General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

FTC Shuts Down Supplement Scammer

Started by Mark Thorson · · Last activity · 14 posts · 564 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
4 January 2006
Last activity
10 January 2006
Original author
Mark Thorson
Posts
14
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
564
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–14 of 14
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Quoting from:
    http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/01/braswell.htm

    Direct Response Marketer Banned

    FTC Charged Braswell Made False Claims to
    Sell Dietary Supplements

    The mastermind behind a scheme to sell
    dietary supplements using claims the Federal
    Trade Commission alleged were false and
    unsubstantiated has been banned from the
    direct response marketing of foods, unapproved
    drugs, and dietary supplements. The
    defendant, A. Glenn Braswell, who was
    already under another consent decree
    stemming from alleged violations of the
    FTC Act, also will pay $1 million and turn
    over assets worth $3.5 million to settle
    the FTC's charges. The FTC also is
    announcing a settlement with one of the
    "expert" endorsers for Braswell's dietary
    supplement products.

    "We charged Braswell with peddling
    empty promises to consumers battling
    serious illnesses" said Lydia Parnes,
    Director of the FTC's Bureau of
    Consumer Protection. "This settlement
    will prevent him from profiting from
    these sorts of deceptive claims in the
    future, and deter others who may think
    they can get away with similar practices."

    Braswell sold dietary supplements, mostly
    through direct mail advertising, including the
    Journal of Longevity, a direct mail ad
    that purported to be a health-information
    magazine. The FTC alleged these ads, aimed
    at elderly consumers, used false and
    misleading claims of medical or scientific
    "breakthroughs," expert endorsements, and
    misrepresented the results and applicability
    of scientific studies. According to the FTC,
    Braswell's operation was one of the largest
    U.S. direct mail marketers of health-related
    products during the time he was running the
    companies.

    The products the FTC targeted, Lung Support
    Formula, AntiBetic Pancreas Tonic,
    Gero Vita G.H.3, ChitoPlex, and Testerex,
    were supposed to cure, prevent, or treat a
    number of illnesses, such as Alzheimer's
    disease, diabetes, and emphysema. Braswell is
    the former owner of the California-based
    corporate defendants and controlled the
    misleading advertising and marketing materials.

    In settling the FTC's charges, Braswell
    not only is banned from direct
    response marketing (with a few exemptions,
    such as FDA approved product claims),
    he also is prohibited from making false,
    misleading, or unsubstantiated health claims,
    misrepresenting endorsements, making
    unsubstantiated endorsements, or
    misrepresenting scientific evidence for
    all foods, drugs, dietary supplements, and
    health-related products and services.
    Braswell already was under a 1983 consent
    order to resolve the FTC's charges related
    to his marketing of baldness and anti-cellulite
    products.

    Today, the FTC also is announcing a
    settlement with defendant Hans Kugler. The
    FTC alleged that Kugler was an expert
    endorser for two of the products, Lung
    Support Formula and Gero Vita G.H.3.
    The FTC's complaint charged that
    Kugler did not have the required expertise
    or a reasonable basis for his endorsements.
    The settlement prohibits him from making
    future endorsements, unless they are based
    on competent and reliable scientific
    information and an actual exercise of his
    represented expertise, as well as
    misrepresentations about scientific tests
    or studies. Kugler will pay $15,000 in
    settlement of the allegations.

    With today's announced settlements,
    all of the seven corporate defendants and
    four of the five individual defendants have
    settled the FTC's charges in this case.
    Litigation continues against Chase Revel.

  2. Mark Thorson said:

    Quoting from:
    http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/01/braswell.htm

    Too bad the FTC doesn't stop drug companies from doing the same
    (assuming this company is guilty of the allegations), but that would
    require the absence of conflict of interest on the part of bureaucrats.
    For example, drug companies are not required to say that statins
    disrupt the availability of the nutrient ubiquone, which itself is
    required for normal heart function. The fact that statins are
    dangerous and interfere with normal cardiovascular health is not
    adequately addressed in pharma advertising and disclosure, yet FTC
    remains silent.

