The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry



"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> CODEX is **** - I don't want some agency regulating my
> access to vitamins that I can use to treat disease or self
> medicate, and I don't want people taking my freedom to do
> this away from me just because people like you think it is
> ok to do so,

But you don't have any problem with pharm drug regulation?
Why not open up the whole thing, eliminate ALL regs? Let the
dumb ones kill themselves -- let those selling any alt. or
conventional remedy make ANY claim they want -- let alt. &
conventional medicine play on a level field? Sounds good?
Probably to a lot of lawyers....

> just because you don't advocate big doses of vitamins. The
> people that take the vitamin doses do so out of their own
> choice - it is not forced down their throats, and the
> overall damage that these vitamins causes is very small
> when compared with other medicines which are regulated.

Maybe Tylenol should come in 50,000 mg tabs -- hey, why
not? People could take just a few instead of all that
tiresome swallowing & bloating with glass after glass of
liquids! It's their choice, after all. It's not forced
down their throats, right? Regulating Tylenol doesn't stop
folks from taking as many of the little buggers as they
want to, does it??

Regulation isn't prohibition. OTC meds are the perfect
example of that. Regulation doesn't stop those who want to
take high doses of supplements from taking them. Much better
to have reasonable regulation than to let alarmists yank
products off the market -- citing poor labeling of
contraindications, scant information about side effects &
cautions, & questionable dosages -- as in the case of
ephedra. Regulation actually protects the sellers,
developers, marketers, etc. of alt. products like
supplements from being sued into the ground or shut down
because some frickin' morons far exceeded a reasonable dose
& bit the dust or killed their liver. You want to take
megadoses of anything, you still can. Even toxic doses, no
problem. But at least it'd be the consumer's fault -- not
the supplement manufacturer's fault for packaging their
product at doses considered unsafe.

It's step two thinking, Anth -- looking at the advantages
regulation can bring instead of freaking out over it.
Participating in the developments of regulation instead of
simply screaming about it would make more sense. Prohibition
usually follow the latter, not the former.
 
"Michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > CODEX is **** - I don't want some agency regulating my
> > access to
vitamins
> > that I can use to treat disease or self medicate, and I
> > don't want
people
> > taking my freedom to do this away from me just because
> > people like you
think
> > it is ok to do so,
>
> But you don't have any problem with pharm drug regulation?
> Why not open up the whole thing, eliminate ALL regs? Let
> the dumb ones kill themselves -- let those selling any
> alt. or conventional remedy make ANY claim they want --
> let alt. & conventional medicine play on a level field?
> Sounds good? Probably to a lot of lawyers....

Personally I see a large diference between drugs and
vitamins. Show me the death rates for vitamins vs drug I
think you will find vitamins are very safe.

> > just because you don't advocate big doses of vitamins.
> > The people that take the vitamin doses do so out of
> > their own choice -
it is
> > not forced down their throats, and the overall damage
> > that these
vitamins
> > causes is very small when compared with other medicines
> > which are
regulated.
>
> Maybe Tylenol should come in 50,000 mg tabs -- hey, why
> not? People could take just a few instead of all that
> tiresome swallowing & bloating with glass after glass of
> liquids! It's their choice, after all. It's not forced
> down their throats, right? Regulating Tylenol doesn't stop
> folks from taking as many of the little buggers as they
> want to, does it??

Irrelevant since Tylenol isn't a vitamin last time I looked.

> Regulation isn't prohibition. OTC meds are the perfect
> example of that. Regulation doesn't stop those who want to
> take high doses of supplements from taking them.

Oh but it will since selling large dose vitamins wil become
a criminal offense. People like me will be forced to either
break the law or take the lower doses.

> Much better to have reasonable regulation than to let
> alarmists yank
products off the market --
> citing poor labeling of contraindications, scant
> information about side effects & cautions, &
> questionable dosages -- as in the case of ephedra.
> Regulation actually protects the sellers, developers,
> marketers, etc. of alt. products like supplements from
> being sued into the ground or shut down because some
> frickin' morons far exceeded a reasonable dose & bit the
> dust or killed their liver. You want to take megadoses
> of anything, you still can. Even toxic doses, no
> problem. But at least it'd be the consumer's fault --
> not the supplement manufacturer's fault for packaging
> their product at doses considered unsafe.

