Diet Supplements and Safety

PeterB wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
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.

Yeah, so? Is it wrong for a Senator to represent the interests of
constituents living and working in his state? The problem is not fair
representation, but undue influence by the drug makers using the
largest lobbying machine in history, defeating efforts that would have
saved consumers millions, if not billions, as well as avoiding
liability for dangerous drug side effects. And unlike you, I'll prove
what I say. Read the articles at
www.publicintegrity.org/rx/report.aspx?aid=794

Like I have said in the past, organized lobbying is something that needs
to be regulated and curtailed. Your article is somewhat funny, as it
makes much ado about a paltry $44M which is less than $1M per state....

and also at
www.case.edu/news/2004/3-04/lobbyists.htm.

Like I have said in the past, organized lobbying is something that needs
to be regulated and curtailed.

However, as you customarily do, you are engaging in the fallacy of
special pleading. I want uniform rules for all. Period. You do not.

Oh, and Hatch OWNED an interest in a supplement company, and you do know
what his son does for a living, don't you?

Talk about undue influence.

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.

Any company has the right to express its views, and efforts to suppress
health claims related to nutrient function does violate constitutional
freedoms because there is scientific study to support those claims.

Agreed. So do individuals. However, I pointed this out when you made the
claim: The statement that the supplements industry "strong-armed" the
Congress to pass DSHEA,however, is just ridiculous.

No, it is not ridiculous, and your snipping of that takes my comments
out of context. This editing on your part changes the meaning of what I
wrote and makes it appear that I propose silencing the companies and
individuals. IOW, Petey, you are intellectually dishonest, which is well
documented.

The passage of DSHEA was a result of massive consumer outcry that
unncessary regulation of dietary supplements by a complicit FDA would
not be tolerated. If that effort had failed, life-saving nutrients
like vitamin C and vitamin E would only be available in effective doses
through AMA's prescription pipeline.

No, it would not, Mr. Red Herring.

Industry should never have a
monopoly on naturally-occuring nutrients and if your sponsors want to
participate in the future of medicine, they need to start getting into
the business of health and stop trying to commoditize disease.

Screw you with the sponsors bull****.

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

Equating "organized effort" to "strong armed tactics" is like equating
your brain to a Brain Trust (ie., meaningless.)

Like I said, you are intellectually bankrupt, and you never miss an
opportunity to prove it.

Note that I made NO personal attack on you until you initiated it.

On Jan 20, 8:45 am, Mark Probert wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:02:29 -0700, "vernon" stillhere@anhere wrote:
There is a CLEAR industry bias in favor of NOT permitting claims that
might affect pharma profits.

Not so. I have yet to see real proof of that.


Oh puleeeese! just one example of many out the
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/mar2006_awsi_01.htm

" ... The FDA is willing to throw cherry growers in jail for suggesting
that their fruit may safely alleviate arthritis discomfort, yet the
irrefutable facts are that the FDA intentionally concealed the dangers
of Vioxx® for years, thereby causing the needless death of tens of
thousands of Americans. Who are the real criminals here?
The FDA says it is responsible for "protecting the public health"
by assuring the safety of drugs. It does not take much brainpower to
see that the FDA's purported mission is nothing more than a hoax to
protect the economic interests of the pharmaceutical giants. It would
appear that the FDA is concerned that if too many arthritis sufferers
discover that eating cherries could alleviate inflammation and pain,
the multibillion-dollar market for anti-inflammatory drugs would be
detrimentally affected. Pharmaceutical industry profits have been
spared for the moment by the flagrant acts perpetrated against cherry
companies by the FDA. "



joanne

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 08:59:18 -0500, "Dr. Zarkov"
wrote:

GMCarter wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:02:29 -0700, "vernon" stillhere@anhere wrote:

snip

No matter which side one is on, there should be ZERO REGULATION.


Spoken like a true blue Libertarian nut job.

There NEEDS to be regulation. What's missing from DSHEA in my view is
product identity, potency and purity oversight. There needs to be
legislation with teeth and funding for reviewing products

There needs to be a mechanism for approving claims of medical value to
supplements tha works better than it taking 40 years to recognize that
folic acid supplementation prevents neural tube defects, for example.

There is a CLEAR industry bias in favor of NOT permitting claims that
might affect pharma profits.

I believe we also must dismantle or sideline the idiotic privatized
R&D and drug development industries. They are NOT more efficient; in
fact, they are FAR less so and result in profit/bottom line and the
perversions of capitalism that are currently in play, murdering
millions globally on an annual basis.


Spoken like a typical thoughtless statist.