    PeterB

  3. "PeterB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Mark Thorson said:

    Quoting from:
    http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/01/braswell.htm

    Too bad the FTC doesn't stop drug companies from doing the same
    (assuming this company is guilty of the allegations), but that would
    require the absence of conflict of interest on the part of bureaucrats.
    For example, drug companies are not required to say that statins
    disrupt the availability of the nutrient ubiquone, which itself is
    required for normal heart function. The fact that statins are
    dangerous and interfere with normal cardiovascular health is not
    adequately addressed in pharma advertising and disclosure, yet FTC
    remains silent.

    PeterB


    At least drug company products have to be tested for effectively and safety
    before they can be sold while supplements are not required to be safe or
    effective.

    This Braswell crook was pardoned by Clinton when he left office.

    Robert

  4. "Robert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "PeterB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Mark Thorson said:

    Quoting from:
    http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/01/braswell.htm

    Too bad the FTC doesn't stop drug companies from doing the same
    (assuming this company is guilty of the allegations), but that would
    require the absence of conflict of interest on the part of bureaucrats.
    For example, drug companies are not required to say that statins
    disrupt the availability of the nutrient ubiquone, which itself is
    required for normal heart function. The fact that statins are
    dangerous and interfere with normal cardiovascular health is not
    adequately addressed in pharma advertising and disclosure, yet FTC
    remains silent.

    PeterB


    At least drug company products have to be tested for effectively and


    safety

    Quoted message said:

    before they can be sold while supplements are not required to be safe or
    effective.

    I'd rethink the safety part of that statement

  5. " Dr.G" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Robert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "PeterB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Mark Thorson wrote:
    > Quoting from:
    > http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/01/braswell.htm

    Too bad the FTC doesn't stop drug companies from doing the same
    (assuming this company is guilty of the allegations), but that would
    require the absence of conflict of interest on the part of


    bureaucrats.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    For example, drug companies are not required to say that statins
    disrupt the availability of the nutrient ubiquone, which itself is
    required for normal heart function. The fact that statins are
    dangerous and interfere with normal cardiovascular health is not
    adequately addressed in pharma advertising and disclosure, yet FTC
    remains silent.

    PeterB


    At least drug company products have to be tested for effectively and


    safety

    Quoted message said:

    before they can be sold while supplements are not required to be safe or
    effective.

    I'd rethink the safety part of that statement


    Why? Are you aware of DSHEA?

  6. "Robert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    " Dr.G" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Robert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "PeterB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...
    >
    > Mark Thorson wrote:
    > > Quoting from:
    > > http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/01/braswell.htm
    >
    > Too bad the FTC doesn't stop drug companies from doing the same
    > (assuming this company is guilty of the allegations), but that would
    > require the absence of conflict of interest on the part of


    bureaucrats.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > For example, drug companies are not required to say that statins
    > disrupt the availability of the nutrient ubiquone, which itself is
    > required for normal heart function. The fact that statins are
    > dangerous and interfere with normal cardiovascular health is not
    > adequately addressed in pharma advertising and disclosure, yet FTC
    > remains silent.
    >
    > PeterB
    >
    At least drug company products have to be tested for effectively and


    safety

    Quoted message said:

    before they can be sold while supplements are not required to be safe


    or

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    effective.

    I'd rethink the safety part of that statement


    Why? Are you aware of DSHEA?

    Intimately aware...

    Do the words Celebrex/Viox sound familiar?

  7. Robert said:

    "PeterB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Mark Thorson said:

    Quoting from:
    http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/01/braswell.htm

    Too bad the FTC doesn't stop drug companies from doing the same
    (assuming this company is guilty of the allegations), but that would
    require the absence of conflict of interest on the part of bureaucrats.
    For example, drug companies are not required to say that statins
    disrupt the availability of the nutrient ubiquone, which itself is
    required for normal heart function. The fact that statins are
    dangerous and interfere with normal cardiovascular health is not
    adequately addressed in pharma advertising and disclosure, yet FTC
    remains silent.

