Consumer Report lists dangerous supplements

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

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 22:41:11 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 10:54:19 GMT, GMCarter
<[email hidden]> posted:

>On 06 Apr 2004 13:52:39 GMT, [email hidden] wrote:
>
>>
>>nonsense, the label is the least of the problem.
>>Surveys show the

match

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>between many labels and actual content make them
>>worthless for any purpose.
>
>Make what worthless? Labels? Possibly. But despite
>many deaths from OTC products, they aren't removed
>from the market.

All products carry risks. OTC knows the risks.
Alternative have no idea what is even in the product.
Many here in Oz were totally bereft of the substances
claimed. Some had way more.

That is an over-statement. The USDA or FDA could charge
fraud if they bothered to look at the levels of
ingredients.

Our equivalent DID look and Oh what a mess. A large
manufacturer was closed down permanently. Pan
Pharmaceuticals.

Quoted message said:

They don't check and never will.

They will if the folks get into trouble and make a stir
just before an election, but coz your system is so prone
to lobbying, perhaps not.

Quoted message said:

The USFDA or it national equivalent are under the
influence of big pharm. The recent Medicare drug bill
passed by congress and signed by the old wrinkled fart in
the White House has perks more for the drug industry than
for the retired population. Poeple in the know describe
the drug industry "lobby" as the 1000 pound gorilla among
the many "lobbies". The morons at AARP went along with
this bill.

Yep, sad state of affairs. Would Ralph Nader be worth
voting for?

Both the Bush and Kerry come from upper class powerful
families so even a change will only go so far. Ralph Nader
doesn't have a snowball's chance in the summer outback.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>The area of least informed choice is safety and
>>effectivness.
>
>This can be said of MANY drugs. Indeed, I'd warrant
>there are more extant data on ephedra's safety and
>efficacy for specific conditions than many OTC
>products.

Compare like with like, please. Which brand of ephedra?

>>By law the sellers are exempt from reporting
>>dangerous side effects

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>can make any claim as to what it is alledged to do,
>>so long as they

say

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it

Quoted message said:

>>is just a food supplement. None of that adds up to
>>informed choice

coming

Quoted message said:

>>anywhere near to otc products. In labels, safety, and
>>effectifness

otc

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>producs must be up to standards; supplements are
>>nowhere near that in theory nor practice and informed
>>comsumer choice isn't even in the ballpark. It's
>>still "just believe me son, this here mircle in a

bottle

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>will do it all for you, just beleve me".
>
>This is a misinterpretation of DSHEA. There are STILL
>many regulatory means that can be utilized. Further,
>the LACK of ability to use supplements for medical
>indications is a serious deficiency that needs to be
>redressed. FDA needs to have a more rapid means for
>evaluating and approving such claims. E.g., the 40-plus-
>year lag between data and approval of the folic acid
>for neural tube defects prevention claim.

Folic acid is a food constituent (nutrient). Ephedra
is not.

True but you missed Carter's point on the perverse nature
of the FDA regulation due to it bad motives.

While not a big fan of ephedra, the poisoning were all
caused by people taking over-doses of the herbal drug.
Some of the fatalities were poeple committing suicide
with the herbal drug.

Yep always happens. An idiot in a hospital here left
the gene pool by sneaking a vial of insulin and a
syringe an then locking himself in the dunny and
thinking he would have a high. When they bashed the
door down he was brown bread.

I say don't idiot proof the world by putting all the rest of
us in the the straight jacket of regulation. Let the
"idiots" win the Darwin Award.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Should ANY industry be trusted in terms of what they
>say? SKEPTICISM should be the RULE!! But this is just
>as true of the bloated pharma industry that has
>significantly distorted clinical trials research and
>publishing with its overwhelming investment in
>universities, hospitals and researchers, causing a
>deterioration in credibility of many published
>results. Indeed, MOST OTC and drugs are used for
>things other than what they were approved. Risks are
>MUCH higher.

But the pharmacology is known, and the contents are
assayed. Herbals are not!

Not a all herbals are herbals. Some are just the
concentrated active ingredient and can be quite
standardized.

Can be, but they were all over the place when they
analysed them here. Some caps even in the same batch went
from zero to way over the stated active ingredient. Some
even had dangerous amounts of the drug that was being
packed previously on the same packing line.

Quoted message said:

The problem is their is no strong systematic funding
mechanism for research in the public domain
chemicals/drugs/vitamins/nutrients/ here (or downunder).

We have a very stong govt funded research system. And we
are not anywhere near influenced by lobbyists as you are.
Then just about everyone here votes (we have to attend the
poll by law) Makes a hell of a difference.

Quoted message said:

When "free enterprise" does it, they want a license to
over-charge for decades.

Quoted message said:

The system is corrupt all over the world............
............................................William
A. Noyes

Agree, but there are some systems not as corrup as others.
Makes for inefficiencies all those checks and balances,
but it's the best system we have. Mixed economy with
strong govt regulation.

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

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:25:24 GMT, GMCarter
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Moosh:) said:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 10:54:19 GMT, GMCarter
<[email hidden]> posted:

>On 06 Apr 2004 13:52:39 GMT, [email hidden] wrote:
>
>>
>>nonsense, the label is the least of the problem.
>>Surveys show the

match

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>between many labels and actual content make them
>>worthless for any purpose.
>
>Make what worthless? Labels? Possibly. But despite many
>deaths from OTC products, they aren't removed from the
>market.

All products carry risks. OTC knows the risks.
Alternative have no idea what is even in the product.
Many here in Oz were totally bereft of the substances
claimed. Some had way more.

"Alternative" have no idea of what?

What's in the product, like I said. A recent check here
showed just this.

As I said you can find out about companies to an extent if
you are willing to pay a small fee.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now here you are conflating issues.

1) Identity, potency and purity of ANY product should be
assured.

And with the herbals manufactured and available here and
overseas there most certainly weren't.

You are focusing on herbals which is overly narrow. There is
a whole field of supplements that are not vitamins and are
not herbals here in the States.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is just normal marketing common sense.

So why don't herbals do it?

The race to the bottom. No one looking. Well there a
commerical tester you can subscibe to for supplement
testing results.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Selling anything LESS (or more in the case of extra
cockroach eyelashes, etc.) is FRAUD.

And it happens every minute of every day of every year all
around the world.

Quoted message said:

Now, there should be governmental regulaltory means to
oversee this,

There is in Australia. Apparently not much in USA.

Maybe I'd not trust your gov't either. Our FDA all paints
itself a pure of motive. Which is pure BS.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

just as there is (ostensibly) for meat, food, OTC
products, drugs, etc. (As far as I know, DSHEA does not
preclude this here in the US; I do not know the situation
with Australian law).

From what folks say here, smn, it is very different.

Quoted message said:

2) Labels are ALWAYS being changed/updated. And if a
SERIOUS risk is involved, it is very simple to add a
line like DO NOT EXCEED RECOMMENDED DOSE. May result
in [side effects list].

But when a single batch of altie herbals can contain from
zero to way over the claimed amount of active ingredient
(as shown by govt assay) what is the point?

Quoted message said:

I think MOST supplement users are aware of risks.

Apparently not. I hope they are not relying on the label.

I use supplements. And have experimented with a few herbals.
What would you call diindoly methane and dimethyl sulfone?
They are neither vitamins or herbs but they are effective.
The orthodox farts whine about the latter and would give one
a blank stare on the former. I buy the pure powder and
measure out my own dose.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Data show that most are relatively well-educated and a
bit better off.

In what country? Depends what they are comparing with.

Quoted message said:

So we need to assure that if use widens into other
demographics (as it is and should where benefit exists),
labels are clear.

This is superior to simply removing products from the
market which is just boneheaded stupidity. Espeically
when drugs like nicotine and alcohol remain available!

Even though the downsides are very well known.

You are making his case. Lets us make our choices. We
don't want some ignorant fossil-think bureaucrat telling
us what to do.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>The area of least informed choice is safety and
>>effectivness.
>
>This can be said of MANY drugs. Indeed, I'd warrant
>there are more extant data on ephedra's safety and
>efficacy for specific conditions than many OTC
>products.

Compare like with like, please. Which brand of ephedra?

I'm speaking of the literature regarding ephedra's use.
See, e.g., Huang's Pharmacology of Chinese Herbs, CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL:1999.

No thanks 🙂

Quoted message said:

How much ephedrine is in the product?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>By law the sellers are exempt from reporting dangerous
>>side effects

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>can make any claim as to what it is alledged to do, so
>>long as they

say it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>is just a food supplement. None of that adds up to
>>informed choice

coming

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>anywhere near to otc products. In labels, safety, and
>>effectifness

otc

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>producs must be up to standards; supplements are
>>nowhere near that in theory nor practice and informed
>>comsumer choice isn't even in the ballpark. It's still
>>"just believe me son, this here mircle in a

bottle

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>will do it all for you, just beleve me".
>
>This is a misinterpretation of DSHEA. There are STILL
>many regulatory means that can be utilized. Further,
>the LACK of ability to use supplements for medical
>indications is a serious deficiency that needs to be
>redressed. FDA needs to have a more rapid means for
>evaluating and approving such claims. E.g., the 40-plus-
>year lag between data and approval of the folic acid
>for neural tube defects prevention claim.

Folic acid is a food constituent (nutrient). Ephedra
is not.

True. So?

Folic acid comes with a varied wholefood diet.

But not in optimal doses for all. Do you get 700 mcg of
folic acid which by the would equal something like 1
milligram of folate? If you don't ....your mutation rate
will be higher.

Quoted message said:

Forget ephedra, unless you have a disease state.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Should ANY industry be trusted in terms of what they
>say? SKEPTICISM should be the RULE!! But this is just
>as true of the bloated pharma industry that has
>significantly distorted clinical trials research and
>publishing with its overwhelming investment in
>universities, hospitals and researchers, causing a
>deterioration in credibility of many published results.
>Indeed, MOST OTC and drugs are used for things other
>than what they were approved. Risks are MUCH higher.

But the pharmacology is known, and the contents are
assayed. Herbals are not!

This is not true. It depends on the botanical medicine in
terms of whether there is a constituent(s) to which the
botanical is standardized. Milk thistle, for example, is
standardized to silymarin, a collection of
flavanolignans. Ephedra, (Ephedra sinica a/k/a ma huang)
is standardized to standard alkaloids such as l-ephedrine
or d-pseudoephedrine. It is used as an antiasthmatic in
the Chinese medical tradition -- and curiously, this
active constituent is still widely available in drug
products. It also has been used to induce perspiration
and as an antiallergy agent.

It is variable from zero to excess in recent Australian
checks on what is available here.

Quoted message said:

As to the HONESTY of supplement manufacturers--some are
pretty good. See www.consumerlabs.com for examples.
Others suck. We DO need consumer protection against the
fraudulent companies, I agree!

Yep, and our recent surveys show we are being conned to
the max.

Quoted message said:

But WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT PEANUTS! OR SHELLFISH!! OH MY
GOD!!! Where's the HPLC assay on peanuts? PEOPLE HAVE
DIED EATING PEANUTS!!

And putting on their sox, according to UK statistics.

Quoted message said:

Yet you BLITHELY permit the continued sale of PEANUTS!!
NO WARNING LABELS!!! DEAR GOD!!! Won't somebody think
about the CHILDREN!!!

What children? The warning about foods that don't normally
contain peanuts is zealous here. Not in US?

