serious enough to require
hospitalization.
snip

Given the fact that millions are "asymptomatic" with a borrelia
infection there's a very good chance that these vitamins (namely D and
C which are associated with antimicrobial activity) produce a herx
reaction which could easily be termed an adverse reaction.

Keep in mind these Vitamin D deficiency statistics:

* 32% of doctors and med school students are vitamin D deficient.
* 40% of the U.S. population is vitamin D deficient.
* 42% of African American women of childbearing age are deficient in
vitamin D.
* 48% of young girls (9-11 years old) are vitamin D deficient.
* Up to 60% of all hospital patients are vitamin D deficient.
* 76% of pregnant mothers are severely vitamin D deficient, causing
widespread vitamin D deficiencies in their unborn children, which
predisposes them to type 1 diabetes, arthritis, multiple sclerosis and
schizophrenia later in life. 81% of the children born to these mothers
were deficient.
* Up to 80% of nursing home patients are vitamin D deficient.

http://www.newstarget.com/003069.html

With that said good vitamins are the same as food and allergies do
occur. Over 3 million people have an adverse reaction to peanuts. Do we
need FDA oversite for peanuts now?

wrote:
While reading this keep in mind that supplement producers are not
required to report adverse effects of their products, as even aspirin
produceres are required. This looks at adverse effects from another
source and likely represents a fraction of actual adverse events.

Diet Supplements and Safety: Some Disquieting Data

By DAN HURLEY

In October 1993, during a Senate hearing on a bill to regulate herbs,
vitamins and other dietary supplements on the presumption that they
were safe, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, spoke up in
their defense. Herbal remedies have been on the market for centuries,
he said, adding: In fact, most of these have been on the market for
4,000 years, and the real issue is risk. And there is not much risk
in
any of these products.

That benign view was written into the bill when it was passed by both
houses the following year. While the law, the Dietary Supplement
Health and Education Act of 1994, forbade manufacturers to claim that
their products treat, cure or prevent any disease, it allowed them to
make vaguer claims based on a standard that did not require them to
do
any testing. And it stated that dietary supplements are safe within a
broad range of intake, and safety problems with the supplements are
relatively rare.

But hiding in plain sight, then as now, a national database was
steadily accumulating strong evidence that some supplements carry
risks of injury and death, and that children may be particularly
vulnerable.

Since 1983, the American Association of Poison Control Centers has
kept statistics on reports of poisonings for every type of substance,
including dietary supplements. That first year, there were 14,006
reports related to the use of vitamins, minerals, essential oils
which
are not classified as a dietary supplement but are widely sold in
supplement stores for a variety of uses and homeopathic remedies.
Herbs were not categorized that year, because they were rarely used
then.

By 2005, the number had grown ninefold: 125,595 incidents were
reported related to vitamins, minerals, essential oils, herbs and
other supplements. In all, over the 23-year span, the association a
national organization of state and local poison centers has received
more than 1.6 million reports of adverse reactions to such products,
including 251,799 that were serious enough to require
hospitalization.
From 1983 to 2004 there were 230 reported deaths from supplements,
with the yearly numbers rising from 4 in 1994, the year the
supplement
bill passed, to a record 27 in 2005.

The number of deaths may be far higher. In April 2004, the Food and
Drug Administration said it had received 260 reports of deaths
associated with herbs and other nonvitamin, nonmineral supplements
since 1989. But an unpublished study prepared in 2000 for the agency
by Dr. Alexander M. Walker, then the chairman of epidemiology at the
Harvard School of Public Health, concluded: A best estimate is that
less than 1 percent of serious adverse events caused by dietary
supplements is reported to the F.D.A. The true proportion may well be
smaller by an order of magnitude or more.

The supplements linked to the most reactions in 2005, according to
the
poison control centers, were ordinary vitamins, accounting for nearly
half of all the reports received that year, 62,446, including 1
death.
Minerals were linked to about half as many total reports, 32,098, but
that number included 13 deaths. Herbs and other specialty products
accounted for still fewer total reports, 23,769, but 13 deaths.
Essential oils were linked to 7,282 reports and no deaths.

Among herbs and other specialty products, melatonin and homeopathic
products prepared from minuscule amounts of substances as diverse as
salt and snake venom had the most reports of reactions in 2005. The
poison centers received 2,001 reports of reactions to melatonin,
marketed as a sleep aid, including 535 hospitalizations and 4 deaths.
Homeopathic products, often marketed as being safe because the doses
are very low, were linked to 7,049 reactions, including 564
hospitalizations and 2 deaths.