    PeterB


    At least drug company products have to be tested for effectively and safety
    before they can be sold while supplements are not required to be safe or
    effective.

    Are you referring to 3-mo toxicologies that are the equivalent of a
    sieve? Are you referring to the same approval process that allows a
    drug like Vioxx to get to market while the data on its risks are kept
    hidden from public view for as long as possible? You're kidding, right?

    Quoted message said:

    This Braswell crook was pardoned by Clinton when he left office.

    Robert

  8. "PeterB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Robert said:

    "PeterB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Mark Thorson wrote:
    > Quoting from:
    > http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/01/braswell.htm

    Too bad the FTC doesn't stop drug companies from doing the same
    (assuming this company is guilty of the allegations), but that would
    require the absence of conflict of interest on the part of


    bureaucrats.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    For example, drug companies are not required to say that statins
    disrupt the availability of the nutrient ubiquone, which itself is
    required for normal heart function. The fact that statins are
    dangerous and interfere with normal cardiovascular health is not
    adequately addressed in pharma advertising and disclosure, yet FTC
    remains silent.

    PeterB


    At least drug company products have to be tested for effectively and


    safety

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    before they can be sold while supplements are not required to be safe or
    effective.

    Are you referring to 3-mo toxicologies that are the equivalent of a
    sieve? Are you referring to the same approval process that allows a
    drug like Vioxx to get to market while the data on its risks are kept
    hidden from public view for as long as possible? You're kidding, right?

    Quoted message said:

    This Braswell crook was pardoned by Clinton when he left office.

    Robert



    Contrast that with the thousands of approved drugs out there that are curing
    diseases and making life easier for many people.

    Then we have the mostly unregulated fake supplement makers like Braswell
    which you ignore making billions because people want an easy fix. Would you
    buy a penis enlarger? I'm not kidding.

    Robert

  9. "Robert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "PeterB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Robert said:

    "PeterB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...
    >
    > Mark Thorson wrote:
    > > Quoting from:
    > > http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/01/braswell.htm
    >
    > Too bad the FTC doesn't stop drug companies from doing the same
    > (assuming this company is guilty of the allegations), but that would
    > require the absence of conflict of interest on the part of


    bureaucrats.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > For example, drug companies are not required to say that statins
    > disrupt the availability of the nutrient ubiquone, which itself is
    > required for normal heart function. The fact that statins are
    > dangerous and interfere with normal cardiovascular health is not
    > adequately addressed in pharma advertising and disclosure, yet FTC
    > remains silent.
    >
    > PeterB
    >
    At least drug company products have to be tested for effectively and


    safety

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    before they can be sold while supplements are not required to be safe


    or

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    effective.

    Are you referring to 3-mo toxicologies that are the equivalent of a
    sieve? Are you referring to the same approval process that allows a
    drug like Vioxx to get to market while the data on its risks are kept
    hidden from public view for as long as possible? You're kidding, right?

    Quoted message said:

    This Braswell crook was pardoned by Clinton when he left office.

    Robert



    Contrast that with the thousands of approved drugs out there that are


    curing

    Quoted message said:

    diseases and making life easier for many people.


    ..
    Aside from antibiotics name me a drug that cures a disease...treat a
    disease, yes, but cure?

    Quoted message said:

    Then we have the mostly unregulated fake supplement makers like Braswell
    which you ignore making billions because people want an easy fix. Would


    you

    Quoted message said:

    buy a penis enlarger? I'm not kidding.