Oh please when does this stop, do we regulate foods in large
doses also because they make people obese and sick?

> It's step two thinking, Anth -- looking at the advantages
> regulation can bring instead of freaking out over it.
> Participating in the developments of regulation instead of
> simply screaming about it would make more sense.
> Prohibition usually follow the latter, not the former.

It has got nothing todo with thinking and everything to do
with control. Anth
 
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Regulation isn't prohibition. OTC meds are the perfect
> > example of that. Regulation doesn't stop those who want
> > to take high doses of supplements from taking them.
>
> Oh but it will since selling large dose vitamins wil
> become a criminal offense. People like me will be forced
> to either break the law or take the lower doses.

Oh please. Now you are just sounding silly, not to mention
paranoid. No one stops you from taking all the Tylenol,
aspirin, or any other OTC drug that you want to take.
Regulating "supplements" as OTC drugs would insure some
truth in labelling and manufacturing standards but would not
impede you from taking all you want. In fact, it would help
you because you would then actually have some idea what is
in the bottle (unlike now).
 
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > CODEX is **** - I don't want some agency regulating my
> > > access to
> vitamins
> > > that I can use to treat disease or self medicate, and
> > > I don't want
> people
> > > taking my freedom to do this away from me just because
> > > people like you
> think
> > > it is ok to do so,
> >
> > But you don't have any problem with pharm drug
> > regulation? Why not open up the whole thing, eliminate
> > ALL regs? Let the dumb ones kill themselves -- let those
> > selling any alt. or conventional remedy make ANY claim
> > they want -- let alt. & conventional medicine play on a
> > level field? Sounds good? Probably to a lot of
> > lawyers....
>
> Personally I see a large diference between drugs and
> vitamins.

Why? Many pharm drugs trace their roots back to herbal
products. To think that a product that can actually effect
the human body's functions -- whether a pharmaceutical or
a vitamin supplement -- can't also have serious adverse
effects (particularly when taken in large doses)
contradicts fact. Just as Tylenol taken in excess can
cause liver damage, large doses of Vitamin B6 (over 200 mg
daily) can cause nerve damage, even though it is a water
soluble vitamin.

> Show me the death rates for vitamins vs drug I think you
> will find vitamins are very safe.

Both those statistics are difficult to pin down. Anti pharm
sources disagree with the figures cited by the CDC WRT drug
deaths. Throw in other variables (an alcohol abuser who
already had liver problems dying after taking too much
Tylenol as one example, a hypertensive cardiac patient
popping ephedra like Tic Tacs having a fatal CVA is another)
& the figures become harder to pin down.

Vitamins are generally safe. So is aspirin. Mega doses of
either can be deadly.
>
> > > just because you don't advocate big doses of vitamins.
> > > The people that take the vitamin doses do so out of
> > > their own choice -
> it is
> > > not forced down their throats, and the overall damage
> > > that these
> vitamins
> > > causes is very small when compared with other
> > > medicines which are
> regulated.
> >
> > Maybe Tylenol should come in 50,000 mg tabs -- hey, why
> > not? People could take just a few instead of all that
> > tiresome swallowing & bloating with glass after glass of
> > liquids! It's their choice, after all. It's not forced
> > down their throats, right? Regulating Tylenol doesn't
> > stop folks from taking as many of the little buggers as
> > they want to, does it??
>
> Irrelevant since Tylenol isn't a vitamin last time I
> looked.

"Irrelevant"?? Hardly, unless your ideas of freedom of
choice WRT one's own health is merely lip service, Anth.
>
> > Regulation isn't prohibition. OTC meds are the perfect
> > example of that. Regulation doesn't stop those who want
> > to take high doses of supplements from taking them.
>
> Oh but it will since selling large dose vitamins wil
> become a criminal offense. People like me will be forced
> to either break the law or take the lower doses.

