If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Probert wrote in
: Hmmmm....gives me an idea.... Alternative Scientology! Remove thetans with a cleanse. Well, the Purification Rundown, which is a sweat-and-fast based "detox" is indeed a core ritual of $cientology (as well as being marketed as part of the "Narconon" (or should I say NarCONon) "drug rehab"). But its actual purpose is to cure your Body Thetans of their drug addictions, which is necessary before you can remove them. Let's get some terminology straight (or should I say "clear"?): According to L. Ron Hubbard, a person consists of: 1) A body, called the "genetic entity." 2) A soul, called the "Thetan." 3) Cooties, called "Body Thetans." The idea is that people can't reach their full potential as long as their cooties are preventing their souls from being able to transcend the limitations of their bodies. Thus the $cientologist's ultimate goal is to remove all their Body Thetans and become an "Operating Thetan." In principle, you achieve that once you've completed the highest-level "course" called OT8 (OT stands for Operating Thetan). In practice, as you approach that level, you start learning that you have to redo much of your earlier processing; you may in fact be told that much of your previous "auditing" was done by incompetents, and that it's up to you to pay to have it redone properly. The light at the end of the tunnel turns out to be a bulb mounted on a treadmill. You have to admit that Hubbard was a true genius to be able to incorporate the childhood notion of "cooties" into a religious belief system. In a similar vein, there are documented instances of the "swirly" being used as a form of ecclesiastical discipline for errant staff. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Eric Bohlman wrote:
Mark Probert wrote in : Hmmmm....gives me an idea.... Alternative Scientology! Remove thetans with a cleanse. Well, the Purification Rundown, which is a sweat-and-fast based "detox" is indeed a core ritual of $cientology (as well as being marketed as part of the "Narconon" (or should I say NarCONon) "drug rehab"). But its actual purpose is to cure your Body Thetans of their drug addictions, which is necessary before you can remove them. Let's get some terminology straight (or should I say "clear"?): According to L. Ron Hubbard, a person consists of: 1) A body, called the "genetic entity." 2) A soul, called the "Thetan." 3) Cooties, called "Body Thetans." The idea is that people can't reach their full potential as long as their cooties are preventing their souls from being able to transcend the limitations of their bodies. Thus the $cientologist's ultimate goal is to remove all their Body Thetans and become an "Operating Thetan." In principle, you achieve that once you've completed the highest-level "course" called OT8 (OT stands for Operating Thetan). In practice, as you approach that level, you start learning that you have to redo much of your earlier processing; you may in fact be told that much of your previous "auditing" was done by incompetents, and that it's up to you to pay to have it redone properly. The light at the end of the tunnel turns out to be a bulb mounted on a treadmill. You have to admit that Hubbard was a true genius to be able to incorporate the childhood notion of "cooties" into a religious belief system. In a similar vein, there are documented instances of the "swirly" being used as a form of ecclesiastical discipline for errant staff. Hubbard should be admired for his creation of such an efficient money maker. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"PeterB" wrote in message
oups.com... Or to the FTC if there is no scientific basis for your claim. Either way, the vast majority of supplement makers have no interest in making such claims, for a number reasons. I think they have a financial interest in making any claim they think they can get away with. There are quite a few supplements on the market right now that allegedly help people lose weight, but if they worked, docs would be recommending them. Enzyte is purported (by its manufacturers) to make good things happen to your penis, though I'm not sure exactly what, as the claims are a little vague. I don't know why those people are still in business. There are many supplement preparations that make claims about effectively treating ADHD. I'm not sure why the FDA isn't taking them all to court. The question now becomes: who is behind the effort to have nutrients reclassified as drugs? Which specific nutrients are you talking about? Do you have any links to flesh this out? What is your agenda here? You seem to be presenting the perspective of a supplement manufacturer. If you said, "the pharmaceutical companies," you'd be right again. Here's a general debate question: if information in the public domain is not subject to government control and regulation, how is it legal to control and regulate access to naturally-occuring nutrients, gases, water, or food? Whose patents, intellectual property, or other rights are infringed upon if I package these things and sell them? Okay... Here's my general debate question: Whose job is it to stop you from putting dryer lint in capsules and