    Robert

  10. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Dr.G said:


    "Robert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "PeterB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Robert wrote:
    > "PeterB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    > news:[email hidden]...
    > >
    > > Mark Thorson wrote:
    > > > Quoting from:
    > > > http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/01/braswell.htm
    > >
    > > Too bad the FTC doesn't stop drug companies from doing the same
    > > (assuming this company is guilty of the allegations), but that would
    > > require the absence of conflict of interest on the part of


    bureaucrats.

    Quoted message said:

    > > For example, drug companies are not required to say that statins
    > > disrupt the availability of the nutrient ubiquone, which itself is
    > > required for normal heart function. The fact that statins are
    > > dangerous and interfere with normal cardiovascular health is not
    > > adequately addressed in pharma advertising and disclosure, yet FTC
    > > remains silent.
    > >
    > > PeterB
    > >
    > At least drug company products have to be tested for effectively and


    safety

    Quoted message said:

    > before they can be sold while supplements are not required to be safe


    or

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > effective.

    Are you referring to 3-mo toxicologies that are the equivalent of a
    sieve? Are you referring to the same approval process that allows a
    drug like Vioxx to get to market while the data on its risks are kept
    hidden from public view for as long as possible? You're kidding, right?

    > This Braswell crook was pardoned by Clinton when he left office.
    >
    > Robert


    Contrast that with the thousands of approved drugs out there that are


    curing

    Quoted message said:

    diseases and making life easier for many people.


    .
    Aside from antibiotics name me a drug that cures a disease...treat a
    disease, yes, but cure?

    This question comes up fairly often, posed by people who don't know
    anywhere near as much as they think they do.

    One obvious example: aspirin cures headaches.

    Less well-known example: Accutane cures acne.

    Another less well-known example: Gleevec (anticancer drug).

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
    -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

  11. "David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Dr.G said:


    "Robert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "PeterB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...
    >
    > Robert wrote:
    > > "PeterB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email hidden]...
    > > >
    > > > Mark Thorson wrote:
    > > > > Quoting from:
    > > > > http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/01/braswell.htm
    > > >
    > > > Too bad the FTC doesn't stop drug companies from doing the same
    > > > (assuming this company is guilty of the allegations), but that


    would

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > > > require the absence of conflict of interest on the part of
    bureaucrats.
    > > > For example, drug companies are not required to say that statins
    > > > disrupt the availability of the nutrient ubiquone, which itself


    is

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > > > required for normal heart function. The fact that statins are
    > > > dangerous and interfere with normal cardiovascular health is not
    > > > adequately addressed in pharma advertising and disclosure, yet


    FTC

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > > > remains silent.
    > > >
    > > > PeterB
    > > >
    > > At least drug company products have to be tested for effectively


    and

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    safety
    > > before they can be sold while supplements are not required to be


    safe

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    or

    Quoted message said:

    > > effective.
    >
    > Are you referring to 3-mo toxicologies that are the equivalent of a
    > sieve? Are you referring to the same approval process that allows a
    > drug like Vioxx to get to market while the data on its risks are kept
    > hidden from public view for as long as possible? You're kidding,


    right?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >
    > > This Braswell crook was pardoned by Clinton when he left office.
    > >
    > > Robert
    >
    Contrast that with the thousands of approved drugs out there that are


    curing

    Quoted message said:

    diseases and making life easier for many people.


    .
    Aside from antibiotics name me a drug that cures a disease...treat a
    disease, yes, but cure?

    This question comes up fairly often, posed by people who don't know
    anywhere near as much as they think they do.

    One obvious example: aspirin cures headaches.

    Less well-known example: Accutane cures acne.

    Another less well-known example: Gleevec (anticancer drug).

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
    -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

    I just love the way some people start with a snide comment without knowing
    anything about the person they are making the comment about...very classy.

    Asprin will get rid of the pain or lessen it in most cases...but cure it?
    Let's see, I've take asprin for a headache in the past...that means I'm
    cured...I'll never have another headache as long as I live..great news,
    thanks! Curing a headache is to stop or eliminate or allow the body to heal
    the offending cause...the asprin will help to stop the pain while that
    happens..but a cure?