Quoted message said:

Sorry. I couldn't resist....

Feel free, George, I love lack of resistance 🙂

carter:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1) Identity, potency and purity of ANY product should be
assured.

Moosh:) said:

And with the herbals manufactured and available here and
overseas there most certainly weren't.

How do you mean? In terms of government oversight or a
regulatory authority? No, there wasn't, despite our consumer
demands for such. Sadly, the debate seems to be reduced to
"FDA vs. Industry." However, there is a 3rd voice,
consumers. As usual, we are ignored.

However, this is NOT to say that all supplement companies
are dishonest or producing bad products. There have been
private reviews of ID, potency/purity that show many
companies conform to specifications provided on the label.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is just normal marketing common sense.

So why don't herbals do it?

What?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Selling anything LESS (or more in the case of extra
cockroach eyelashes, etc.) is FRAUD.

And it happens every minute of every day of every year all
around the world.

Indeed. It happens with drugs, cash, sneakers....human
growth hormone and erythropoietin frauds have hit the
market.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now, there should be governmental regulaltory means to
oversee this,

There is in Australia. Apparently not much in USA.

Glad to hear it!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

just as there is (ostensibly) for meat, food, OTC
products, drugs, etc. (As far as I know, DSHEA does not
preclude this here in the US; I do not know the situation
with Australian law).

From what folks say here, smn, it is very different.

Then I would like them to point to the portions of the law
that underscore their points. See, e.g.,
vm.cfsan.fda.govdietsupp.htmlOpen ↗ vm.cfsan.fda.govdsOpen ↗
stra2.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2) Labels are ALWAYS being changed/updated. And if a
SERIOUS risk is involved, it is very simple to add a
line like DO NOT EXCEED RECOMMENDED DOSE. May result in
[side effects list].

But when a single batch of altie herbals can contain from
zero to way over the claimed amount of active ingredient
(as shown by govt assay) what is the point?

What are you talking about? This is a vague statement. It
depends a great deal on the botanical in question.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think MOST supplement users are aware of risks.

Apparently not. I hope they are not relying on the label.

Yes, we are relying on the label as well as the
reputation of the company as well as information provided
by groups like www.consumerlabs.com. So far, I feel
fairly confident that I'm getting what I need. Would I
like more assurance? Sure.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Data show that most are relatively well-educated and a bit
better off.

In what country? Depends what they are comparing with.

Excellent question. Here I meant the United States. Other
countries, like India or Thailand, rely on traditional
systems of medicine. Here, it is not alternative medicine.
So indeed, it is variable between and even within countries.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So we need to assure that if use widens into other
demographics (as it is and should where benefit exists),
labels are clear.

This is superior to simply removing products from the
market which is just boneheaded stupidity. Espeically when
drugs like nicotine and alcohol remain available!

Even though the downsides are very well known.

Agreed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>The area of least informed choice is safety and
>>effectivness.
>
>This can be said of MANY drugs. Indeed, I'd warrant
>there are more extant data on ephedra's safety and
>efficacy for specific conditions than many OTC products.

Compare like with like, please. Which brand of ephedra?

I'm speaking of the literature regarding ephedra's use.
See, e.g., Huang's Pharmacology of Chinese Herbs, CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL:1999.

No thanks 🙂

Why not?

Quoted message said:

How much ephedrine is in the product?

What product?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>By law the sellers are exempt from reporting dangerous
>>side effects and can make any claim as to what it is
>>alledged to do, so long as they say it is just a food
>>supplement. None of that adds up to informed choice
>>coming anywhere near to otc products. In labels,
>>safety, and effectifness otc producs must be up to
>>standards; supplements are nowhere near that in theory
>>nor practice and informed comsumer choice isn't even in
>>the ballpark. It's still "just believe me son, this
>>here mircle in a bottle will do it all for you, just
>>beleve me".
>
>This is a misinterpretation of DSHEA. There are STILL
>many regulatory means that can be utilized. Further, the
>LACK of ability to use supplements for medical
>indications is a serious deficiency that needs to be
>redressed. FDA needs to have a more rapid means for
>evaluating and approving such claims. E.g., the 40-plus-
>year lag between data and approval of the folic acid for
>neural tube defects prevention claim.

Folic acid is a food constituent (nutrient). Ephedra
is not.

True. So?

Folic acid comes with a varied wholefood diet. Forget
ephedra, unless you have a disease state.

Some people may not get adequate folic acid from the diet.
Extra in pregnancy, for example, as a supplement is
effective in preventing neural tube defects.

Ephedra should probably be reserved for people with
breathing trouble. This raises a serious limitation to the
current regulatory situation in the U.S.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Should ANY industry be trusted in terms of what they
>say? SKEPTICISM should be the RULE!! But this is just as
>true of the bloated pharma industry that has
>significantly distorted clinical trials research and
>publishing with its overwhelming investment in
>universities, hospitals and researchers, causing a
>deterioration in credibility of many published results.
>Indeed, MOST OTC and drugs are used for things other
>than what they were approved. Risks are MUCH higher.

But the pharmacology is known, and the contents are
assayed. Herbals are not!

This is not true. It depends on the botanical medicine in
terms of whether there is a constituent(s) to which the
botanical is standardized. Milk thistle, for example, is
standardized to silymarin, a collection of flavanolignans.
Ephedra, (Ephedra sinica a/k/a ma huang) is standardized
to standard alkaloids such as l-ephedrine or d-
pseudoephedrine. It is used as an antiasthmatic in the
Chinese medical tradition -- and curiously, this active
constituent is still widely available in drug products. It
also has been used to induce perspiration and as an
antiallergy agent.

It is variable from zero to excess in recent Australian
checks on what is available here.

I'm sure it is. But again, this is so vague as to be
meaningless. It does not mean all botanical interventions
are fraudlently sold, nor does it mean that they are all
bad. This is simply a knee-jerk fallback position that seems
to indicate a position of bigotry that is every bit as
heinous as a company that knowingly sells faulty goods.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As to the HONESTY of supplement manufacturers--some are
pretty good. See www.consumerlabs.com for examples. Others
suck. We DO need consumer protection against the
fraudulent companies, I agree!

Yep, and our recent surveys show we are being conned
to the max.

Again, you raise an uncited survey. Sounds to me like you're
not being very critical?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT PEANUTS! OR SHELLFISH!! OH MY
GOD!!! Where's the HPLC assay on peanuts? PEOPLE HAVE DIED
EATING PEANUTS!!

And putting on their sox, according to UK statistics.

Quoted message said:

Yet you BLITHELY permit the continued sale of PEANUTS!! NO
WARNING LABELS!!! DEAR GOD!!! Won't somebody think about
the CHILDREN!!!

What children? The warning about foods that don't normally
contain peanuts is zealous here. Not in US?

Quoted message said:

Sorry. I couldn't resist....

Feel free, George, I love lack of resistance 🙂

You're a superconductor?

George M. Carter

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:37:40 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yep, sad state of affairs. Would Ralph Nader be worth
voting for?

Both the Bush and Kerry come from upper class powerful
families so even a change will only go so far.

Isn't Kerry richer than Bush? I suppose it's hard to
measure.

Quoted message said:

Ralph Nader doesn't have a snowball's chance in the
summer outback.

I guessed as much, but was asking about his policies. We
don't see too much about him here on the news.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yep always happens. An idiot in a hospital here left
the gene pool by sneaking a vial of insulin and a
syringe an then locking himself in the dunny and
thinking he would have a high. When they bashed the
door down he was brown bread.

I say don't idiot proof the world by putting all the rest
of us in the the straight jacket of regulation. Let the
"idiots" win the Darwin Award.

Trouble is we then have to look after his dependents, being
a caring community.

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:59:25 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Alternative" have no idea of what?

What's in the product, like I said. A recent check here
showed just this.

As I said you can find out about companies to an extent if
you are willing to pay a small fee.

You can find out who's behind them here, but not much about
the quality of their products. I suppose a check with
consumers affairs or pharmacetical licencing departments. I
believe they cover all the alternative "medications" here
without differentiating herbals or whatever. They have been
advertising some problems of Chinese medicines recently.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now here you are conflating issues.

1) Identity, potency and purity of ANY product should be
assured.

And with the herbals manufactured and available here and
overseas there most certainly weren't.

You are focusing on herbals which is overly narrow. There
is a whole field of supplements that are not vitamins and
are not herbals here in the States.

I don't think there is much of a differentiation here
legislatively. I believe all "stuff in a pill bottle" is
open to scrutiny.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is just normal marketing common sense.

So why don't herbals do it?

The race to the bottom. No one looking. Well there a
commerical tester you can subscibe to for supplement
testing results.

Sure, but it would be nice to know the exact composition and
the pharmacology of it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Selling anything LESS (or more in the case of extra
cockroach eyelashes, etc.) is FRAUD.

And it happens every minute of every day of every year
all around the world.

Quoted message said:

Now, there should be governmental regulaltory means to
oversee this,

There is in Australia. Apparently not much in USA.

Maybe I'd not trust your gov't either. Our FDA all paints
itself a pure of motive. Which is pure BS.

Ahh wel, I tend to not agree with you from what I know of
your FDA, but our bureaucrats are not subject to the
lobbying pressure that you guys have suffered. I trust my
regulators fairly well -- ever vigilant though.

Quoted message said:

I use supplements. And have experimented with a few
herbals.

What exactly is the differentiation? Refining? Synthesis?

Quoted message said:

What would you call diindoly methane and dimethyl sulfone?
They are neither vitamins or herbs but they are effective.
The orthodox farts whine about the latter and would give
one a blank stare on the former. I buy the pure powder and
measure out my own dose.

And the scientific evidence for what is claim?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is superior to simply removing products from the
market which is just boneheaded stupidity. Espeically
when drugs like nicotine and alcohol remain available!

Even though the downsides are very well known.

You are making his case.

About alcohol and tobacco?

Quoted message said:

Lets us make our choices. We don't want some ignorant fossil-
think bureaucrat telling us what to do.

And they don't in my country. We have all public health
based on scientific evidence. I truly believe you do to,
although if you have convincing evidence otherwise, I will
be happy to be convinced.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Folic acid is a food constituent (nutrient). Ephedra
>is not.

True. So?

Folic acid comes with a varied wholefood diet.

But not in optimal doses for all. Do you get 700 mcg of
folic acid which by the would equal something like 1
milligram of folate? If you don't ....your mutation rate
will be higher.

Than what? I don't believe a case has been made for the need
of more folate than is achieved in a varied wholefood diet.
Are there animals that make their own folate? Man doesn't
make his coz he gets enough in just about any diet available
to him, otherwise he would have evolved to make his own, or
died out trying.

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

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:37:40 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yep, sad state of affairs. Would Ralph Nader be worth
voting for?

Both the Bush and Kerry come from upper class powerful
families so even a change will only go so far.

Isn't Kerry richer than Bush? I suppose it's hard to
measure.

Kerry maybe richer as an individual but there is more than
one Bush out there. There is George Senior and Governor Jeb
Bush to start with. George Senior's father was also rich and
powerful and is said to have considered running for
President.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ralph Nader doesn't have a snowball's chance in the
summer outback.

I guessed as much, but was asking about his policies. We
don't see too much about him here on the news.