selling it? It's a dietary supplement if it's sold the way you describe it. The FDA regulates dietary supplements as foods. The FDA does not care what you do with it after you get it home. It becomes a drug only if you make specific medical claims about it. Very good. And again, what is the rational behind CODEX if foods are distinguishable from drugs? I don't think I understand what you mean. What about lycopene out of a tomato? Is that a food, or a drug? The tomato is a food. The lycopene is a chemical constituent of the food. If you extract the lycopene in some form and bottle it for sale, it's a dietary supplement. If you bottle it for sale and make claims on the label that it will treat or cure a disease, it's a drug. That's a correct statement within the existing legal context. What other context could there be in a discussion about legal issues regarding dietary supplements? Another question: by what legal precept can a constituent of food be classified as a drug WITHOUT such claims as to treatment or cure of disease? You tell me. I have no idea what you're talking about. If I grow tomatos on my porch, am I handling a controlled substance? The only logical answer to this is that we can't make constituents of food controlled substances without throwing people into prison for growing fruit on their porches. The FDA's stated mission in this arena is to protect the public from unproven or fraudulent claims made by manufacturers of supplements, not that they have been doing a great job at anything lately. What's the criteria, then? I'll let you tell me. It's so obvious you'll feel silly if I have to tell you. Oh, I feel so silly You stated it already. Yeah, I got that. I always feel silly. It's the nature of the health claim. If a dietary supplement maker doesn't claim the product cures or treats disease, it isn't a drug. Still, a bureacratic scheme is unfolding to contravene this principle and reclassify nutrients as drugs in an admission that beneficial effects of nutrients in disease treatment is the case regardless of such claims. Now we get back to the question of the gov't's control and regulation of that which already exists in the public domain. It is apparently now the law in Germany that one cannot legally grow his own aloe vera plant because of its medicinal uses. Are tomatoes next? I don't believe you are correct about aloe plants being illegal in Germany. I googled it and found not a single web page on the subject. If true, surely it would be weird enough to generate a couple of pages out of the 8 billion or so on Google currently. How about providing a link? I'm getting suspicious that you have an agenda of your own here. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On 29 Jun 2005 21:30:51 GMT, Eric Bohlman wrote:
Mark Probert wrote in : Hmmmm....gives me an idea.... Alternative Scientology! Remove thetans with a cleanse. SNIP In a similar vein, there are documented instances of the "swirly" being used as a form of ecclesiastical discipline for errant staff. The swirly is where all of that s...tuff belongs. _g |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On 25 Jun 2005 07:01:25 -0700, "cathyb"
wrote: Not to reincarnate an apparently well-beaten dead horse but I have some questions... This religion involves aliens, ...oh, what's the point. As a for instance, "In the 1960s the guru [Hubbard] decreed that humans are made of clusters of spirits (or "thetans") who were banished to earth some 75 million years ago by a cruel galactic ruler named Xenu. Naturally, those thetans had to be audited." Auditing naturally costs quite a bit. Tom Cruise, while undeniably petit, and quite cute in his younger days, On the surface, it just sounds like a sci-fi'd up version of the Baptists' "Rapture"-- a kind of UFO cult. I had no idea this silly UFO stuff was what they were teaching in their church. I am Orthodox & don't know my Protestant sects well, so I thought the Scientology church was the same church in which people are told not to use doctors & hospitals. I must have been mistaken. I would like to know why these people are against psychiatrists. I thought it was because they don't believe in using medicines at all. I guess that isn't so? JZ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
p fogg wrote:
"PeterB" wrote in message oups.com... Or to the FTC if there is no scientific basis for your claim. Either way, the vast majority of supplement makers have no interest in making such claims, for a number reasons. I think they have a financial interest in making any claim they think they can get away with. That can be said of any company in any industry. The point is that DSHEA provides the legal framework for oversight of dietary supplements and provides specific court powers to FDA and FTC to enforce ethical dietary supplement advertising. Under DSHEA, it is lawful for supplement makers to "describe a link between a nutrient and the deficiency disease that can result if the nutrient is lacking in the diet." FDA also agrees that such claims can "refer to the supplement's effect on the body's structure or function, including its overall effect on a person's well-being." The law requires that such health claims have a