Cruisin' for a bruisin'

On 6 Jul 2005 13:49:22 -0700, "PeterB" wrote:

p fogg wrote:
"PeterB" wrote in message
oups.com...


Medical doctors don't typically recommend non-prescription products of
any kind.

FALSE. Do you care to support that absurd claim with a smidgeon of
evidence?



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."

Drs. don't get paid more for writing prescriptions. They get a lot of
junk and BS from drug reps. Drug reps are mostly more trouble than
they are worth. They waste valuable time and usually are ignorant.

_g

george_of_the_bush wrote:
On 6 Jul 2005 13:49:22 -0700, "PeterB" wrote:

p fogg wrote:
"PeterB" wrote in message
oups.com...


Medical doctors don't typically recommend non-prescription products of
any kind.

FALSE. Do you care to support that absurd claim with a smidgeon of
evidence?

If you want to challenge my statement then it's your job to refute it
persuasively. Any suggestion that mainstream doctors recommend natural
remedies routinely is ridiculous. Back it up.


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."

Drs. don't get paid more for writing prescriptions. They get a lot of
junk and BS from drug reps. Drug reps are mostly more trouble than
they are worth. They waste valuable time and usually are ignorant.

Which proves nothing about how existing medical practice works.
Doctors still prescribe drugs and leave natural medicine approaches to
so-called "alternative" practicioners. If you don't agree, what
evidence do you have to support your claim?

PeterB

In article . com,
PeterB wrote:


george_of_the_bush wrote:
On 6 Jul 2005 13:49:22 -0700, "PeterB" wrote:

p fogg wrote:
"PeterB" wrote in message
oups.com...


Medical doctors don't typically recommend non-prescription products of
any kind.

FALSE. Do you care to support that absurd claim with a smidgeon of
evidence?

If you want to challenge my statement then it's your job to refute it
persuasively. Any suggestion that mainstream doctors recommend natural
remedies routinely is ridiculous. Back it up.

You don't get it, do you? It's the claimant, in this case you, who
gets to back up the claim. That is, YOU get to back up your claim
that "medical doctors don't typically recommend non-prescription
products of any kind."

There are products called "ibuprofen" and "aspirin." You may have
heard of them. They are available without prescription. Doctors
recommend them often. I've had them recommended to me personally
by doctors. I've also had them recommend things like compression,
elevation, and ice for sprains. Those are all-natural.

But do keep going. I just wonder how you manage to talk with your
foot constantly in your mouth.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"I believe The Battle of the Network Stars should be fought with guns."
-- Steve Martin

"PeterB" wrote:

Your comment is like saying that if Volvo makes a
good car, why don't Ford dealerships sell them?

Why not? Ford owns Volvo. Is there anything of which you are not
completely ignorant?

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

I'm a frog! I'm a frog!

StableXYZN5 wrote:
I'm a frog! I'm a frog!

Nothing to get excited about.

PeterB wrote:
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.

Of course it is. It's a 'bad apple'. I have criticised it strongly on
other threads.

Isn't it about time Rich
came to your rescue? I mean, this is getting sad.


Funny, though.

But not quite as funny as the fact that you can't see your own use of
the 'bad apple' to denigrate real medicine. Thanks again

Cathy


PeterB

PeterB wrote:

george_of_the_bush wrote:

On 6 Jul 2005 13:49:22 -0700, "PeterB" wrote:


p fogg wrote:

"PeterB" wrote in message
legroups.com...

Medical doctors don't typically recommend non-prescription products of
any kind.

FALSE. Do you care to support that absurd claim with a smidgeon of
evidence?


If you want to challenge my statement then it's your job to refute it
persuasively. Any suggestion that mainstream doctors recommend natural
remedies routinely is ridiculous. Back it up.

No, dingbat, it is your burden, since you made the claim, to prove that
medical doctors don't typically recommend non-prescription products of
any kind.

At my last physical, last month, my internist suggested that I use more
olive oil as my lipids were very low, and I was too low on "good
cholesterol".

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."

Drs. don't get paid more for writing prescriptions. They get a lot of
junk and BS from drug reps. Drug reps are mostly more trouble than
they are worth. They waste valuable time and usually are ignorant.


Which proves nothing about how existing medical practice works.
Doctors still prescribe drugs and leave natural medicine approaches to
so-called "alternative" practicioners. If you don't agree, what
evidence do you have to support your claim?

Wrong, What evidence do YOU have to support YOUR claim.

PeterB

"PeterB" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Yes, but in your earlier post, you seemed to be arguing that no regulatory
oversight is appropriate where chemical constituents of foods are bottled
and sold.

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%2
0manufacturers"
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.

Here above you are mysteriously arguing the point I was trying to make to
you.

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?

As I said previously, they have not been enforcing the law effectively of
late. I continue to be baffled about why you seem to be arguing with me.

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.

I am biased against any supplement maker who whines plaintively about modest
regulatory oversight.

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."

Doctors recommend taking multivitamins. My doc recommended that I take a
B-vitamin supplement to help control my migraines, and she asked me to try
valerian for sleep, and St. John's wort when I was depressed, and calcium to
reduce my risk of osteoporosis and colon cancer, among other things. My
midwife asked me to take fenugreek to bolster my milk production when I was
lactating. I'm sure if I gave it further thought I could recall other
supplements that have been recommended to me by docs and other healthcare
pros. They recommended these supplements because studies show that they
work.

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.

Your use of the word "controlled substance" seems ridiculous to me here.

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

Okay, but clearly you care about all this crap way more than I do. I don't
have any more time to devote to this thread.

Patti

"J. Z. Al-Huriyeh" wrote in message
...
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?



I will take a chance that Julnar didn't mean it when she said she KF'd me at
k.12.chat.teacher...Scientology was started by a third-rate sci fi author on
a dare....it would seem that the believe that the brain somewho is immune
from any of the problems that the rest of the boyd can be, so the brain does
not "need" any kind of medical care--however, ancient aliens called
"thetans" can invade and take over---and if one pays enough money to receive
the appropriate sessions, one can remove these thetans....

Buny