    I am aware of the the results obtained from Acutane (13 cis retinoic acid)
    and to someone suffering fron acne it is a welcome relief; however I have
    colleagues who have had similiar results from using high dose of
    non-synthetic Vit A and achieved the same results.Is it a cure, I don't
    know, I have other docs tell me it is and other docs tell me it just shuts
    down sebum production and shuts the patient up and let other docs deal with
    the side effects. This past week I was informed of the data base being set
    up for the reporting of Acutane problems..a precurser to it either being
    pulled from the market or relabled...of course one has to remember that I
    DON'T know as much as I think I do.

    Gleevec a cure, the FDA, NCI, and even Novartis call it a treatment...did I
    missed the word CURE somewhere...please find it for me. I have no problem
    admitting I'm wrong. Because when one does not know as much as they think
    they do they have to be humble to those that are almost always correct.

  12. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Dr.G said:


    "David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Dr.G said:


    "Robert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...
    >
    > "PeterB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    > news:[email hidden]...
    > >
    > > Robert wrote:
    > > > "PeterB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email hidden]...
    > > > >
    > > > > Mark Thorson wrote:
    > > > > > Quoting from:
    > > > > > http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/01/braswell.htm
    > > > >
    > > > > Too bad the FTC doesn't stop drug companies from doing the same
    > > > > (assuming this company is guilty of the allegations), but that


    would

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > > > > require the absence of conflict of interest on the part of
    > bureaucrats.
    > > > > For example, drug companies are not required to say that statins
    > > > > disrupt the availability of the nutrient ubiquone, which itself


    is

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > > > > required for normal heart function. The fact that statins are
    > > > > dangerous and interfere with normal cardiovascular health is not
    > > > > adequately addressed in pharma advertising and disclosure, yet


    FTC

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > > > > remains silent.
    > > > >
    > > > > PeterB
    > > > >
    > > > At least drug company products have to be tested for effectively


    and

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > safety
    > > > before they can be sold while supplements are not required to be


    safe

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    or
    > > > effective.
    > >
    > > Are you referring to 3-mo toxicologies that are the equivalent of a
    > > sieve? Are you referring to the same approval process that allows a
    > > drug like Vioxx to get to market while the data on its risks are kept
    > > hidden from public view for as long as possible? You're kidding,


    right?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > >
    > > > This Braswell crook was pardoned by Clinton when he left office.
    > > >
    > > > Robert
    > >
    > Contrast that with the thousands of approved drugs out there that are
    curing
    > diseases and making life easier for many people.
    .
    Aside from antibiotics name me a drug that cures a disease...treat a
    disease, yes, but cure?

    This question comes up fairly often, posed by people who don't know
    anywhere near as much as they think they do.

    One obvious example: aspirin cures headaches.

    Less well-known example: Accutane cures acne.

    Another less well-known example: Gleevec (anticancer drug).


    I just love the way some people start with a snide comment without knowing
    anything about the person they are making the comment about...very classy.

    Nothing aggressive or snide about implying that there are no drugs
    other than antibiotics that cure anything, I suppose?

    Quoted message said:

    Asprin will get rid of the pain or lessen it in most cases...but cure it?
    Let's see, I've take asprin for a headache in the past...that means I'm
    cured...I'll never have another headache as long as I live..great news,
    thanks! Curing a headache is to stop or eliminate or allow the body to heal
    the offending cause...the asprin will help to stop the pain while that
    happens..but a cure?

    Why not? Take aspirin, headache goes away. Don't take aspirin,
    headache does not go away (or nowhere near as fast).

    Your definition of "cure" above is stupid, since the same comment can
    be made about antibiotics -- you get a bacterial infection, take
    antibiotic, infection clears up. A year later, you get another
    infection. Guess the antibiotic wasn't a cure, didn't keep you
    infection-free for life. Sheesh. Guess antibiotics don't cure
    anything, "Dr G?"