scientific basis, otherwise FTC has power to censure the maker and take legal action against it. FDA further advises that "individual states can take steps to restrict or stop the sale of potentially harmful dietary supplements within their jurisdictions," and that "a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=dietary%20supplement%20manufactur ers" onmouseover="window.status='dietary supplement manufacturers'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"dietary supplement manufacturers/a wishing to market a new ingredient (that is, an ingredient not marketed in the United States before 1994), follow strict approval guidelines. All of this has been working quite well for over a decade. Keep in mind that just one pharmaceutical (Vioxx) appears to be responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, while the entire spectrum of dietary supplements presents a smaller risk than reaction to bee stings, based on statistics provided by Poison Control in DC (thanks to Nana Weedkiller for pointing this out.) Where, then, is DHSEA, FDA, and FTC failing to protect the public? To be clear, when I say there are a number of reasons the supplement makers don't want to engage in false advertising, I am referring to reputable firms which make every effort to cultivate life-long relationships with customers, many of which conform to GMP standards, voluntarily provide certified product assays on request, conduct their own R&D, and who are often owned by, and accountable to, shareholders. If you are focusing on a handful of fly-by-night outfits that seem to be skirting the law, please reference these so we can determine whether you are discrediting an entire industry based on the actions of a few bad apples, which would suggest you are biased against the dietary supplements industry. There are quite a few supplements on the market right now that allegedly help people lose weight, but if they worked, docs would be recommending them. Medical doctors don't typically recommend non-prescription products of any kind. Pharmaceutical products are pharmacy-dispensed and their makers provide copious amounts of promotional material so that doctors will dispense them. Your comment is like saying that if Volvo makes a good car, why don't Ford dealerships sell them? Free enterprise does not mean a "free give-away." Enzyte is purported (by its manufacturers) to make good things happen to your penis, though I'm not sure exactly what, as the claims are a little vague. I don't know why those people are still in business. There are many supplement preparations that make claims about effectively treating ADHD. I'm not sure why the FDA isn't taking them all to court. Normally, if FTC cannot censure a product for false marketing claims, it's because the maker has sufficient science to support the claim in court. Thus, a judge may reject the FTC's petition outright or find on behalf of both plaintiff and defendant in a consent decree, resulting in modification of marketing and promotional material. The question now becomes: who is behind the effort to have nutrients reclassified as drugs? Which specific nutrients are you talking about? Do you have any links to flesh this out? What is your agenda here? You seem to be presenting the perspective of a supplement manufacturer. Very few independent supplement makers are aware of the risk to their companies as a result of ratification of the UN-mandated CODEX alimentarius, whereas my concern is for consumers. Now that Stage 8 of the Codex has been ratified, a "risk assessment" for several hundred vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients is to follow. This eventually will entail government regulation that equates nutrients to a controlled substance within WTO and CAFTA member states. If you said, "the pharmaceutical companies," you'd be right again. Here's a general debate question: if information in the public domain is not subject to government control and regulation, how is it legal to control and regulate access to naturally-occuring nutrients, gases, water, or food? Whose patents, intellectual property, or other rights are infringed upon if I package these things and sell them? Okay... Here's my general debate question: Whose job is it to stop you from putting dryer lint in capsules and selling it? Your question relates, presumably, to false advertising. That's an issue for the FTC, as I pointed out. I'm talking about truthful marketing of naturally-occuring substances that government seeks to regulate despite their ubiquity in the public domain. Not the same thing. It's a dietary supplement if it's sold the way you describe it. The FDA regulates dietary supplements as foods. The FDA does not care what you do with it after you get it home. It becomes a drug only if you make specific medical claims about it. Very good. And again, what is the rationale behind CODEX if foods are distinguishable from drugs? I don't think I understand what you mean. I mean, if nutrients are indisinguishable from food, the basis for regulating nutrients as a controlled substance is flawed unless you can show undue harm from their use in concentrated form. What about lycopene out of a tomato? Is that a food, or