Nor do we. Fox, CBS, ABC, and NBC are totally corporate. PBS
is somewhat better and Public Radio actually has some
opinions. of the left. Commercial AM radio is dominanted by
Rightist talk shows.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yep always happens. An idiot in a hospital here left
the gene pool by sneaking a vial of insulin and a
syringe an then locking himself in the dunny and
thinking he would have a high. When they bashed the
door down he was brown bread.

I say don't idiot proof the world by putting all the rest
of us in the the straight jacket of regulation. Let the
"idiots" win the Darwin Award.

Trouble is we then have to look after his dependents,
being a caring community.

Actually most the concern about supplements is
unwarrented. Especially given the other [censored] that on the
market such as NSAIDs, acetaminophen, old style
antihistamines, new antihistamines, and cortisone creams.
People used excessive doses and combined use of NSAIDs and
acetaminophen is hard liver and kidneys. Alcohol and the
aforementioned are bad on the kidneys. Yet you don't hear
health concerns by the numb nuts press and corporate owned
media regarding those products.

Sure some herbs have risks but supplements take in alot
more than just vitamins, minerals, and herbs here in the
States. An some of the prohormones have some risk though if
used careful are safe and even healthful. And there are a
range of chemicals of standard potency than have numerous
heathful uses.

Yet the FDA strained and squirmed and stalled when it came
to adding a little folic acid to the white flour. And then
the orthodox complained in was too much. Now it recognized
by some researchers that some more would be better at least
for some. Now the FDA pats itself on the back for a good
job.........pleeze spare me.

For some depending on "god given" genetics and metabolism is
an unwise move. For some large doses of folic acid are now
seen as needed. Recall the Lancet paper, I pointed out to
some months ago.

I don't need some petty corrupt ignorant backward bureaucrat
telling me what to do. It is none of his damned business
whether I take 0.4 mgs of folic acid or 4.0 milligrams. It
takes a minamum of 700 mcgs of folic acid to optimize
genomic stability and not 200 or 400 mcg that the government
boys and ignorant nutritionist blab about. In certain
subsets of the population even more than 700 mcgs would be
needed to maintain best possible genomic stability.

Your "protective regulations" are more likely to injury and
speed death as help. That is the bottomline.

David Byrne is a [censored]..............William A. Noyes

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

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:59:25 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>"Alternative" have no idea of what?

What's in the product, like I said. A recent check here
showed just this.

As I said you can find out about companies to an extent
if you are willing to pay a small fee.

You can find out who's behind them here, but not much
about the quality of their products.

Wrong. It is assay information from samples.

Quoted message said:

I suppose a check with consumers affairs or pharmacetical
licencing departments. I believe they cover all the
alternative "medications" here without differentiating
herbals or whatever. They have been advertising some
problems of Chinese medicines recently.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Now here you are conflating issues.
>
>1) Identity, potency and purity of ANY product should
> be assured.

And with the herbals manufactured and available here
and overseas there most certainly weren't.

You are focusing on herbals which is overly narrow. There
is a whole field of supplements that are not vitamins and
are not herbals here in the States.

I don't think there is much of a differentiation here
legislatively. I believe all "stuff in a pill bottle" is
open to scrutiny.

That not what I meant but fine........no matter.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>This is just normal marketing common sense.

So why don't herbals do it?

The race to the bottom. No one looking. Well there a
commerical tester you can subscibe to for supplement
testing results.

Sure, but it would be nice to know the exact composition
and the pharmacology of it.

Standardization is good.

The latter knowledge of the latter is extremely expensive
and has no funding mechanism.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Selling anything LESS (or more in the case of extra
>cockroach eyelashes, etc.) is FRAUD.

And it happens every minute of every day of every year
all around the world.

>Now, there should be governmental regulaltory means to
>oversee this,

There is in Australia. Apparently not much in USA.

Maybe I'd not trust your gov't either. Our FDA all paints
itself a pure of motive. Which is pure BS.

Ahh wel, I tend to not agree with you from what I know of
your FDA, but our bureaucrats are not subject to the
lobbying pressure that you guys have suffered. I trust my
regulators fairly well -- ever vigilant though.

I am willing to bet your boys work in the government for
awhile and then go to work the the industry they regulated.
Trust people to "suck up" to the drug industry as that were
the dollars are.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I use supplements. And have experimented with a few
herbals.

What exactly is the differentiation? Refining? Synthesis?

I'd think so.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What would you call diindoly methane and dimethyl
sulfone? They are neither vitamins or herbs but they are
effective. The orthodox farts whine about the latter and
would give one a blank stare on the former. I buy the
pure powder and measure out my own dose.

And the scientific evidence for what is claim?

Sure sometimes depending on your chemical. Sitll 'science"
like you use can be just a bogus excuse to ignore old
fashion personal experience of others. The published work on
dimethyl sulfone is weak but the beneficial effects..

Since I doubt you can even access these chemicals, why
should I explain them:-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>This is superior to simply removing products from the
>market which is just boneheaded stupidity. Espeically
>when drugs like nicotine and alcohol remain available!

Even though the downsides are very well known.

You are making his case.

About alcohol and tobacco?

duh. Hypocrisy of regulations and regulators.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lets us make our choices. We don't want some ignorant fossil-
think bureaucrat telling us what to do.

And they don't in my country. We have all public health
based on scientific evidence. I truly believe you do to,
although if you have convincing evidence otherwise, I will
be happy to be convinced.

I wouldn't trust your judgement. Your opinion looks more
like nationalism and pious trust to me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Folic acid is a food constituent (nutrient). Ephedra
>>is not.
>
>True. So?

Folic acid comes with a varied wholefood diet.

But not in optimal doses for all. Do you get 700 mcg of
folic acid which by the would equal something like 1
milligram of folate? If you don't ....your mutation rate
will be higher.

Than what?

Than my mutation rate which is lower than yours. I've cited
a paper thats discusses the genomic stability as a criteria
for setting folic acid, folate and B-12 daily intake minimum
optimums. My mitochondrial mutation rate is also lower.

Quoted message said:

I don't believe a case has been made for the need of more
folate than is achieved in a varied wholefood diet. Are
there animals that make their own folate? Man doesn't make
his coz he gets enough in just about any diet available to
him, otherwise he would have evolved to make his own, or
died out trying.

What you believe, is wrong. I've written on this before.
I've cited recent research. This time the onus is on you to
bring recent evidence. Google my name and "folic" and
"Lancet" that should reveal my comments. Other search words
would NTD, NTDs, neural tube defects, folate, genomic, and
stability.

Tired of repeating himself..............William A. Noyes

Maybe I will repeat myself but not on this thread but
soon.. ......OK

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 02:26:56 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:59:25 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

> >"Alternative" have no idea of what?
>
> What's in the product, like I said. A recent check
> here showed just this.

As I said you can find out about companies to an extent
if you are willing to pay a small fee.

You can find out who's behind them here, but not much
about the quality of their products.

Wrong. It is assay information from samples.

What is? They obviously don't assay some products, and
don't have to put anything on the label. What are you
talking about?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The race to the bottom. No one looking. Well there a
commerical tester you can subscibe to for supplement
testing results.

Sure, but it would be nice to know the exact composition
and the pharmacology of it.

Standardization is good.

So why is the alternativees industry not doing it, and
rejecting legislation to do it?

Quoted message said:

The latter knowledge of the latter is extremely expensive
and has no funding mechanism.

What is wrong with consumers funding it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >Selling anything LESS (or more in the case of extra
> >cockroach eyelashes, etc.) is FRAUD.
>
> And it happens every minute of every day of every year
> all around the world.
>
> >Now, there should be governmental regulaltory means
> >to oversee this,
>
> There is in Australia. Apparently not much in USA.

Maybe I'd not trust your gov't either. Our FDA all
paints itself a pure of motive. Which is pure BS.

Ahh wel, I tend to not agree with you from what I know of
your FDA, but our bureaucrats are not subject to the
lobbying pressure that you guys have suffered. I trust my
regulators fairly well -- ever vigilant though.

I am willing to bet your boys work in the government for
awhile and then go to work the the industry they regulated.
Trust people to "suck up" to the drug industry as that were
the dollars are.

Yeah yeah, same song, same tune. Do you know any worker like
this? I've worked in several places like this where the
workers are most certainly not like you describe. I know one
guy who did his post doc in America, and his opinion was
that everyone was "on the take". So perhaps you are right in
your country.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I use supplements. And have experimented with a few
herbals.

What exactly is the differentiation? Refining? Synthesis?

I'd think so.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What would you call diindoly methane and dimethyl
sulfone? They are neither vitamins or herbs but they are
effective. The orthodox farts whine about the latter and
would give one a blank stare on the former. I buy the
pure powder and measure out my own dose.

And the scientific evidence for what is claim?

Sure sometimes depending on your chemical. Sitll 'science"
like you use can be just a bogus excuse to ignore old
fashion personal experience of others.

Do tell. What about peer review, and I don't mean that of
over-competitive medical journals, I mean the criticism that
a researcher will cop from his peers if he publishes
anything dodgey.

Quoted message said:

The published work on dimethyl sulfone is weak but the
beneficial effects..

How measured?

Quoted message said:

Since I doubt you can even access these chemicals, why
should I explain them:-)

That's a good cop out!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >This is superior to simply removing products from the
> >market which is just boneheaded stupidity. Espeically
> >when drugs like nicotine and alcohol remain
> >available!
>
> Even though the downsides are very well known.

You are making his case.

About alcohol and tobacco?

duh. Hypocrisy of regulations and regulators.

Is your brain addling, Noisey?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lets us make our choices. We don't want some ignorant
fossil-think bureaucrat telling us what to do.

And they don't in my country. We have all public health
based on scientific evidence. I truly believe you do to,
although if you have convincing evidence otherwise, I
will be happy to be convinced.

I wouldn't trust your judgement.

Who asked you to? Imagination running riot?

Quoted message said:

Your opinion looks more like nationalism and pious
trust to me.

Not at all. I abhore nationalism. I'm just being a realist.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>Folic acid is a food constituent (nutrient). Ephedra
> >>is not.
> >
> >True. So?
>
> Folic acid comes with a varied wholefood diet.

But not in optimal doses for all. Do you get 700 mcg of
folic acid which by the would equal something like 1
milligram of folate? If you don't ....your mutation rate
will be higher.

Than what?

Than my mutation rate which is lower than yours.

And you would know? How?

Quoted message said:

I've cited a paper thats discusses the genomic stability as
a criteria for setting folic acid, folate and B-12 daily
intake minimum optimums. My mitochondrial mutation rate is
also lower.

And your cited paper means what? In the scheme of things?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't believe a case has been made for the need of more
folate than is achieved in a varied wholefood diet. Are
there animals that make their own folate? Man doesn't
make his coz he gets enough in just about any diet
available to him, otherwise he would have evolved to make
his own, or died out trying.

What you believe, is wrong.

Because you say so? You against the medical experts of
the world?

Quoted message said:

I've written on this before. I've cited recent research.
This time the onus is on you to bring recent evidence.
Google my name and "folic" and "Lancet" that should reveal
my comments. Other search words would NTD, NTDs, neural
tube defects, folate, genomic, and stability.

Are you trying to say your comments were puclished in
the Lancet?

Quoted message said:

Tired of repeating himself..............William A. Noyes

Try something worthwhile then, you are as much value
here as Doe.

Quoted message said:

Maybe I will repeat myself but not on this thread but
soon..

It's a free-for-all here, Noisey. Do as you wish. Gohde and
Doe certainly do.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 01:41:37 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Trouble is we then have to look after his dependents,
being a caring community.