    Quoted message said:

    I am aware of the the results obtained from Acutane (13 cis retinoic acid)
    and to someone suffering fron acne it is a welcome relief; however I have
    colleagues who have had similiar results from using high dose of
    non-synthetic Vit A and achieved the same results.

    Irrelevant.

    Quoted message said:

    Is it a cure, I don't know, I have other docs tell me it is and
    other docs tell me it just shuts down sebum production and shuts the
    patient up and let other docs deal with the side effects.

    I know quite a few people who've taken it, as have I, and it cleared
    up acne in all of us and the acne is still gone, well over a decade
    later. That meets my definition of "cure." Maybe it doesn't meet
    yours -- but if not, I don't care.

    Quoted message said:

    This past week I was informed of the data base being set up for the
    reporting of Acutane problems..a precurser to it either being pulled
    from the market or relabled...of course one has to remember that I
    DON'T know as much as I think I do.

    You can say that again. Whether or not it has side-effects, and it
    does, is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it cures acne,
    which it also does.

    Quoted message said:

    Gleevec a cure, the FDA, NCI, and even Novartis call it a
    treatment...did I missed the word CURE somewhere

    I think a 95% success rate should qualify. After all, antibiotics
    don't work 100% of the time either. I can see why the official
    sources would want to stay away from words like "cure" unless it was
    100%, but that doesn't mean it didn't work most of the time.

    Quoted message said:

    ..please find it for
    me. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong. Because when one does not
    know as much as they think they do they have to be humble to those
    that are almost always correct.

    Damn straight, but remember: you've admitted your problem, which is a
    first step towards finding a solution. Don't give up.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
    -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

  13. David Wright said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Dr.G said:


    "David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    Dr.G <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >
    >"Robert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    >news:[email hidden]...
    >>
    >> "PeterB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email hidden]...
    >> >
    >> > Robert wrote:
    >> > > "PeterB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    >> > > news:[email hidden]...
    >> > > >
    >> > > > Mark Thorson wrote:
    >> > > > > Quoting from:
    >> > > > > http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/01/braswell.htm
    >> > > >
    >> > > > Too bad the FTC doesn't stop drug companies from doing the same
    >> > > > (assuming this company is guilty of the allegations), but that


    would

    Quoted message said:

    >> > > > require the absence of conflict of interest on the part of
    >> bureaucrats.
    >> > > > For example, drug companies are not required to say that statins
    >> > > > disrupt the availability of the nutrient ubiquone, which itself


    is

    Quoted message said:

    >> > > > required for normal heart function. The fact that statins are
    >> > > > dangerous and interfere with normal cardiovascular health is not
    >> > > > adequately addressed in pharma advertising and disclosure, yet


    FTC

    Quoted message said:

    >> > > > remains silent.
    >> > > >
    >> > > > PeterB
    >> > > >
    >> > > At least drug company products have to be tested for effectively


    and

    Quoted message said:

    >> safety
    >> > > before they can be sold while supplements are not required to be


    safe

    Quoted message said:

    >or
    >> > > effective.
    >> >
    >> > Are you referring to 3-mo toxicologies that are the equivalent of a
    >> > sieve? Are you referring to the same approval process that allows a
    >> > drug like Vioxx to get to market while the data on its risks are kept
    >> > hidden from public view for as long as possible? You're kidding,


    right?

    Quoted message said:

    >> >
    >> > > This Braswell crook was pardoned by Clinton when he left office.
    >> > >
    >> > > Robert
    >> >
    >> Contrast that with the thousands of approved drugs out there that are
    >curing
    >> diseases and making life easier for many people.
    >.
    >Aside from antibiotics name me a drug that cures a disease...treat a
    >disease, yes, but cure?

    This question comes up fairly often, posed by people who don't know
    anywhere near as much as they think they do.

    One obvious example: aspirin cures headaches.

    Less well-known example: Accutane cures acne.