But most other types of herbs and specialty supplements also appear
in
the annual report. In 2005, the poison centers received 203 reports
of
adverse reactions to St. Johns wort, including 79 hospitalizations
and
1 death. Glucosamine, with or without chondroitin, was linked to 813
adverse reactions, including 108 hospitalizations and 1 death.
Echinacea was linked to 483 adverse reactions, including 55
hospitalizations, 1 of them considered life-threatening. Saw palmetto
was not listed on the report.

Injuries to children under 6 account for nearly three-quarters of all
the reports of adverse reactions to dietary supplements, according to
the poison centers. In 2005, the most recent year for which figures
are available, 48,604 children suffered reactions to vitamins alone,
the ninth-largest category of substances associated with reactions in
that age group.

Major medical groups and government agencies do not generally
recommend vitamin or mineral supplements for children who are
otherwise healthy. But an analysis of the National Maternal and
Infant
Health Survey, published in the journal Pediatrics in 1997, found
that
54 percent of parents of preschool children gave them a vitamin or
mineral supplement at least three days a week.

Advocates of the products correctly point out that the poison centers
figures do not prove a causal link between a product and a reaction
and that, in any case, far more people are injured and killed by
drugs. Painkillers alone were associated with 283,253 adverse
reactions in 2005, according to the poison centers, more than twice
as
many as with supplements. But only 3.5 percent of those reactions
occurred when people took the prescribed amount of painkiller; most
were from overdoses, either accidental or intentional. The same was
true of asthma drugs (3.6 percent of reactions were associated with
the prescribed dose) and cough and cold drugs (3.1 percent).

While reactions to vitamins, minerals and essential oils occurred at
similarly low levels when people took the recommended amounts,
adverse
reactions linked to the recommended levels of herbs, homeopathic
products and other dietary supplements accounted for 10.3 percent of
all reactions to those products reported to the poison centers about
three times the level seen for most drugs.

Drugs marketed in the United States go through a rigorous F.D.A.
approval process to prove that they are effective for a particular
indication, with the potential risks balanced against the benefits.
While the approval process has come under attack in recent years as
unduly favorable to drug companies, it remains among the toughest in
the world.

There is no comparable requirement for supplements. Even so, hundreds
of millions of tax dollars have been spent since the early 1990s on
hundreds of studies to test the possible benefits of supplements. The
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine,
established by Congress in 1991 to investigate and validate
unconventional medical practices, has a 2007 budget of more than $120
million.

Since April 2002, five large randomized trials financed by the center
have found no significant benefit for St. Johns wort against major
depression, echinacea against the common cold, saw palmetto for
enlarged prostate, the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin for
arthritis, or black cohosh and other herbs for the hot flashes
associated with menopause.

A new source of data on adverse reactions to dietary supplements will
soon become available: in December, Congress passed a measure
requiring the manufacturers of dietary supplements and
over-the-counter drugs to inform the F.D.A. whenever consumers call
them with reports of serious adverse events. The bill was signed by
President Bush the day after Christmas. It is a welcome
acknowledgment
that natural does not always mean safe.

Dan Hurley is the author of the new book Natural Causes: Death, Lies
and Politics in Americas Vitamin and Herbal Supplement Industry
(Broadway Books), from which this essay is adapted.

wrote:
While reading this keep in mind that supplement producers are not
required to report adverse effects of their products, as even aspirin
produceres are required. This looks at adverse effects from another
source and likely represents a fraction of actual adverse events.

While I haven't had a chance to read Dan Hurley's book, your comments
contain several distortions and omissions. I would like to address all
of these later. Meanwhile, readers should know that Poison Control
reports are seldom based on medical evaluation, and that most common
poison exposures in children under the age of six result from poisoning
by: 1) cosmetics and personal care products (13.3%), 2) cleaning
substances (10.3%), 3) analgesic (painkilling) drugs (7.4%), and 4)
foreign bodies (7.1%). These figures are directly from the American
Association of Poison Control Centers
[http://www.1-800-222-1222.info/stats/home.asp.] While drugs make the
heavy-hitter list for children (whose "major medical" impact in year
1998 was 395 times greater than it was for vitamin products [ref.
http://www.aapcc.org/tessbro/emsc98ph.PDF]), dietary supplements do
not. Obviously, adult poisonings related to prescription and OTC drugs
are many times greater than those in children, since more adults than
children take drugs. More than 60% of all poisoning fatalities occur
in adults between the ages of 20 to 49, and a substantial percentage of
those are related to prescribed and OTC medications. These data can be
expressed in myriad ways, however placing full emphasis on absolute
numbers for one category of event rather than looking at the relative
differences between two or more categories is misleading. This is what
the drug makers and their PR grunts in the newsgroups are attempting to
cover up.

