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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"We have billions of invisible aliens in our bodies...and by the way,
counseling doesn't work." (But 'auditing' does...) Sounds like a sensible worldview to me! Mark, MD Simple facts. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On 26 Jun 2005 20:35:32 -0700, "
wrote: "We have billions of invisible aliens in our bodies...and by the way, counseling doesn't work." (But 'auditing' does...) Sounds like a sensible worldview to me! Mark, MD Get out your E-Meter! http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/200...se/index2.html About 75 million years ago, a nefarious intergalactic warlord called Xenu rounded up the inhabitants of numerous planets, killed them, and brought them to Earth, then set off a chain reaction of cataclysmic volcanoes (the volcano pictured on the "Dianetics" cover was Hubbard's favorite symbol for the notion of breakthrough and self-actualization), which dispersed their thetans into the atmosphere. These thetans now fester inside the bodies of all humans. They are to be located in specific body parts and summoned out. _g |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... "We have billions of invisible aliens in our bodies...and by the way, counseling doesn't work." (But 'auditing' does...) Sounds like a sensible worldview to me! Mark, MD nodding...I also like the idea that vitamins (which are chemical pills to ingest) are OK, but "drugs" (which are chemical pills we ingest) are not...are not vitamin pills "drugs"? Buny |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Sumbuny wrote: wrote in message oups.com... "We have billions of invisible aliens in our bodies...and by the way, counseling doesn't work." (But 'auditing' does...) Sounds like a sensible worldview to me! Mark, MD nodding...I also like the idea that vitamins (which are chemical pills to ingest) are OK, but "drugs" (which are chemical pills we ingest) are not...are not vitamin pills "drugs"? Buny Evidently the vitamins are okay provided you have washed out all the thetans. Mark, MD |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Sumbuny wrote: wrote in message oups.com... "We have billions of invisible aliens in our bodies...and by the way, counseling doesn't work." (But 'auditing' does...) Sounds like a sensible worldview to me! Mark, MD nodding...I also like the idea that vitamins (which are chemical pills to ingest) are OK, but "drugs" (which are chemical pills we ingest) are not...are not vitamin pills "drugs"? How do you define a nutrient as a drug without defining food as a drug? Take powdered garlic, for instance. If I put finely ground garlic into guacamole from a shaker, it's a food. But what if I open a capsule containing the same garlic powder and pour it over my food directly, is it still a food, or a drug? What about lycopene out of a tomato? Is that a food, or a drug? 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. 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. PeterB |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"PeterB" wrote in message
oups.com... How do you define a nutrient as a drug without defining food as a drug? Claim that it will cure a specific adverse medical condition, and then bottle it and try to sell it. Then you're subject to the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994. Take powdered garlic, for instance. If I put finely ground garlic into guacamole from a shaker, it's a food. But what if I open a capsule containing the same garlic powder and pour it over my food directly, is it still a food, or a drug? 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. 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. 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. PeterB Oh, I feel so silly Here's more on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutritional_supplement |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
p fogg wrote: "PeterB" wrote in message oups.com... How do you define a nutrient as a drug without defining food as a drug? Claim that it will cure a specific adverse medical condition, and then bottle it and try to sell it. Then you're subject to the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994. 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. The question now becomes: who is behind the effort to have nutrients reclassified as drugs? 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? Take powdered garlic, for instance. If I put finely ground garlic into guacamole from a shaker, it's a food. But what if I open a capsule containing the same garlic powder and pour it over my food directly, is it still a food, or a drug? 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? 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. 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? 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. 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? PeterB |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"PeterB" wrote in message oups.com... Sumbuny wrote: wrote in message oups.com... "We have billions of invisible aliens in our bodies...and by the way, counseling doesn't work." (But 'auditing' does...) Sounds like a sensible worldview to me! Mark, MD nodding...I also like the idea that vitamins (which are chemical pills to ingest) are OK, but "drugs" (which are chemical pills we ingest) are not...are not vitamin pills "drugs"? How do you define a nutrient as a drug without defining food as a drug? Take powdered garlic, for instance. If I put finely ground garlic into guacamole from a shaker, it's a food. But what if I open a capsule containing the same garlic powder and pour it over my food directly, is it still a food, or a drug? What about lycopene out of a tomato? Is that a food, or a drug? 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. 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. IIRC, many of the things we call "drugs" have come from things that go along with our food sources... Not all drugs are controlled substances, and "all natural" does not mean "all safe"... Buny |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
PeterB wrote:
p fogg wrote: "PeterB" wrote in message groups.com... How do you define a nutrient as a drug without defining food as a drug? Claim that it will cure a specific adverse medical condition, and then bottle it and try to sell it. Then you're subject to the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994. 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 wish that were true. Based on reviewing the FTC and FDA websites on a weekly basis for over ten years, I have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of supplement makers make medical claims as a matter of course. Some of the manufacturers are wise enough to request authorization to make the claims, and others are told through enforcement actions, that they are making impermissible medical claims. Of course, this does not address those supplement manufacturers who choose to make the nebulous claims like "supports the immune system". The question now becomes: who is behind the effort to have nutrients reclassified as drugs? If you said, "the pharmaceutical companies," you'd be right again. The FDA for one as they take the political heat for not protecting the public. As for others, the only clear answer is that Congress has tried to tighten up loopholes in DSHEA like not mandating that supplement manufacturers must forward all adverse event reports to the FDA. Without such a systematic reporting requirement, there is no way for the FDA to monitor these products for patterns of problems. 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? It is legal to regulate simply because they move through interstate commerce, and the Constitution of the United States gives Congress broad authority for regulating commerce. Take powdered garlic, for instance. If I put finely ground garlic into guacamole from a shaker, it's a food. But what if I open a capsule containing the same garlic powder and pour it over my food directly, is it still a food, or a drug? 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? CODEX does not apply to the US. 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. 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? I believe that it can if the chemical has a medicinal effect. 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. 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. There are strange laws in all countries. That does not mean that they will be exported to the US. The supplement industry is a very powerful lobby and they have a powerful US Senator in their pocket. Are tomatoes next? Better not be. You gotta see mine.... |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 05:36 AM |
Greegor Cruisin' Again? or Parents storm Chic. HS protesting no security, violence | Kane | Solutions | 0 | February 12th 04 05:36 AM |