There needs to be ACCOUNTABILITY--that does not necessarily mean
government regulation of everything. To "dismantle or sideline the
idiotic privatized R&D and drug development industries" would be about
the most idiotic thing that could be done. Hasn't the history of
government failures and inefficiencies taught you anything?

Hasn't the history of failed "free market" bull**** not taught you
anything? No new antibiotics for many common and dangerous infections,
particularly TB, out-of-control pricing for drugs, devices and
diagnostics, narrowing pipelines, failed new drugs with higher costs
and toxicities, physicians prescribing based on salesmen's bull****,
twisting of scientific data to market drugs, misleading journal
articles, influence peddling, etc.?

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 16:45:31 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

GMCarter wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:02:29 -0700, "vernon" stillhere@anhere wrote:

snip
No matter which side one is on, there should be ZERO REGULATION.

Spoken like a true blue Libertarian nut job.

There NEEDS to be regulation. What's missing from DSHEA in my view is
product identity, potency and purity oversight. There needs to be
legislation with teeth and funding for reviewing products

Agreed.

There needs to be a mechanism for approving claims of medical value to
supplements tha works better than it taking 40 years to recognize that
folic acid supplementation prevents neural tube defects, for example.

Absolutely correct. We did that in the 1980's when it was recommended by
our ob/gyn who had 40 years in practice.

Who is "we"? The FDA didn't approve this indication until just the
past couple of years.

There is a CLEAR industry bias in favor of NOT permitting claims that
might affect pharma profits.

Not so. I have yet to see real proof of that.

Evidence abounds but I doubt it will ever be satisfactory to you.

I believe we also must dismantle or sideline the idiotic privatized
R&D and drug development industries. They are NOT more efficient; in
fact, they are FAR less so and result in profit/bottom line and the
perversions of capitalism that are currently in play, murdering
millions globally on an annual basis.

So, you are in favor of the government doing the R&D?

It already DOES a lot of it--then hands over the discovery to industry
where they subsequently rape the public.

They should do MUCH more and the NIH budget greatly expanded. Science
and health outcomes should be the first order of business, not profit.

Reining in costs up and downstream in the discovery process would
further facilitate this. As it is, the hideous tangle of patents for
everything from PCR to drugs has stymied research and added undue
burden to costs while further limiting sharing of data and information
among disparate scientists to enhance discovery.

The private business model has failed absolutely.

George M. Carter

GMCarter wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 16:45:31 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

GMCarter wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:02:29 -0700, "vernon" stillhere@anhere wrote:

snip
No matter which side one is on, there should be ZERO REGULATION.
Spoken like a true blue Libertarian nut job.

There NEEDS to be regulation. What's missing from DSHEA in my view is
product identity, potency and purity oversight. There needs to be
legislation with teeth and funding for reviewing products
Agreed.

There needs to be a mechanism for approving claims of medical value to
supplements tha works better than it taking 40 years to recognize that
folic acid supplementation prevents neural tube defects, for example.
Absolutely correct. We did that in the 1980's when it was recommended by
our ob/gyn who had 40 years in practice.

Who is "we"? The FDA didn't approve this indication until just the
past couple of years.

My wife and I. I bought them, she took them, thus the we. The doctor
recommended a vitamin which was high in folate for just the reason you
cited. Like you said, the FDA did not get on board for several years
afterwards.

There is a CLEAR industry bias in favor of NOT permitting claims that
might affect pharma profits.
Not so. I have yet to see real proof of that.

Evidence abounds but I doubt it will ever be satisfactory to you.

When I see it, I will believe it. So far, the evidence is all
conjecture, coincidence, etc.

I believe we also must dismantle or sideline the idiotic privatized
R&D and drug development industries. They are NOT more efficient; in
fact, they are FAR less so and result in profit/bottom line and the
perversions of capitalism that are currently in play, murdering
millions globally on an annual basis.
So, you are in favor of the government doing the R&D?

It already DOES a lot of it--then hands over the discovery to industry
where they subsequently rape the public.

They should do MUCH more and the NIH budget greatly expanded. Science
and health outcomes should be the first order of business, not profit.

Agreed.

Reining in costs up and downstream in the discovery process would
further facilitate this. As it is, the hideous tangle of patents for
everything from PCR to drugs has stymied research and added undue
burden to costs while further limiting sharing of data and information
among disparate scientists to enhance discovery.

The private business model has failed absolutely.

George M. Carter

GMCarter wrote:
"Dr. Zarkov" wrote:
GMCarter wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:02:29 -0700, "vernon" stillhere@anhere wrote:

snip


No matter which side one is on, there should be ZERO REGULATION.


Spoken like a true blue Libertarian nut job.