a drug? The tomato is a food. The lycopene is a chemical constituent of the food. If you extract the lycopene in some form and bottle it for sale, it's a dietary supplement. If you bottle it for sale and make claims on the label that it will treat or cure a disease, it's a drug. That's a correct statement within the existing legal context. What other context could there be in a discussion about legal issues regarding dietary supplements? The other context is the one developing under ratification of CODEX, at least for WTO and CAFTA member states. With regard to the USA, DSHEA and its existing legal framework cannot survive under adoption of CAFTA, as the language of this provision require conformity to "harmonization" under WTO. Another question: by what legal precept can a constituent of food be classified as a drug WITHOUT such claims as to treatment or cure of disease? You tell me. I have no idea what you're talking about. There IS no legal precept for this, that's my point. What CODEX is effectively doing by regulating nutrients as a controlled substance is without precedent in law, science, or nature. If I grow tomatos on my porch, am I handling a controlled substance? The only logical answer to this is that we can't make constituents of food controlled substances without throwing people into prison for growing fruit on their porches. The FDA's stated mission in this arena is to protect the public from unproven or fraudulent claims made by manufacturers of supplements, not that they have been doing a great job at anything lately. What's the criteria, then? I'll let you tell me. It's so obvious you'll feel silly if I have to tell you. Oh, I feel so silly You stated it already. Yeah, I got that. I always feel silly. It's the nature of the health claim. If a dietary supplement maker doesn't claim the product cures or treats disease, it isn't a drug. Still, a bureacratic scheme is unfolding to contravene this principle and reclassify nutrients as drugs in an admission that beneficial effects of nutrients in disease treatment is the case regardless of such claims. Now we get back to the question of the gov't's control and regulation of that which already exists in the public domain. It is apparently now the law in Germany that one cannot legally grow his own aloe vera plant because of its medicinal uses. Are tomatoes next? I don't believe you are correct about aloe plants being illegal in Germany. I googled it and found not a single web page on the subject. If true, surely it would be weird enough to generate a couple of pages out of the 8 billion or so on Google currently. How about providing a link? I'm getting suspicious that you have an agenda of your own here. I'll try to find the article or link and post it (assuming MY source was not in error.) As for my agenda, of course I have an agenda. Read my past comments on usenet and you'll see I am interested in people being educated about what is happening to them, and why. I have no financial interest whatsoever in these discussions. PeterB |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
PeterB wrote: snipwe can determine whether you are discrediting an entire industry based on the actions of a few bad apples, which would suggest you are biased against the dietary supplements industry. snip PeterB Read that again Peter, and replace 'dietary supplements' with 'pharmeceutical'. Your hypocrisy is outstanding--particularly since you'd just brought up Vioxx. Cathy |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"J. Z. Al-Huriyeh" wrote in message ... On 25 Jun 2005 07:01:25 -0700, "cathyb" wrote: ... I would like to know why these people are against psychiatrists. I thought it was because they don't believe in using medicines at all. I guess that isn't so? JZ Because it cuts into their profits. In order to achieve the goals that they set out for a person on the basis of their "personality tests" they offer classes for a set amount of money. Then more classes costing MORE money are required... and on and on and on. I did see a fairly clear explanation on it through a blog... but I have forgotten which one. You can find most of it on www.xenu.net . |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
cathyb wrote: PeterB wrote: snipwe can determine whether you are discrediting an entire industry based on the actions of a few bad apples, which would suggest you are biased against the dietary supplements industry. snip PeterB Read that again Peter, and replace 'dietary supplements' with 'pharmeceutical'. Your hypocrisy is outstanding--particularly since you'd just brought up Vioxx. You aren't making your case any stronger with that comment. Vioxx is a valid example of internal management failure at both FDA AND Merck; you are in the minority for thinking otherwise. Isn't it about time Rich came to your rescue? I mean, this is getting sad. Funny, though. PeterB |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Greegor Cruisin' Again? or Parents storm Chic. HS protesting no security, violence | Kane | General | 0 | February 12th 04 04:36 AM |
Greegor Cruisin' Again? or Parents storm Chic. HS protesting no security, violence | Kane | Solutions | 0 | February 12th 04 04:36 AM |