Actually most the concern about supplements is unwarrented.
Especially given the other [censored] that on the market such as
NSAIDs, acetaminophen, old style antihistamines, new
antihistamines, and cortisone creams. People used excessive
doses and combined use of NSAIDs and acetaminophen is hard
liver and kidneys. Alcohol and the aforementioned are bad
on the kidneys.

I think you mean liver, don't you?

Quoted message said:

Yet you don't hear health concerns by the numb nuts press
and corporate owned media regarding those products.

Yes you do, unless you don't get the label information that
we do. The drugs you mention may be overused, but at least
you know what's in the package.

Quoted message said:

Sure some herbs have risks but supplements take in alot
more than just vitamins, minerals, and herbs here in the
States. An some of the prohormones have some risk though if
used careful are safe and even healthful. And there are a
range of chemicals of standard potency than have numerous
heathful uses.

Most of them pretty vague and airy fairy.

Why not submit tests and guarantee potency and pharmacology?

I wonder why you are complaining about NSAIDS above?

Quoted message said:

Yet the FDA strained and squirmed and stalled when it came
to adding a little folic acid to the white flour.

Our equivalent certainly didn't here. It's added to
breakfast cereals among other things.

Quoted message said:

And then the orthodox complained in was too much.

Well maybe scientific evidence showed it was? I never saw
this so don't know their reasons.

Quoted message said:

Now it recognized by some researchers that some more would
be better at least for some. Now the FDA pats itself on the
back for a good job.........pleeze spare me.

That's your version, but then you seem to think that
acetaminophen and alcohol damage the kidneys. What would
your opinion on anything be worth?

Quoted message said:

For some depending on "god given" genetics and metabolism
is an unwise move.

What is? Are you claiming that all living things on the
planet are unhealthy?

Quoted message said:

For some large doses of folic acid are now seen as needed.
Recall the Lancet paper, I pointed out to some months ago.

And why can't these few visit their doctor?

Quoted message said:

I don't need some petty corrupt ignorant backward
bureaucrat telling me what to do.

And yet you (the American electorate) are responsible for
this "petty corrupt ignorant backward bureaucrat" being in
office? Go figure!

Quoted message said:

It is none of his damned business whether I take 0.4 mgs of
folic acid or 4.0 milligrams.

And he is stopping you? Have you signed a waiver to absolve
the rest of the community from supporting your dependents
when you poison yourself?

Quoted message said:

It takes a minamum of 700 mcgs of folic acid to optimize
genomic stability and not 200 or 400 mcg that the
government boys and ignorant nutritionist blab about.

And (ALL) the scientific evidence?

Quoted message said:

In certain subsets of the population even more than 700
mcgs would be needed to maintain best possible genomic
stability.

Cobblers.

Quoted message said:

Your "protective regulations" are more likely to injury and
speed death as help. That is the bottomline.

Howso?

Quoted message said:

David Byrne is a [censored]

Really? Disagreed with ya?

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

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 01:41:37 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Trouble is we then have to look after his dependents,
being a caring community.

Actually most the concern about supplements is
unwarrented. Especially given the other [censored] that on the
market such as NSAIDs, acetaminophen, old style
antihistamines, new antihistamines, and cortisone creams.
People used excessive doses and combined use of NSAIDs
and acetaminophen is hard liver and kidneys. Alcohol and
the aforementioned are bad on the kidneys.

I think you mean liver, don't you?

Both.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yet you don't hear health concerns by the numb nuts press
and corporate owned media regarding those products.

Yes you do, unless you don't get the label information
that we do. The drugs you mention may be overused, but at
least you know what's in the package.

People over-use and abuse.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sure some herbs have risks but supplements take in alot
more than just vitamins, minerals, and herbs here in the
States. An some of the prohormones have some risk though
if used careful are safe and even healthful. And there
are a range of chemicals of standard potency than have
numerous heathful uses.

Most of them pretty vague and airy fairy.

Why not submit tests and guarantee potency and
pharmacology?

I wonder why you are complaining about NSAIDS above?

Quoted message said:

Yet the FDA strained and squirmed and stalled when it
came to adding a little folic acid to the white flour.

Our equivalent certainly didn't here. It's added to
breakfast cereals among other things.

Quoted message said:

And then the orthodox complained in was too much.

Well maybe scientific evidence showed it was?

No.

Quoted message said:

I never saw this so don't know their reasons.

You never looked.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now it recognized by some researchers that some more
would be better at least for some. Now the FDA pats
itself on the back for a good job.........pleeze
spare me.

That's your version, but then you seem to think that
acetaminophen and alcohol damage the kidneys. What would
your opinion on anything be worth?

Acetaminophen and NSAIDs tends to damage the kidneys

Acetaminophen and ethanol damages the liver

Was I unclear?...........it not like I edit this stuff

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For some depending on "god given" genetics and metabolism
is an unwise move.

What is? Are you claiming that all living things on the
planet are unhealthy?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For some large doses of folic acid are now seen as
needed. Recall the Lancet paper, I pointed out to some
months ago.

And why can't these few visit their doctor?

That is silly. Are you afraid to read? Few Docs have the
time or the training to be current on nutrition and related
topics. You've never hear of the Lancet? Hmm........

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't need some petty corrupt ignorant backward
bureaucrat telling me what to do.

And yet you (the American electorate) are responsible for
this "petty corrupt ignorant backward bureaucrat" being in
office? Go figure!

The press is owned by the corporations......go figure as
you say. I doubt your government is a good as you seem
think it is.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is none of his damned business whether I take 0.4 mgs
of folic acid or 4.0 milligrams.

And he is stopping you? Have you signed a waiver to
absolve the rest of the community from supporting your
dependents when you poison yourself?

I'll out live your children. I am at no risk from the folic
acid. Rather just the opposite, my DNA is suffering fewer
mutations over time.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It takes a minamum of 700 mcgs of folic acid to optimize
genomic stability and not 200 or 400 mcg that the
government boys and ignorant nutritionist blab about.

And (ALL) the scientific evidence?

It is Australian research............

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In certain subsets of the population even more than 700
mcgs would be needed to maintain best possible genomic
stability.

Cobblers.

What? Oh a joke. Do some research.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your "protective regulations" are more likely to injury
and speed death as help. That is the bottomline.

Howso?

You are without a clue.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

David Byrne is a [censored]

Really? Disagreed with ya?

he he

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

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 02:26:56 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:59:25 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
<[email hidden]> posted:

>> >"Alternative" have no idea of what?
>>
>> What's in the product, like I said. A recent check
>> here showed just this.
>
>As I said you can find out about companies to an
>extent if you are willing to pay a small fee.

You can find out who's behind them here, but not much
about the quality of their products.

Wrong. It is assay information from samples.

What is? They obviously don't assay some products, and
don't have to put anything on the label. What are you
talking about?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>The race to the bottom. No one looking. Well there a
>commerical tester you can subscibe to for supplement
>testing results.

Sure, but it would be nice to know the exact
composition and the pharmacology of it.

Standardization is good.

So why is the alternativees industry not doing it, and
rejecting legislation to do it?

Quoted message said:

The latter knowledge of the latter is extremely expensive
and has no funding mechanism.

What is wrong with consumers funding it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >Selling anything LESS (or more in the case of extra
>> >cockroach eyelashes, etc.) is FRAUD.
>>
>> And it happens every minute of every day of every
>> year all around

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> world.
>>
>> >Now, there should be governmental regulaltory means
>> >to oversee this,
>>
>> There is in Australia. Apparently not much in USA.
>
>Maybe I'd not trust your gov't either. Our FDA all
>paints itself a pure of motive. Which is pure BS.

Ahh wel, I tend to not agree with you from what I know
of your FDA, but our bureaucrats are not subject to the
lobbying pressure that you guys have suffered. I trust
my regulators fairly well -- ever vigilant though.

I am willing to bet your boys work in the government for
awhile and then go to work the the industry they
regulated. Trust people to "suck up" to the drug industry
as that were the dollars are.

Yeah yeah, same song, same tune. Do you know any worker
like this? I've worked in several places like this where
the workers are most certainly not like you describe. I
know one guy who did his post doc in America, and his
opinion was that everyone was "on the take". So perhaps
you are right in your country.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I use supplements. And have experimented with a few
>herbals.

What exactly is the differentiation? Refining?
Synthesis?

I'd think so.

Quoted message said:

>What would you call diindoly methane and dimethyl
>sulfone? They are neither vitamins or herbs but they
>are effective. The orthodox farts whine about the
>latter and would give one a blank stare on the former.
>I buy the pure powder and measure out my own dose.

And the scientific evidence for what is claim?

Sure sometimes depending on your chemical. Sitll
'science" like you use can be just a bogus excuse to
ignore old fashion personal experience of others.

Do tell. What about peer review, and I don't mean that of
over-competitive medical journals, I mean the criticism
that a researcher will cop from his peers if he publishes
anything dodgey.

Quoted message said:

The published work on dimethyl sulfone is weak but the
beneficial effects..

How measured?

Quoted message said:

Since I doubt you can even access these chemicals, why
should I explain them:-)

That's a good cop out!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >This is superior to simply removing products from
>> >the market which

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >just boneheaded stupidity. Espeically when drugs
>> >like nicotine and alcohol remain available!
>>
>> Even though the downsides are very well known.
>
>You are making his case.

About alcohol and tobacco?

duh. Hypocrisy of regulations and regulators.

Is your brain addling, Noisey?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Lets us make our choices. We don't want some ignorant
>fossil-think bureaucrat telling us what to do.

And they don't in my country. We have all public health
based on scientific evidence. I truly believe you do
to, although if you have convincing evidence otherwise,
I will be happy to be convinced.

I wouldn't trust your judgement.

Who asked you to? Imagination running riot?

I just disagree. Everyone will make the claim of science
based medicine.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your opinion looks more like nationalism and pious
trust to me.

Not at all. I abhore nationalism. I'm just being a
realist.

I hope you are right about Australia.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >>Folic acid is a food constituent (nutrient).
>> >>Ephedra is not.
>> >
>> >True. So?
>>
>> Folic acid comes with a varied wholefood diet.
>
>But not in optimal doses for all. Do you get 700 mcg
>of folic acid which by the would equal something like
>1 milligram of folate? If you don't ....your mutation
>rate will be higher.

Than what?

Than my mutation rate which is lower than yours.

And you would know? How?

Quoted message said:

I've cited a paper thats discusses the genomic stability
as a criteria for setting folic acid, folate and B-12
daily intake minimum optimums. My mitochondrial mutation
rate is also lower.

And your cited paper means what? In the scheme of things?

Millions even thousand of millions of dollars (billions in
USA english) and more years of life. IMHO

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't believe a case has been made for the need of
more folate than is achieved in a varied wholefood
diet. Are there animals that make their own folate? Man
doesn't make his coz he gets enough in just about any
diet available to him, otherwise he would have evolved
to make his own, or died out trying.

What you believe, is wrong.

Because you say so? You against the medical experts of
the world?

There are experts and there are experts. A GP is not an
expert in nutrition but he is good for a sinus infection or
a broken finger. Some of the "experts" are on my side or
more precisely I am on their side.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've written on this before. I've cited recent research.
This time the onus is on you to bring recent evidence.
Google my name and "folic" and "Lancet" that should
reveal my comments. Other search words would NTD, NTDs,
neural tube defects, folate, genomic, and stability.

