A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cruisin' for a bruisin'



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 29th 05, 10:30 PM
Eric Bohlman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old June 29th 05, 10:34 PM
Mark Probert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #24  
Old June 30th 05, 03:53 AM
p fogg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old June 30th 05, 08:54 AM
george_of_the_bush
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 6th 05, 01:43 PM
J. Z. Al-Huriyeh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 6th 05, 09:49 PM
PeterB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 7th 05, 12:07 AM
cathyb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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  
Old July 7th 05, 01:05 AM
HCN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old July 7th 05, 03:32 AM
PeterB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.