A few years ago, I posted the following after interviewing the
Washington DC Poison Control Center for a better understanding of how
such reports are filed and what they mean. I believe reposting those
comments in response to the other poster's "analysis" may be helpful.

TESS (Toxic Exposure Surveillance System) refers to the database of
poisoning reports collected by Poison Control centers. I contacted
Poison Control and interviewed a specialist to be sure I understood the
process. Here is what I learned. When a person contacts Poison
Control, the caller is surveyed with a few simple questions and a
report documenting the call is created. Naturally, anything ingested
within 24 hours prior to the
adverse medical event is recorded. If more than one item is indicated,
for instance aspirin and ginseng, both are catalogued. At this point,
things get tricky. Only one of these products will be identified as
representing a "probable" cause of illness in the report. What is the
criteria for "probable" cause? In most cases, since a caller does not
seek medical care, a medical examination never occurs. That means in
the great majority of cases, about 70%, individuals are never subject
to any type of toxicology at all. In the absence of such forensics,
"probable cause" is just the call taker's best guess. It is here, in
my view, that Poison Control introduces an unfortunate bias into the
reporting process. When an OTC or prescription drug is taken in
addition to an herbal by a poison victim, though it cannot be known
whether the adverse event results from a chemical reaction between
them, if that is suspected, the tally stroke is applied to the herbal
if the drug is doctor prescribed. Please read this again. It means
that a prescription drug under such conditions is *assumed* to be
unrelated to the reported medical event, even if the drug has been
associated with such medical events in the medical literature. I find
that quite remarkable. And because of such bias, the following
statistics are all the more alarming. According to Poison Control,
only 2.4% of all human poisoning in the US is associated with the
entire spectrum of dietary supplements. By contrast, 11.4% of all
poisonings are associated with just **ONE** class of pharmaceutical
drug -- the analgesics, or painkillers, such as aspirin and tylenol. A
similar breakout for the majority of prescription drugs, including
depressants, anti-depressants, antibiotics, beta blockers, blood
thinners, statins, cytotoxics, anorectics, and other drug classes, are
available for viewing in the TESS reporting system online, which you
can see for yourself. A crucial point here is that any disparity
between the two produce classes (pharmaceutical drugs and dietary
supplements) in terms of product safety, are probably even wider than
the data already shows.

What are specific categories of medical impact related to either drug
or dietary supplement poisoning? The largest subgroup are those
individuals experiencing a complication despite having taken the proper
dosage. This group includes those who experience a potentially serious
allergic reaction that may be fatal or cause organ damage. Another
subgroup are children who become victims by accidental exposure,
whereas children represent at least 50% of all reported poisonings.
Very few accidental poisonings in children are related to a dietary
supplement, and fewer still (in that category) are fatal. The last
group is a set of mortalities resulting from suicide. Autopsy will
usually settle the question in such cases, whereas it should come as no
suprise that prescription and OTC drugs are frequently the method of
choice. By contrast, the great majority of dietary supplements are so
safe that taking an entire bottle still wouldn't be enough to kill you.
The data shows clearly that pharmaceutical drugs are several orders of
magnitude more dangerous than dietary supplements, and that regulatory
oversight by FDA is largely ineffective, due to inadequate testing and
regulation of these products. Any call for greater regulation of
dietary supplements by FDA, when the same mechanisms for oversight of
drugs so clearly fails to protect public health, is a product of
industry media efforts asimed at protecting existing market share.

In summary, the fact that many millions of dietary supplements are
consumed each and every day with only a handful of mortalities
*potentially associated with them* is quite astonishing. Unless you
ignore the medical literature, death by bee sting (estimated to be
about 100 deaths per year -- a little piece of data quite difficult to
nail down, by the way) is a more serious threat to public health than
products purchased at a health food store. If the drug industry had a
record like this, FDA would have closed its doors long ago, saving the
taxpayer many billions of dollars, not to mention saving millions of
lives.

PeterB

On 18 Jan 2007 13:08:09 -0800, "PeterB" wrote:

Unless you
ignore the medical literature, death by bee sting (estimated to be
about 100 deaths per year -- a little piece of data quite difficult to
nail down, by the way) is a more serious threat to public health than
products purchased at a health food store. If the drug industry had a
record like this, FDA would have closed its doors long ago, saving the
taxpayer many billions of dollars, not to mention saving millions of
lives.