Are you trying to say your comments were puclished in
the Lancet?

No. But the paper I refer to has already been published in
the Lancet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tired of repeating himself..............William A. Noyes

Try something worthwhile then, you are as much value
here as Doe.

You are of less value as Doe at least he posts some
interesting abstracts even if for the wrong reasons. You
could be a better opponent, if you did you're research;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe I will repeat myself but not on this thread
but soon..

It's a free-for-all here, Noisey. Do as you wish. Gohde
and Doe certainly do.

As you do.

I think I'll go watch West Wing...........William A. Noyes

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

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 02:26:56 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:59:25 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
<[email hidden]> posted:

>> >"Alternative" have no idea of what?
>>
>> What's in the product, like I said. A recent check
>> here showed just this.
>
>As I said you can find out about companies to an
>extent if you are willing to pay a small fee.

You can find out who's behind them here, but not much
about the quality of their products.

Wrong. It is assay information from samples.

What is? They obviously don't assay some products, and
don't have to put anything on the label. What are you
talking about?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>The race to the bottom. No one looking. Well there a
>commerical tester you can subscibe to for supplement
>testing results.

Sure, but it would be nice to know the exact
composition and the pharmacology of it.

Standardization is good.

So why is the alternativees industry not doing it, and
rejecting legislation to do it?

Quoted message said:

The latter knowledge of the latter is extremely expensive
and has no funding mechanism.

What is wrong with consumers funding it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >Selling anything LESS (or more in the case of extra
>> >cockroach eyelashes, etc.) is FRAUD.
>>
>> And it happens every minute of every day of every
>> year all around

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> world.
>>
>> >Now, there should be governmental regulaltory means
>> >to oversee this,
>>
>> There is in Australia. Apparently not much in USA.
>
>Maybe I'd not trust your gov't either. Our FDA all
>paints itself a pure of motive. Which is pure BS.

Ahh wel, I tend to not agree with you from what I know
of your FDA, but our bureaucrats are not subject to the
lobbying pressure that you guys have suffered. I trust
my regulators fairly well -- ever vigilant though.

I am willing to bet your boys work in the government for
awhile and then go to work the the industry they
regulated. Trust people to "suck up" to the drug industry
as that were the dollars are.

Yeah yeah, same song, same tune. Do you know any worker
like this? I've worked in several places like this where
the workers are most certainly not like you describe. I
know one guy who did his post doc in America, and his
opinion was that everyone was "on the take". So perhaps
you are right in your country.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I use supplements. And have experimented with a few
>herbals.

What exactly is the differentiation? Refining?
Synthesis?

I'd think so.

Quoted message said:

>What would you call diindoly methane and dimethyl
>sulfone? They are neither vitamins or herbs but they
>are effective. The orthodox farts whine about the
>latter and would give one a blank stare on the former.
>I buy the pure powder and measure out my own dose.

And the scientific evidence for what is claim?

Sure sometimes depending on your chemical. Sitll
'science" like you use can be just a bogus excuse to
ignore old fashion personal experience of others.

Do tell. What about peer review, and I don't mean that of
over-competitive medical journals, I mean the criticism
that a researcher will cop from his peers if he publishes
anything dodgey.

Quoted message said:

The published work on dimethyl sulfone is weak but the
beneficial effects..

How measured?

Quoted message said:

Since I doubt you can even access these chemicals, why
should I explain them:-)

That's a good cop out!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >This is superior to simply removing products from
>> >the market which

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >just boneheaded stupidity. Espeically when drugs
>> >like nicotine and alcohol remain available!
>>
>> Even though the downsides are very well known.
>
>You are making his case.

About alcohol and tobacco?

duh. Hypocrisy of regulations and regulators.

Is your brain addling, Noisey?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Lets us make our choices. We don't want some ignorant
>fossil-think bureaucrat telling us what to do.

And they don't in my country. We have all public health
based on scientific evidence. I truly believe you do
to, although if you have convincing evidence otherwise,
I will be happy to be convinced.

I wouldn't trust your judgement.

Who asked you to? Imagination running riot?

I just disagree. Everyone will make the claim of science
based medicine.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your opinion looks more like nationalism and pious
trust to me.

Not at all. I abhore nationalism. I'm just being a
realist.

I hope you are right about Australia.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >>Folic acid is a food constituent (nutrient).
>> >>Ephedra is not.
>> >
>> >True. So?
>>
>> Folic acid comes with a varied wholefood diet.
>
>But not in optimal doses for all. Do you get 700 mcg
>of folic acid which by the would equal something like
>1 milligram of folate? If you don't ....your mutation
>rate will be higher.

Than what?

Than my mutation rate which is lower than yours.

And you would know? How?

Quoted message said:

I've cited a paper thats discusses the genomic stability
as a criteria for setting folic acid, folate and B-12
daily intake minimum optimums. My mitochondrial mutation
rate is also lower.

And your cited paper means what? In the scheme of things?

Millions even thousand of millions of dollars (billions in
USA english) and more years of life. IMHO

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't believe a case has been made for the need of
more folate than is achieved in a varied wholefood
diet. Are there animals that make their own folate? Man
doesn't make his coz he gets enough in just about any
diet available to him, otherwise he would have evolved
to make his own, or died out trying.

What you believe, is wrong.

Because you say so? You against the medical experts of
the world?

There are experts and there are experts. A GP is not an
expert in nutrition but he is good for a sinus infection or
a broken finger. Some of the "experts" are on my side or
more precisely I am on their side.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've written on this before. I've cited recent research.
This time the onus is on you to bring recent evidence.
Google my name and "folic" and "Lancet" that should
reveal my comments. Other search words would NTD, NTDs,
neural tube defects, folate, genomic, and stability.

Are you trying to say your comments were puclished in
the Lancet?

No. But the paper I refer to has already been published in
the Lancet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tired of repeating himself..............William A. Noyes

Try something worthwhile then, you are as much value
here as Doe.

You are of less value as Doe at least he posts some
interesting abstracts even if for the wrong reasons. You
could be a better opponent, if you did you're research;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe I will repeat myself but not on this thread
but soon..

It's a free-for-all here, Noisey. Do as you wish. Gohde
and Doe certainly do.

As you do.

I think I'll go watch West Wing...........William A. Noyes

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 11:39:30 GMT, GMCarter <[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

carter:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1) Identity, potency and purity of ANY product should be
assured.

Moosh:) said:

And with the herbals manufactured and available here and
overseas there most certainly weren't.

How do you mean? In terms of government oversight or a
regulatory authority? No, there wasn't, despite our
consumer demands for such. Sadly, the debate seems to be
reduced to "FDA vs. Industry." However, there is a 3rd
voice, consumers. As usual, we are ignored.

This always seems strange to me in a country claiming to be
democratic. Surely this shows that industry and bureaucracy
rule your land.

Quoted message said:

However, this is NOT to say that all supplement companies
are dishonest or producing bad products. There have been
private reviews of ID, potency/purity that show many
companies conform to specifications provided on the label.

OK, but many spot assays of available products showed
terrible conformation to label. There may be good
conformation somewhere, but how is Joe Public to know?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is just normal marketing common sense.

So why don't herbals do it?

What?

Label their products properly and honestly for a start.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Selling anything LESS (or more in the case of extra
cockroach eyelashes, etc.) is FRAUD.

And it happens every minute of every day of every year all
around the world.

Indeed. It happens with drugs, cash,
sneakers....human growth hormone and erythropoietin
frauds have hit the market.

Rarely with prescription proprietaries; commonly with other
things Caveat Emptor.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now, there should be governmental regulaltory means to
oversee this,

There is in Australia. Apparently not much in USA.

Glad to hear it!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

just as there is (ostensibly) for meat, food, OTC
products, drugs, etc. (As far as I know, DSHEA does not
preclude this here in the US; I do not know the situation
with Australian law).

From what folks say here, smn, it is very different.

Then I would like them to point to the portions of the law
that underscore their points. See, e.g.,
vm.cfsan.fda.govdietsupp.htmlOpen ↗ vm.cfsan.fda.govdsOpen ↗
stra2.html

So would I.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2) Labels are ALWAYS being changed/updated. And if a
SERIOUS risk is involved, it is very simple to add a
line like DO NOT EXCEED RECOMMENDED DOSE. May result
in [side effects list].

But when a single batch of altie herbals can contain from
zero to way over the claimed amount of active ingredient
(as shown by govt assay) what is the point?

What are you talking about? This is a vague statement. It
depends a great deal on the botanical in question.

It refers to an Australian govt regulator's survey of
alternative products recently.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think MOST supplement users are aware of risks.

Apparently not. I hope they are not relying on the label.

Yes, we are relying on the label as well as the
reputation of the company as well as information provided
by groups like www.consumerlabs.com. So far, I feel
fairly confident that I'm getting what I need. Would I
like more assurance? Sure.

Try Pan Pharmaceuticals. They were "reputable" until the
regulator looked carefully and put them out of busoiness.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Data show that most are relatively well-educated and a
bit better off.

In what country? Depends what they are comparing with.

Excellent question. Here I meant the United States. Other
countries, like India or Thailand, rely on traditional
systems of medicine. Here, it is not alternative medicine.
So indeed, it is variable between and even within
countries.

Well Australia is regarded as up there with the leaders, but
Pan Parmaceuticals certtainly showed a gaping hole.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So we need to assure that if use widens into other
demographics (as it is and should where benefit exists),
labels are clear.

This is superior to simply removing products from the
market which is just boneheaded stupidity. Espeically
when drugs like nicotine and alcohol remain available!

Even though the downsides are very well known.

Agreed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>The area of least informed choice is safety and
>>>effectivness.
>>
>>This can be said of MANY drugs. Indeed, I'd warrant
>>there are more extant data on ephedra's safety and
>>efficacy for specific conditions than many OTC
>>products.
>
>Compare like with like, please. Which brand of ephedra?

I'm speaking of the literature regarding ephedra's use.
See, e.g., Huang's Pharmacology of Chinese Herbs, CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL:1999.

No thanks 🙂

Why not?

Chinese medicine has little to offer science.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How much ephedrine is in the product?

What product?

The one under discussion. Any ephidrine alternative. The
ones being banned?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>By law the sellers are exempt from reporting dangerous
>>>side effects and can make any claim as to what it is
>>>alledged to do, so long as they say it is just a food
>>>supplement. None of that adds up to informed choice
>>>coming anywhere near to otc products. In labels,
>>>safety, and effectifness otc producs must be up to
>>>standards; supplements are nowhere near that in theory
>>>nor practice and informed comsumer choice isn't even
>>>in the ballpark. It's still "just believe me son, this
>>>here mircle in a bottle will do it all for you, just
>>>beleve me".
>>
>>This is a misinterpretation of DSHEA. There are STILL
>>many regulatory means that can be utilized. Further,
>>the LACK of ability to use supplements for medical
>>indications is a serious deficiency that needs to be
>>redressed. FDA needs to have a more rapid means for
>>evaluating and approving such claims. E.g., the 40-plus-
>>year lag between data and approval of the folic acid
>>for neural tube defects prevention claim.
>
>Folic acid is a food constituent (nutrient). Ephedra
>is not.

True. So?

Folic acid comes with a varied wholefood diet. Forget
ephedra, unless you have a disease state.

Some people may not get adequate folic acid from the diet.

Of course. Try a varied, wholefood diet.

Quoted message said:

Extra in pregnancy, for example, as a supplement is
effective in preventing neural tube defects.