    Another less well-known example: Gleevec (anticancer drug).


    I just love the way some people start with a snide comment without knowing
    anything about the person they are making the comment about...very classy.

    Nothing aggressive or snide about implying that there are no drugs
    other than antibiotics that cure anything, I suppose?

    Quoted message said:

    Asprin will get rid of the pain or lessen it in most cases...but cure it?
    Let's see, I've take asprin for a headache in the past...that means I'm
    cured...I'll never have another headache as long as I live..great news,
    thanks! Curing a headache is to stop or eliminate or allow the body to heal
    the offending cause...the asprin will help to stop the pain while that
    happens..but a cure?

    Why not? Take aspirin, headache goes away. Don't take aspirin,
    headache does not go away (or nowhere near as fast).

    You are equating pain control with "cure." Aspirin can actually be
    fatal if someone's headache is the result of a hemorrage. Don't
    confuse managing symptom (effect) with eliminating disease (cause.)

    Quoted message said:

    Your definition of "cure" above is stupid, since the same comment can
    be made about antibiotics -- you get a bacterial infection, take
    antibiotic, infection clears up. A year later, you get another
    infection. Guess the antibiotic wasn't a cure, didn't keep you
    infection-free for life. Sheesh. Guess antibiotics don't cure
    anything, "Dr G?"

    Sure, antibiotics eliminate most bacterial infections, but the question
    is whether bacterial infection is systemic or incidental in a given
    patient. Do you understand the difference?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I am aware of the the results obtained from Acutane (13 cis retinoic acid)
    and to someone suffering fron acne it is a welcome relief; however I have
    colleagues who have had similiar results from using high dose of
    non-synthetic Vit A and achieved the same results.

    Irrelevant.

    Not really. It's always best to use natural forms of nutrients
    whenever possible. Would you prescribe Acutane to a pregnant woman? I
    hope not.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Is it a cure, I don't know, I have other docs tell me it is and
    other docs tell me it just shuts down sebum production and shuts the
    patient up and let other docs deal with the side effects.

    I know quite a few people who've taken it, as have I, and it cleared
    up acne in all of us and the acne is still gone, well over a decade
    later. That meets my definition of "cure." Maybe it doesn't meet
    yours -- but if not, I don't care.

    Quoted message said:

    This past week I was informed of the data base being set up for the
    reporting of Acutane problems..a precurser to it either being pulled
    from the market or relabled...of course one has to remember that I
    DON'T know as much as I think I do.

    You can say that again. Whether or not it has side-effects, and it
    does, is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it cures acne,
    which it also does.

    Quoted message said:

    Gleevec a cure, the FDA, NCI, and even Novartis call it a
    treatment...did I missed the word CURE somewhere

    I think a 95% success rate should qualify. After all, antibiotics
    don't work 100% of the time either. I can see why the official
    sources would want to stay away from words like "cure" unless it was
    100%, but that doesn't mean it didn't work most of the time.

    Quoted message said:

    ..please find it for
    me. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong. Because when one does not
    know as much as they think they do they have to be humble to those
    that are almost always correct.

    Damn straight, but remember: you've admitted your problem, which is a
    first step towards finding a solution. Don't give up.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
    -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

  14. In article <[email hidden]>,

    PeterB said:


    David Wright said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Dr.G said:


    "David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...
    > In article <[email hidden]>,
    > Dr.G <[email hidden]> wrote:
    > >
    > >"Robert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email hidden]...
    > >>
    > >> "PeterB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    > >> news:[email hidden]...
    > >> >
    > >> > Robert wrote:
    > >> > > "PeterB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    > >> > > news:[email hidden]...
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > Mark Thorson wrote:
    > >> > > > > Quoting from:
    > >> > > > > http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/01/braswell.htm
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > Too bad the FTC doesn't stop drug companies from doing the same
    > >> > > > (assuming this company is guilty of the allegations), but that
    would
    > >> > > > require the absence of conflict of interest on the part of
    > >> bureaucrats.
    > >> > > > For example, drug companies are not required to say that statins
    > >> > > > disrupt the availability of the nutrient ubiquone, which itself
    is
    > >> > > > required for normal heart function. The fact that statins are
    > >> > > > dangerous and interfere with normal cardiovascular health is not
    > >> > > > adequately addressed in pharma advertising and disclosure, yet
    FTC
    > >> > > > remains silent.
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > PeterB
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > At least drug company products have to be tested for effectively
    and
    > >> safety
    > >> > > before they can be sold while supplements are not required to be
    safe
    > >or
    > >> > > effective.
    > >> >
    > >> > Are you referring to 3-mo toxicologies that are the equivalent of a
    > >> > sieve? Are you referring to the same approval process that allows a
    > >> > drug like Vioxx to get to market while the data on its risks are kept
    > >> > hidden from public view for as long as possible? You're kidding,
    right?
    > >> >
    > >> > > This Braswell crook was pardoned by Clinton when he left office.
    > >> > >
    > >> > > Robert
    > >> >
    > >> Contrast that with the thousands of approved drugs out there that are
    > >curing
    > >> diseases and making life easier for many people.
    > >.
    > >Aside from antibiotics name me a drug that cures a disease...treat a
    > >disease, yes, but cure?
    >
    > This question comes up fairly often, posed by people who don't know
    > anywhere near as much as they think they do.
    >
    > One obvious example: aspirin cures headaches.
    >
    > Less well-known example: Accutane cures acne.
    >
    > Another less well-known example: Gleevec (anticancer drug).
    >
    I just love the way some people start with a snide comment without knowing
    anything about the person they are making the comment about...very classy.

    Nothing aggressive or snide about implying that there are no drugs
    other than antibiotics that cure anything, I suppose?

    Quoted message said:

    Asprin will get rid of the pain or lessen it in most cases...but cure it?
    Let's see, I've take asprin for a headache in the past...that means I'm
    cured...I'll never have another headache as long as I live..great news,
    thanks! Curing a headache is to stop or eliminate or allow the body to heal
    the offending cause...the asprin will help to stop the pain while that
    happens..but a cure?

    Why not? Take aspirin, headache goes away. Don't take aspirin,
    headache does not go away (or nowhere near as fast).

    You are equating pain control with "cure." Aspirin can actually be
    fatal if someone's headache is the result of a hemorrage. Don't
    confuse managing symptom (effect) with eliminating disease (cause.)

    Since I was obviously talking about tension headaches, it was
    pointless of you to mention stroke.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Your definition of "cure" above is stupid, since the same comment can
    be made about antibiotics -- you get a bacterial infection, take
    antibiotic, infection clears up. A year later, you get another
    infection. Guess the antibiotic wasn't a cure, didn't keep you
    infection-free for life. Sheesh. Guess antibiotics don't cure
    anything, "Dr G?"

    Sure, antibiotics eliminate most bacterial infections, but the question
    is whether bacterial infection is systemic or incidental in a given
    patient. Do you understand the difference?

    Certainly. But it's irrelevant to the point I was making, and the OP
    had already conceded that antibiotics can cure bacterial infections.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I am aware of the the results obtained from Acutane (13 cis retinoic acid)
    and to someone suffering fron acne it is a welcome relief; however I have
    colleagues who have had similiar results from using high dose of
    non-synthetic Vit A and achieved the same results.

    Irrelevant.

    Not really. It's always best to use natural forms of nutrients
    whenever possible. Would you prescribe Acutane to a pregnant woman? I
    hope not.

    I hope not also. But that's also irrelevant -- the question is not
    whether a better cure exists, the question is simply whether or not
    Accutane cures acne, which it does.

    The original question was simply about whether cures existed, not
    whether they were flawless, worked 100% of the time, and had no side
    effects. I trust you understand the difference.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
    -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.