But what about a cost benefit analysis. The health food store does
virtually no good to anyone who eats a healthy diet and has reasonable
activity. So even one belly ache is too much to pay, IMHO.
Whereas the huge benefit from the modern pharmacopoea saving countless
thousands of lives is well worth the occasional adverse reaction or
even death.

jack

On 18 Jan 2007 16:59:56 GMT, wrote:

While reading this keep in mind that DAN HURLEY...has about the same
credibility as other luminaries of the media like Celia Farber and
morons infesting the quackwatch world.

GMCarter wrote:
On 18 Jan 2007 16:59:56 GMT, wrote:

While reading this keep in mind that DAN HURLEY...has about the same
credibility as other luminaries of the media like Celia Farber and
morons infesting the quackwatch world.

I pulled up Hurley's book cover online yesterday and it reads exactly
like the script our pharmboys use here in the newsgroups. Amazon's
website also peddles a fluff piece in its "editorial review." It
refers to Hurley's criticism of the supplement industry for
"strong-arming the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act
through Congress-a law that rendered the FDA virtually powerless to
regulate these remedies-and observes the FDA's "coziness" with the
industry it regulates. From snake oil and shark cartilage to ephedra,
Hurley consistently animates patches of dry legal and medical material
with harrowing case studies." What's bizarre here is the phrase "FDA's
coziness with the industry it regulates." Since FDA only actively
regulates the drug industry (if you want to call that regulation), this
reference would logically refer to FDAs cozy ties to its primary
funding source, the drug makers, who cover most of FDA's operating
budget. I don't know whether this was a zombie-like confession or if
someone aware of the truth managed to slip it in. The statement that
the supplements industry "strong-armed" the Congress to pass DSHEA,
however, is just ridiculous. More Americans sent letters and made
calls to Congress on this one issue than they did during the Vietnam
war, and it was the most widely supported legislation at a grass roots
level than any other law in history. As far as any review of
"harrowing case studies" involving dietary supplements, that would be
like spotting meteors in the night sky before going to bed. For every
such case you might find linked to a dietary supplement, you would find
literally thousands linked to a pharmaceutical drug. So yes, I smell a
rat.

Flip the coin and substitute "alterblogger" pr terms in the rightplaces
for the below, it works the same. All of this done without benefit of
reading the book and the evidence presented of course.


I pulled up Hurley's book cover online yesterday and it reads exactly
like the script our pharmboys use here in the newsgroups. Amazon's
website also peddles a fluff piece in its "editorial review." It
refers to Hurley's criticism of the supplement industry for
"strong-arming the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act
through Congress-a law that rendered the FDA virtually powerless to
regulate these remedies-and observes the FDA's "coziness" with the
industry it regulates. From snake oil and shark cartilage to ephedra,
Hurley consistently animates patches of dry legal and medical material
with harrowing case studies." What's bizarre here is the phrase "FDA's
coziness with the industry it regulates." Since FDA only actively
regulates the drug industry (if you want to call that regulation), this
reference would logically refer to FDAs cozy ties to its primary
funding source, the drug makers, who cover most of FDA's operating
budget. I don't know whether this was a zombie-like confession or if
someone aware of the truth managed to slip it in. The statement that
the supplements industry "strong-armed" the Congress to pass DSHEA,
however, is just ridiculous. More Americans sent letters and made
calls to Congress on this one issue than they did during the Vietnam
war, and it was the most widely supported legislation at a grass roots
level than any other law in history. As far as any review of
"harrowing case studies" involving dietary supplements, that would be
like spotting meteors in the night sky before going to bed. For every
such case you might find linked to a dietary supplement, you would find
literally thousands linked to a pharmaceutical drug. So yes, I smell a
rat.

PeterB wrote:

The statement that
the supplements industry "strong-armed" the Congress to pass DSHEA,
however, is just ridiculous.

Wrong. First, there is Orrin Hatch of Utah, home of some of the largest
supplement manufacturers.

Second, I read the FDA and FTC websites and have read many letters that
have very similar, if not the same, verbiage opposing FDA/FTC actions
regarding supplement makers. They are complaining that the requirement
that medical claims be backed up is an unfair limitation on the free
speech of the supplement sales people.

After reading these letters, it is clear to me that there is an
organized effort. Strong armed tactics.