Apparently. We have various foods supplemented here
including breakfast cereals.

Quoted message said:

Ephedra should probably be reserved for people with
breathing trouble. This raises a serious limitation to the
current regulatory situation in the U.S.

Why not resort to properly dispensed ephedrine, and not
variable ephedra plant extracts?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Should ANY industry be trusted in terms of what they
>>say? SKEPTICISM should be the RULE!! But this is just
>>as true of the bloated pharma industry that has
>>significantly distorted clinical trials research and
>>publishing with its overwhelming investment in
>>universities, hospitals and researchers, causing a
>>deterioration in credibility of many published results.
>>Indeed, MOST OTC and drugs are used for things other
>>than what they were approved. Risks are MUCH higher.
>
>But the pharmacology is known, and the contents are
>assayed. Herbals are not!

This is not true. It depends on the botanical medicine in
terms of whether there is a constituent(s) to which the
botanical is standardized. Milk thistle, for example, is
standardized to silymarin, a collection of
flavanolignans. Ephedra, (Ephedra sinica a/k/a ma huang)
is standardized to standard alkaloids such as l-ephedrine
or d-pseudoephedrine. It is used as an antiasthmatic in
the Chinese medical tradition -- and curiously, this
active constituent is still widely available in drug
products. It also has been used to induce perspiration
and as an antiallergy agent.

It is variable from zero to excess in recent Australian
checks on what is available here.

I'm sure it is. But again, this is so vague as to be
meaningless.

Yep, the labels on these products were meaningless, I agree.

Quoted message said:

It does not mean all botanical interventions are
fraudlently sold, nor does it mean that they are all bad.

Just most of them available here and wherever Pan sold their
stuff. Worled wide, apparently.

Quoted message said:

This is simply a knee-jerk fallback position that seems to
indicate a position of bigotry that is every bit as heinous
as a company that knowingly sells faulty goods.

But apparently a common situation when it is properly
examined.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As to the HONESTY of supplement manufacturers--some are
pretty good. See www.consumerlabs.com for examples.
Others suck. We DO need consumer protection against the
fraudulent companies, I agree!

Yep, and our recent surveys show we are being conned to
the max.

Again, you raise an uncited survey. Sounds to me like
you're not being very critical?

A survey that caused the bankruptcy of a large
pharmadceutical company. Google Pan Pharmaceutical if you
are interested. It was headline news here for what seemed
months. Shot the rug out from under all the snake oil
salesmen. They went rather quiet for a while.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT PEANUTS! OR SHELLFISH!! OH MY
GOD!!! Where's the HPLC assay on peanuts? PEOPLE HAVE
DIED EATING PEANUTS!!

And putting on their sox, according to UK statistics.

Quoted message said:

Yet you BLITHELY permit the continued sale of PEANUTS!!
NO WARNING LABELS!!! DEAR GOD!!! Won't somebody think
about the CHILDREN!!!

What children? The warning about foods that don't normally
contain peanuts is zealous here. Not in US?

Quoted message said:

Sorry. I couldn't resist....

Feel free, George, I love lack of resistance 🙂

You're a superconductor?

George M. Carter

<snip> "> >Indeed. It happens with drugs, cash,
sneakers....human growth hormone

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and erythropoietin frauds have hit the market.

Rarely with prescription proprietaries; commonly with
other things Caveat Emptor.

Evidence? Who watches the watchers.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then I would like them to point to the portions of the
law that underscore their points. See, e.g.,
vm.cfsan.fda.govdietsupp.htmlOpen ↗ vm.cfsan.fda.govdsOpen ↗
stra2.html

So would I.

Well?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>2) Labels are ALWAYS being changed/updated. And if a
> SERIOUS risk is involved, it is very simple to add a
> line like DO NOT EXCEED RECOMMENDED DOSE. May result
> in [side effects list].

But when a single batch of altie herbals can contain
from zero to way over the claimed amount of active
ingredient (as shown by govt assay) what is the point?

What are you talking about? This is a vague statement. It
depends a great deal on the botanical in question.

It refers to an Australian govt regulator's survey of
alternative products recently.

It a old trick of government, to allow a problem to get big
and then use the problem to suppress the target. Clearly the
regulators in Australia were looking the other way until the
problem got big enough that they could hit the industry. Had
your glorious regulators gotten after the company in a
timely fashion the company culture won't have slip so low.

Our FDA has all the regs it needs to enforce vitamin and
herb content label claims as regards amount of active
ingredient. That it hasn't goes both to the FDA's bias
against supplements and the FDA's funding levels. It called
'giving the bad actors enough rope to hang themselves' and
then 'tarring all others with their bad acts.' Recall the
rule of economic, "that bad drives out the good" which
occurs without an even playing field.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I think MOST supplement users are aware of risks.

Apparently not. I hope they are not relying on the
label.

Yes, we are relying on the label as well as the
reputation of the company as well as information provided
by groups like www.consumerlabs.com. So far, I feel
fairly confident that I'm getting what I need. Would I
like more assurance? Sure.

.

Quoted message said:

Some people may not get adequate folic acid from
the diet.

Of course. Try a varied, wholefood diet.

It doesn't always work and further it is not always
available. You've forgotten the Lancet paper. I suspect your
real diet is neither as varied or a whole as you think it
is. Not everyone has the luxury of home raise chickens and a
mild climate.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Extra in pregnancy, for example, as a supplement is
effective in preventing neural tube defects.

Apparently. We have various foods supplemented here
including breakfast cereals.

Not everyone eats prepared breakfast cereals. Some of them
are really only multivitamin supplements with too many
calories and too much iron.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ephedra should probably be reserved for people with
breathing trouble. This raises a serious limitation to
the current regulatory situation in the U.S.

Why not resort to properly dispensed ephedrine, and not
variable ephedra plant extracts?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>Should ANY industry be trusted in terms of what they
>>>say? SKEPTICISM should be the RULE!! But this is just
>>>as true of the bloated pharma industry that has
>>>significantly distorted clinical trials research

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>publishing with its overwhelming investment in
>>>universities,

hospitals

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>and researchers, causing a deterioration in
>>>credibility of many published results. Indeed, MOST
>>>OTC and drugs are used for things other than what
>>>they were approved. Risks are MUCH higher.
>>
>>But the pharmacology is known, and the contents are
>>assayed. Herbals are not!
>
>This is not true. It depends on the botanical medicine
>in terms of whether there is a constituent(s) to which
>the botanical is standardized. Milk thistle, for
>example, is standardized to silymarin, a collection of
>flavanolignans. Ephedra, (Ephedra sinica a/k/a ma
>huang) is standardized to standard alkaloids such as
>l-ephedrine or d-pseudoephedrine. It is used as an
>antiasthmatic in the Chinese medical tradition -- and
>curiously, this active constituent is still widely
>available in drug products. It also has been used to
>induce perspiration and as an antiallergy agent.

It is variable from zero to excess in recent Australian
checks on what is available here.

I'm sure it is. But again, this is so vague as to be
meaningless.

Yep, the labels on these products were meaningless,
I agree.

More "marble sharp" reasoning from Mooshe.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It does not mean all botanical interventions are
fraudlently sold, nor does it mean that they are all bad.

Just most of them available here and wherever Pan sold
their stuff. Worled wide, apparently.

Quoted message said:

This is simply a knee-jerk fallback position that seems
to indicate a position of bigotry that is every bit as
heinous as a company that knowingly sells faulty goods.

But apparently a common situation when it is properly
examined.

"apparently" is a fudge word...........

I see a lack of numbers.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:50:52 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wouldn't trust your judgement.

Who asked you to? Imagination running riot?

I just disagree.

And you show this by saying "I wouldn't trust your
judgement"?

Quoted message said:

Everyone will make the claim of science based medicine.

Well what else is there? Look at the literature, and that
doesn't mean trawling medline.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your opinion looks more like nationalism and pious trust
to me.

Not at all. I abhore nationalism. I'm just being a
realist.

I hope you are right about Australia.

Why?

Quoted message said:

There are experts and there are experts. A GP is not an
expert in nutrition but he is good for a sinus infection or
a broken finger. Some of the "experts" are on my side or
more precisely I am on their side.

But lets see, the majority are out of step.

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:47:08 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

<snip> "> >Indeed. It happens with drugs, cash,
sneakers....human growth hormone

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and erythropoietin frauds have hit the market.

Rarely with prescription proprietaries; commonly with
other things Caveat Emptor.

Evidence?

Of what? That misrepresentation does not occur significantly
with PPs? I can't remember a case of this. Plenty of this in
alternatives. Try Pan Pharmaceuticals.

Quoted message said:

Who watches the watchers.

The electorate here 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So would I.

Well?

Well what?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>2) Labels are ALWAYS being changed/updated. And if a
>> SERIOUS risk is involved, it is very simple to add
>> a line like DO NOT EXCEED RECOMMENDED DOSE. May
>> result in [side effects list].
>
>But when a single batch of altie herbals can contain
>from zero to way over the claimed amount of active
>ingredient (as shown by govt assay) what is the point?

What are you talking about? This is a vague statement.
It depends a great deal on the botanical in question.

It refers to an Australian govt regulator's survey of
alternative products recently.

It a old trick of government, to allow a problem to get big
and then use the problem to suppress the target. Clearly
the regulators in Australia were looking the other way
until the problem got big enough that they could hit the
industry. Had your glorious regulators gotten after the
company in a timely fashion the company culture won't have
slip so low.

Hindsight? Usually 20/20 That trick is common in USA? Mabe
it has made you cynical there?

Quoted message said:

Our FDA has all the regs it needs to enforce vitamin and
herb content label claims as regards amount of active
ingredient.

So why doesn't it do it?

Quoted message said:

That it hasn't goes both to the FDA's bias against
supplements and the FDA's funding levels.

Why is the FDA biassed against supplements? Your lobby
system stuffing up your governance again?

Quoted message said:

It called 'giving the bad actors enough rope to hang
themselves' and then 'tarring all others with their bad
acts.' Recall the rule of economic, "that bad drives out
the good" which occurs without an even playing field.

Yep.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>I think MOST supplement users are aware of risks.
>
>Apparently not. I hope they are not relying on the
>label.

Yes, we are relying on the label as well as the
reputation of the company as well as information
provided by groups like www.consumerlabs.com. So far, I
feel fairly confident that I'm getting what I need.
Would I like more assurance? Sure.

.

Quoted message said:

Some people may not get adequate folic acid from
the diet.

Of course. Try a varied, wholefood diet.

It doesn't always work and further it is not always
available.

Rarely is it not available, then you do the best you can.
Maybe even some judicious supplementation if available.

Quoted message said:

You've forgotten the Lancet paper.

Quoted message said:

I suspect your real diet is neither as varied or a whole as
you think it is.

Which one? The one I eat is irrelevant to this forum, and
the one I advocate is the optimum. A little of as many of,
as-whole-as-practical, foods that you can get ahold of.

Quoted message said:

Not everyone has the luxury of home raise chickens and a
mild climate.

And? I've never seen or heard of many places where a rather
amazing variety is not available. I tell a lie, I've just
been told about Small Town USA where the variety is
apparently quite poor.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Extra in pregnancy, for example, as a supplement is
effective in preventing neural tube defects.

Apparently. We have various foods supplemented here
including breakfast cereals.

Not everyone eats prepared breakfast cereals.