There NEEDS to be regulation. What's missing from DSHEA in my view is
product identity, potency and purity oversight. There needs to be
legislation with teeth and funding for reviewing products
....
There is a CLEAR industry bias in favor of NOT permitting claims that
might affect pharma profits.

I believe we also must dismantle or sideline the idiotic privatized
R&D and drug development industries. They are NOT more efficient; in
fact, they are FAR less so and result in profit/bottom line and the
perversions of capitalism that are currently in play, murdering
millions globally on an annual basis.


Spoken like a typical thoughtless statist.

There needs to be ACCOUNTABILITY--that does not necessarily mean
government regulation of everything. To "dismantle or sideline the
idiotic privatized R&D and drug development industries" would be about
the most idiotic thing that could be done. Hasn't the history of
government failures and inefficiencies taught you anything?


Hasn't the history of failed "free market" bull**** not taught you
anything? No new antibiotics for many common and dangerous infections,
particularly TB, out-of-control pricing for drugs, devices and
diagnostics, narrowing pipelines, failed new drugs with higher costs
and toxicities, physicians prescribing based on salesmen's bull****,
twisting of scientific data to market drugs, misleading journal
articles, influence peddling, etc.?


The superiority of free markets over government is so obvious that
government apologists have to resort to that sort of unsubstantiated and
outright false bull****.

Where is the evidence for "physicians prescribing based on salesmen's
bull****"? Maybe you'd be naïve enough to prescribe a drug based on a
sales pitch, but physicians are far too sophisticated to do so. And
most physicians have been exposed to sales hype so often and for so long
that they are not about to let it affect their judgment.

Considering what a disaster government has been in others areas (eg, the
"War on Drugs"), what possible reason is there to believe that more
government intervention would do any good in this area?

"The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem."
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more
urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government."
--Milton Friedman (Nobel Prize in economics, 1976)

Dr. Zarkov wrote:
GMCarter wrote:
"Dr. Zarkov" wrote:
GMCarter wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:02:29 -0700, "vernon" stillhere@anhere wrote:

snip


No matter which side one is on, there should be ZERO REGULATION.


Spoken like a true blue Libertarian nut job.

There NEEDS to be regulation. What's missing from DSHEA in my view is
product identity, potency and purity oversight. There needs to be
legislation with teeth and funding for reviewing products
...
There is a CLEAR industry bias in favor of NOT permitting claims that
might affect pharma profits.

I believe we also must dismantle or sideline the idiotic privatized
R&D and drug development industries. They are NOT more efficient; in
fact, they are FAR less so and result in profit/bottom line and the
perversions of capitalism that are currently in play, murdering
millions globally on an annual basis.


Spoken like a typical thoughtless statist.

There needs to be ACCOUNTABILITY--that does not necessarily mean
government regulation of everything. To "dismantle or sideline the
idiotic privatized R&D and drug development industries" would be about
the most idiotic thing that could be done. Hasn't the history of
government failures and inefficiencies taught you anything?


Hasn't the history of failed "free market" bull**** not taught you
anything? No new antibiotics for many common and dangerous infections,
particularly TB, out-of-control pricing for drugs, devices and
diagnostics, narrowing pipelines, failed new drugs with higher costs
and toxicities, physicians prescribing based on salesmen's bull****,
twisting of scientific data to market drugs, misleading journal
articles, influence peddling, etc.?


The superiority of free markets over government is so obvious that
government apologists have to resort to that sort of unsubstantiated and
outright false bull****.

Where is the evidence for "physicians prescribing based on salesmen's
bull****"? Maybe you'd be naïve enough to prescribe a drug based on a
sales pitch, but physicians are far too sophisticated to do so. And
most physicians have been exposed to sales hype so often and for so long
that they are not about to let it affect their judgment.

Considering what a disaster government has been in others areas (eg, the
"War on Drugs"), what possible reason is there to believe that more
government intervention would do any good in this area?


Really bad example. The war on drugs is not about a caring gov't trying
to protect it's citizens. It's about the fact that pot is a really good
drug for many symptoms such as pain, nausea,glaucoma,etc and infringed
on the profits of BigPharma. That is why it's illegal. I'm for gov.
funding if and only if they can get out of BigCorps influence.

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 19:27:09 -0500, "Dr. Zarkov"
wrote:

snip
The superiority of free markets over government is so obvious that
government apologists have to resort to that sort of unsubstantiated and
outright false bull****.

Yeah, right. Whatever.

Actually, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive and either one
can become distorted by corruption, greed and excess.

Ample evidence of that worldwide. You want evidence? Look for it
yourself and ignore it on your own time (and at your own peril).

George M. Carter