Its a population targetting device. Bang for the buck. Not
everyone requires megadoses.

Quoted message said:

Some of them are really only multivitamin supplements with
too many calories and too much iron.

What are? Folic acid supplements in breakfast cereals (and
other foods)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ephedra should probably be reserved for people with
breathing trouble. This raises a serious limitation to
the current regulatory situation in the U.S.

Why not resort to properly dispensed ephedrine, and not
variable ephedra plant extracts?

Quoted message said:

>>>>Should ANY industry be trusted in terms of what they
>>>>say? SKEPTICISM should be the RULE!! But this is
>>>>just as true of the bloated pharma industry that has
>>>>significantly distorted clinical trials research

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>publishing with its overwhelming investment in
>>>>universities,

hospitals

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>and researchers, causing a deterioration in
>>>>credibility of many published results. Indeed, MOST
>>>>OTC and drugs are used for things other than what
>>>>they were approved. Risks are MUCH higher.
>>>
>>>But the pharmacology is known, and the contents are
>>>assayed. Herbals are not!
>>
>>This is not true. It depends on the botanical medicine
>>in terms of whether there is a constituent(s) to which
>>the botanical is standardized. Milk thistle, for
>>example, is standardized to silymarin, a collection of
>>flavanolignans. Ephedra, (Ephedra sinica a/k/a ma
>>huang) is standardized to standard alkaloids such as
>>l-ephedrine or d-pseudoephedrine. It is used as an
>>antiasthmatic in the Chinese medical tradition -- and
>>curiously, this active constituent is still widely
>>available in drug products. It also has been used to
>>induce perspiration and as an antiallergy agent.
>
>It is variable from zero to excess in recent Australian
>checks on what is available here.

I'm sure it is. But again, this is so vague as to be
meaningless.

Yep, the labels on these products were meaningless,
I agree.

More "marble sharp" reasoning from Mooshe.

Our legislation demands precise labelling and warnings on
all prescription proprietories. Mush less stringent with
herbals, alternatives, supplements, etc. Of course labelling
must reflect the contents on all goods. But PPs must have
warnings of problems as well as claims (backed up) of
therapeutic properties. Not so with the others. Now a larege
manufacturer has been uncovered making altenatives and so on
for domestic and export sale, with grossly inaccurate
contents and labelling. They were put out of business. Lost
their license. I therefore say the labels were meaningless.
Sorry, this was illogical. They were DANGEROUS! Is that
better? With airy-fairy alternatives where therapeutic
substances and effects are so vague, the manufacturers feel
that accuracy is not needed as no-one can ever tell the
difference.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It does not mean all botanical interventions are
fraudlently sold, nor does it mean that they are
all bad.

Just most of them available here and wherever Pan sold
their stuff. Worled wide, apparently.

Quoted message said:

This is simply a knee-jerk fallback position that seems
to indicate a position of bigotry that is every bit as
heinous as a company that knowingly sells faulty goods.

But apparently a common situation when it is properly
examined.

"apparently" is a fudge word...........

I see a lack of numbers.

How about 20 or so factories of various sizes in Australia
and around the world? The biggest lost their license to
manufacture. That's ONE. Or would you prefer "42" Noisey?

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

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:47:08 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

<snip> "> >Indeed. It happens with drugs, cash,
sneakers....human growth hormone

Quoted message said:

>and erythropoietin frauds have hit the market.

Rarely with prescription proprietaries; commonly with
other things Caveat Emptor.

Evidence?

Of what? That misrepresentation does not occur
significantly with PPs? I can't remember a case of this.
Plenty of this in alternatives. Try Pan Pharmaceuticals.

Quoted message said:

Who watches the watchers.

The electorate here 🙂

The electorate has multiple interests and distractions.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So would I.

Well?

Well what?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>2) Labels are ALWAYS being changed/updated. And if a
>>> SERIOUS risk is involved, it is very simple to
>>> add a line like DO NOT EXCEED RECOMMENDED DOSE.
>>> May result in [side effects list].
>>
>>But when a single batch of altie herbals can contain
>>from zero to way over the claimed amount of active
>>ingredient (as shown by govt assay) what is the
>>point?
>
>What are you talking about? This is a vague statement.
>It depends a great deal on the botanical in question.

It refers to an Australian govt regulator's survey of
alternative products recently.

It a old trick of government, to allow a problem to get
big and then use the problem to suppress the target.
Clearly the regulators in Australia were looking the
other way until the problem got big enough that they
could hit the industry. Had your glorious regulators
gotten after the company in a timely fashion the company
culture won't have slip so low.

Hindsight? Usually 20/20 That trick is common in USA? Mabe
it has made you cynical there?

Trust is often a vice.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Our FDA has all the regs it needs to enforce vitamin and
herb content label claims as regards amount of active
ingredient.

So why doesn't it do it?

I just told you. They what the back actors to act badly and
thus help them extent their grasp.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That it hasn't goes both to the FDA's bias against
supplements and the FDA's funding levels.

Why is the FDA biassed against supplements?

It is that bureau's culture.

Quoted message said:

Your lobby system stuffing
up your governance again?

That. And when higher levels retire or leave, they go to
work for the big drug companies who want to have
everything under prescription as that is where the big
money is often at.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It called 'giving the bad actors enough rope to hang
themselves' and then 'tarring all others with their bad
acts.' Recall the rule of economic, "that bad drives out
the good" which occurs without an even playing field.

Yep.

Looks like your regulators did the same thing. In other
words your regulators allowed Pan to develop a corrupt
culture (if it was as bad as you imply it was) rather than
compelling and impelling to good manufacturing practices and
honest dealing. In other words your regulators are at best
inept and more likely corrupt.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>I think MOST supplement users are aware of risks.
>>
>>Apparently not. I hope they are not relying on the
>>label.
>
>Yes, we are relying on the label as well as the
>reputation of the company as well as information
>provided by groups like www.consumerlabs.com. So far,
>I feel fairly confident that I'm getting what I need.
>Would I like more assurance? Sure.

.
>
>Some people may not get adequate folic acid from the
>diet.

Of course. Try a varied, wholefood diet.

It doesn't always work and further it is not always
available.

Rarely is it not available, then you do the best you can.
Maybe even some judicious supplementation if available.

Quoted message said:

You've forgotten the Lancet paper.

Quoted message said:

I suspect your real diet is neither as varied or a whole
as you think it is.

Which one? The one I eat is irrelevant to this forum,

Is it? If you can't eat your "diet" why expect others
consume it.

Quoted message said:

and the one I advocate is the optimum. A little of as
many of, as-whole-as-practical, foods that you can get
ahold of.

Quoted message said:

Not everyone has the luxury of home raise chickens and a
mild climate.

And? I've never seen or heard of many places where a
rather amazing variety is not available. I tell a lie,
I've just been told about Small Town USA where the variety
is apparently quite poor.

Some are. There is quite a wide income gap here in the USA
and it is getting wider. Maybe we should change the name
from the U.S.A. to Brazil. Manufacturing jobs are going,
service industry jobs are going, soon all the USA will be
left with is the armaments industry and agriculture.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Extra in pregnancy, for example, as a supplement is
>effective in preventing neural tube defects.

Apparently. We have various foods supplemented here
including breakfast cereals.

Not everyone eats prepared breakfast cereals.

Its a population targetting device. Bang for the buck. Not
everyone requires megadoses.

Quoted message said:

Some of them are really only multivitamin supplements
with too many calories and too much iron.

What are?

Prepared cold cereals.

Quoted message said:

Folic acid supplements in breakfast cereals (and
other foods)

????

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Ephedra should probably be reserved for people with
>breathing trouble. This raises a serious limitation to
>the current regulatory situation in the U.S.

Why not resort to properly dispensed ephedrine, and not
variable ephedra plant extracts?

>>>>>Should ANY industry be trusted in terms of what
>>>>>they say?

SKEPTICISM

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>should be the RULE!! But this is just as true of
>>>>>the bloated

pharma

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>industry that has significantly distorted clinical
>>>>>trials research

and

Quoted message said:

>>>>>publishing with its overwhelming investment in
>>>>>universities,

hospitals

Quoted message said:

>>>>>and researchers, causing a deterioration in
>>>>>credibility of many published results. Indeed,
>>>>>MOST OTC and drugs are used for things other than
>>>>>what they were approved. Risks are MUCH higher.
>>>>
>>>>But the pharmacology is known, and the contents are
>>>>assayed. Herbals are not!
>>>
>>>This is not true. It depends on the botanical
>>>medicine in terms of whether there is a
>>>constituent(s) to which the botanical is
>>>standardized. Milk thistle, for example, is
>>>standardized to

silymarin,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>a collection of flavanolignans. Ephedra, (Ephedra
>>>sinica a/k/a ma huang) is standardized to standard
>>>alkaloids such as l-ephedrine or d-pseudoephedrine.
>>>It is used as an antiasthmatic in the Chinese
>>>medical tradition -- and curiously, this active
>>>constituent is still widely available in drug
>>>products. It also has been used to induce
>>>perspiration and as an antiallergy agent.
>>
>>It is variable from zero to excess in recent
>>Australian checks on

what

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>is available here.
>
>I'm sure it is. But again, this is so vague as to be
>meaningless.

Yep, the labels on these products were meaningless, I
agree.

More "marble sharp" reasoning from Mooshe.

Our legislation demands precise labelling and warnings on
all prescription proprietories. Mush less stringent with
herbals, alternatives, supplements, etc. Of course
labelling must reflect the contents on all goods. But PPs
must have warnings of problems as well

PPs ??? define

Quoted message said:

as claims (backed up) of therapeutic properties. Not
so with the others. Now a larege manufacturer has been
uncovered making altenatives and so on for domestic
and export sale, with grossly inaccurate contents and
labelling. They were put out of business. Lost their
license. I therefore say the labels were meaningless.
Sorry, this was illogical. They were DANGEROUS! Is
that better?

Dangerous due to the lack of ingredients. OK

Quoted message said:

With airy-fairy alternatives where therapeutic substances
and effects are so vague, the manufacturers feel that
accuracy is not needed as no-one can ever tell the
difference.

I disagree. Much of what you call airy-fairy is useful, if
the the supplement contains enough of the active ingredient

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>It does not mean all botanical interventions are
>fraudlently sold, nor does it mean that they are all
>bad.

Just most of them available here and wherever Pan sold
their stuff. Worled wide, apparently.

>This is simply a knee-jerk fallback position that
>seems to indicate a position of bigotry that is every
>bit as heinous as a company that knowingly sells
>faulty goods.

But apparently a common situation when it is properly
examined.

"apparently" is a fudge word...........

I see a lack of numbers.

How about 20 or so factories of various sizes in Australia
and around the world? The biggest lost their license to
manufacture. That's ONE. Or would you prefer "42" Noisey?

I'd need to have read numerous reports and heard the
opposing sides to have any firm opinion on Pan.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:53:48 +0800, "Moosh🙂" <[email hidden]> wrote:

snip...

Quoted message said:

Well what else is there? Look at the literature, and that
doesn't mean trawling medline.

I may well have missed it as I don't read all your posts,
but I have yet to see you publish references to the
literature to make your points. You like to make general
pronouncements that are not scientific, nuanced or sensible
(e.g., re SJW thread).

George M. Carter

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:03:26 GMT, GMCarter <[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:53:48 +0800, "Moosh🙂"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

snip...

Quoted message said:

Well what else is there? Look at the literature, and that
doesn't mean trawling medline.

I may well have missed it as I don't read all your posts,
but I have yet to see you publish references to the
literature to make your points.

Umm, do you pay me to do this? Why don't you sue me for a
refund if you are unsatisfied with my contributions here,
and haven't the self-control to ignore what I say if you
don't like reading it? Sheeeesh! Oh lack of self control!

Publish references? Are you up yourself? So sue me. Most of
what I say here is the bleedin' obvious. Those who trawl
medline or other databases for abstracts, the contexts of
which they don't understand, that appear to justify what
they say, lead a pointess existence to my mind. If that's
your game go to it, but I find it rather ridiculous.
Scientific abstracts should be hidden from the popular press
and the general public, IMHO. They are mostly
counterproductive. In isolation they mean little. Need
translation in a book by an expert in the field.

Quoted message said:

You like to make general pronouncements that are not
scientific,

Such as? Are general pronouncements not allowed here? Not
scientific? Is "The Sun rises in the East" not scientific,
unless you find an abstract?

Quoted message said:

nuanced or sensible (e.g., re SJW thread).

Nuanced? Strange word to use?

You disagree with my point that alternative medications are
a total; mess wrt labelling, and contents true to label and
even pharmacology? So SJW might have had a bit of work done
on it. I've been involved in work to see if there is any
pharmacalogical activity in native preparations. Often there
is absolutely nothing. Occasionally there is and this just
boosts the placebo effect on those with nothing going for
them. Otherwise, alternatives need a serious look like they
have recently had here IMHO.

BTW, are you referring to posts here like:

Quoted message said:

Indeed! The FDA should remove alcohol and tobacco from the
market IMMEDIATELY!!!

All wine, beer, whiskey--all of it! AT ONCE!!!

George M. Carter

Quoted message said:

Nonsense. Supplements can JUST as easily have a labeling
change. DO NOT EXCEED RECOMMENDED DOSE. Just like over the
counter antihistamines or aspirin. How many people die from
misuse of those drugs?

It is disingenuous, hypocritical [censored] to remove ephedra
from the market.

George M. Carter

Quoted message said:

This can be said of MANY drugs. Indeed, I'd warrant there
are more extant data on ephedra's safety and efficacy for
specific conditions than many OTC products.

Quoted message said:

Antidepressants are more marketing ploy that useful. Which
is why SJW makes MUCH more sense in general for mild-to-
moderate depression, than a probably addictive, definitely
costly and likely toxic drug pushed by big pharma.

George M. Carter

Quoted message said:

Oh horseshit. Tobacco and heroin are no less addictive than
valium or xanax. Have you ever been addicted? Nicotine is
probably far more difficult, but I can tell you, with a
will and an intention to do other things with life, one can
get over an addiction. But it is incredibly difficult.
"Slow discontinuation" can be used to get off of Heroin,
for example. That hardly is adequate to make it any more or
less addictive than many antidepressants.

Quoted message said:

However, this is NOT to say that all supplement companies
are dishonest or producing bad products. There have been
private reviews of ID, potency/purity that show many
companies conform to specifications provided on the label.

Quoted message said:

Ephedra should probably be reserved for people with
breathing trouble. This raises a serious limitation to the
current regulatory situation in the U.S.

Quoted message said:

Yes. SJW is not a drug: it is a botanical medicine. I
think this is an important discussion to have as a
separate thread.

Quoted message said:

Further, data comparing SJW to Prozac, Zoloft and other
antidepressants for mild-to-moderate depression found
virtual equivalency in efficacy with a much milder side
effect profile for SJW in comparison to the drugs.

George M. Carter

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

quackwatch.orgindex.htmlOpen ↗

I wouldn't rely on anything from this site. The bigotry of
the people who run this site has completely eclipsed any
credibility. Whether their analysis is accurate or not is
lost in the haze of this blind hate they express. They are
the other side of the coin of salesmen who pitch garbage.

In either case, science and good observation is left to
whither on the vine.

George M. Carter

Quoted message said:

Medicine is STILL about the ART of healing. At least it
should be but accountants seem to have taken over the job,
in part due to the excesses of the pharmaceutical industry
in an out-of-control rape of Americans through outrageous
pricing of drugs, devices and diagnostics.

George M .Carter

Excessive consumption of red meat is probably
contraindicated for a significant proportion of the
population. Another dimension to that debate, of course, is
the environmental one. Consumption of meat requires a great
deal of arable land and water to feed cattle that is in
excess of the energy produced. Aside from the ethical
consideration of the way animals are raised and
slaughtered, the risk of diseases such as BSE and the
increased risk of coronary and vascular diseases, we must
recognize that the overpopulated planet on which we reside
cannot sustain the type of consumption Americans typically
engage in. An interesting table in the recent National
Geographic underscores the differences between US
consumption and that in China. Given the clear cutting of
jungles and forests to raise these animals for a few
seasons at most before the land reverts to desert, we are
doing our species and life on the planet a bit of a
disservice by indulging excessively or at all in the
consumption of red meat.

George M. Carter

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

quackwatch.comquackwatch.comOpen ↗

This site is dreadful. The bigotry on this site is the
equal and opposite of the worst hype from commercial
vitamin sites.

George M Carter

Quoted message said:

THAT'S the kind of thing as a consumer and taxpayer I can
see

Quoted message said:

vigilant. Things have changed some at FDA since many of us
started agitating against their extreme bigotry against
"alternative" medicine.

George M. Carter

Quoted message said:

George M. Carter

Mooshe the totalitarian bovine whines about those of us who
cite the literature.

Moreover, Mooshe and your type ignore when I have quoted
from books, texts, and professional journal article I've
read in full. Often I am just stating the opinion of the
authors or experts. I am just not as polite or PC.

Note she seems to forget after a couple of weeks on
some things.

Anyway, Mooshe, you know when we interact with you, we are
lowered to your level to an extent. So don't whine about as
you are the one who is at fault.

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

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:03:26 GMT, GMCarter
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:53:48 +0800, "Moosh🙂"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

snip...

Quoted message said:

Well what else is there? Look at the literature, and
that doesn't mean trawling medline.

I may well have missed it as I don't read all your posts,
but I have yet to see you publish references to the
literature to make your points.

Umm, do you pay me to do this? Why don't you sue me for a
refund if you are unsatisfied with my contributions here,
and haven't the self-control to ignore what I say if you
don't like reading it? Sheeeesh! Oh lack of self control!

Publish references? Are you up yourself? So sue me. Most
of what I say here is the bleedin' obvious. Those who
trawl medline or other databases for abstracts, the
contexts of which they don't understand, that appear to
justify what they say, lead a pointess existence to my
mind. If that's your game go to it, but I find it rather
ridiculous. Scientific abstracts should be hidden from the
popular press and the general public, IMHO. They are
mostly counterproductive. In isolation they mean little.
Need translation in a book by an expert in the field.

Quoted message said:

You like to make general pronouncements that are not
scientific,

Such as? Are general pronouncements not allowed here? Not
scientific? Is "The Sun rises in the East" not scientific,
unless you find an abstract?

Quoted message said:

nuanced or sensible (e.g., re SJW thread).

Nuanced? Strange word to use?

You disagree with my point that alternative medications
are a total; mess wrt labelling, and contents true to
label and even pharmacology? So SJW might have had a bit
of work done on it. I've been involved in work to see if
there is any pharmacalogical activity in native
preparations. Often there is absolutely nothing.
Occasionally there is and this just boosts the placebo
effect on those with nothing going for them. Otherwise,
alternatives need a serious look like they have recently
had here IMHO.

BTW, are you referring to posts here like:

Quoted message said:

Indeed! The FDA should remove alcohol and tobacco from
the market IMMEDIATELY!!!

All wine, beer, whiskey--all of it! AT ONCE!!!

George M. Carter

Quoted message said:

Nonsense. Supplements can JUST as easily have a labeling
change. DO NOT EXCEED RECOMMENDED DOSE. Just like over
the counter antihistamines or aspirin. How many people
die from misuse of those drugs?

It is disingenuous, hypocritical [censored] to remove
ephedra from the market.

George M. Carter

Quoted message said:

This can be said of MANY drugs. Indeed, I'd warrant there
are more extant data on ephedra's safety and efficacy for
specific conditions than many OTC products.

Quoted message said:

Antidepressants are more marketing ploy that useful.
Which is why SJW makes MUCH more sense in general for mild-to-
moderate depression, than a probably addictive,
definitely costly and likely toxic drug pushed by big
pharma.

George M. Carter

Quoted message said:

Oh horseshit. Tobacco and heroin are no less addictive
than valium or xanax. Have you ever been addicted?
Nicotine is probably far more difficult, but I can tell
you, with a will and an intention to do other things with
life, one can get over an addiction. But it is incredibly
difficult. "Slow discontinuation" can be used to get off
of Heroin, for example. That hardly is adequate to make
it any more or less addictive than many antidepressants.

Quoted message said:

However, this is NOT to say that all supplement
companies are dishonest or producing bad products. There
have been private reviews of ID, potency/purity that
show many companies conform to specifications provided
on the label.

Quoted message said:

Ephedra should probably be reserved for people with
breathing trouble. This raises a serious limitation to
the current regulatory situation in the U.S.

Quoted message said:

Yes. SJW is not a drug: it is a botanical medicine. I
think this is an important discussion to have as a
separate thread.

Quoted message said:

Further, data comparing SJW to Prozac, Zoloft and other
antidepressants for mild-to-moderate depression found
virtual equivalency in efficacy with a much milder side
effect profile for SJW in comparison to the drugs.

George M. Carter

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

quackwatch.orgindex.htmlOpen ↗

I wouldn't rely on anything from this site. The bigotry
of the people who run this site has completely eclipsed
any credibility. Whether their analysis is accurate or
not is lost in the haze of this blind hate they express.
They are the other side of the coin of salesmen who pitch
garbage.

In either case, science and good observation is left to
whither on the vine.

George M. Carter

Quoted message said:

Medicine is STILL about the ART of healing. At least it
should be but accountants seem to have taken over the
job, in part due to the excesses of the pharmaceutical
industry in an out-of-control rape of Americans through
outrageous pricing of drugs, devices and diagnostics.

George M .Carter

Excessive consumption of red meat is probably
contraindicated for a significant proportion of the
population. Another dimension to that debate, of course,
is the environmental one. Consumption of meat requires a
great deal of arable land and water to feed cattle that
is in excess of the energy produced. Aside from the
ethical consideration of the way animals are raised and
slaughtered, the risk of diseases such as BSE and the
increased risk of coronary and vascular diseases, we must
recognize that the overpopulated planet on which we
reside cannot sustain the type of consumption Americans
typically engage in. An interesting table in the recent
National Geographic underscores the differences between
US consumption and that in China. Given the clear cutting
of jungles and forests to raise these animals for a few
seasons at most before the land reverts to desert, we are
doing our species and life on the planet a bit of a
disservice by indulging excessively or at all in the
consumption of red meat.

George M. Carter

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

quackwatch.comquackwatch.comOpen ↗

This site is dreadful. The bigotry on this site is the
equal and opposite of the worst hype from commercial
vitamin sites.

George M Carter

Quoted message said:

THAT'S the kind of thing as a consumer and taxpayer I
can see

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

vigilant. Things have changed some at FDA since many of
us started agitating against their extreme bigotry
against "alternative" medicine.

George M. Carter

Quoted message said:

George M. Carter