Nonsense. You still want to take megadoses of a supplement?
Who's stopping you? Nobody. Just as someone can take 10 ES
Tylenol tabs (5000 mg), you can certainly swallow 20 Vit. B6
tabs. to ingest a toxic amount.
>
> > Much better to have reasonable regulation than to let
> > alarmists yank
> products off the market --
> > citing poor labeling of contraindications, scant
> > information about side effects & cautions, &
> > questionable dosages -- as in the case of ephedra.
> > Regulation actually protects the sellers, developers,
> > marketers, etc. of alt. products like supplements from
> > being sued into the ground or shut down because some
> > frickin' morons far exceeded a reasonable dose & bit the
> > dust or killed their liver. You want to take megadoses
> > of anything, you still can. Even toxic doses, no
> > problem. But at least it'd be the consumer's fault --
> > not the supplement manufacturer's fault for packaging
> > their product at doses considered unsafe.
>
> Oh please when does this stop, do we regulate foods in
> large doses also because they make people obese and sick?

Oh please, when does regulation of *anything* stop?
[Besides, don't many foods contain those vitamins you want
to take in such megadoses? And don't forget that both
conventional & alt. health care make a BUNDLE from obesity,
whether targeting weight loss or the problems resulting from
being overweight. Whether it's phentermine or products like
Hydroxycut, there's big bucks to be made in selling
overweight people the dream of being thin.] Your response to
my question about allowing megadoses of a pharm product like
acetaminophen was to simply say it wasn't a vitamin -- is it
your position that such products should be freely available
to anyone or not? How about simply putting both alt. &
conventional remedies of all potencies on the shelf (with
the only requirement being that the contents/dose be
accurately labeled) & letting consumers decide for
themselves what to take? Liver damage is liver damage --
what's the difference if it's the result of some moron
overdosing on Tylenol or Kava kava? Prohibit the dummies who
practice the "if some is good, more must be better"
philosophy from suing anybody. Leave it up to the buyer to
find accurate information about the product. If this is
acceptable WRT supplements, there should be no problem
applying these guidelines to pharmaceuticals
>
> > It's step two thinking, Anth -- looking at the
> > advantages regulation can bring instead of freaking out
> > over it. Participating in the developments of regulation
> > instead of simply screaming about it would make more
> > sense. Prohibition usually follow the latter, not the
> > former.
>
> It has got nothing todo with thinking and everything to do
> with control. Anth

It has NOTHING to do with any "control". Feel free to take
Kava kava by the handful. Sprinkle 1000mg of Vitamin B6 on a
sundae & go to town. You can certainly do it swallowing a
few more of the lower dose tabs.

Fortunately most people will not do that, resulting in fewer
adverse results. But you can do so if that's what you want.
After all, idiots OD on many pharm products that are sold in
appropriate doses, accurately labeled. No reason idiots
shouldn't be able to do so with GRAS dosages of alt.
products, right?
 
"CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > Regulation isn't prohibition. OTC meds are the perfect
> > > example of that. Regulation doesn't stop those who
> > > want to take high doses of supplements from taking
> > > them.
> >
> > Oh but it will since selling large dose vitamins wil
> > become a criminal offense. People like me will be forced
> > to either break the law or take the lower doses.
>
> Oh please. Now you are just sounding silly, not to mention
> paranoid. No one stops you from taking all the Tylenol,
> aspirin, or any other OTC drug that you want to take.
> Regulating "supplements" as OTC drugs would insure some
> truth in labelling and manufacturing standards but would
> not impede you from taking all you want. In fact, it would
> help you because you would then actually have some idea
> what is in the bottle (unlike now).

Excuse me? I never said I wanted to take Tylenol asprin or
any other. I suggest you read the post *again* before you
open your stupid MD mouth. Regulating vitamins would mean I
don't have access to doses that I *want* to take and their
current prices. If you don't like supplements then you can
bog off and quit rambling about them, some people do like
taking them. It is your 'controllers' and you the 'puppets'
who are being controlled currently, and these people are
trying to control me to and turn me into a criminal.. Anth
 
"Michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > CODEX is **** - I don't want some agency regulating
> > > > my access to
> > vitamins
> > > > that I can use to treat disease or self medicate,
> > > > and I don't want
> > people
> > > > taking my freedom to do this away from me just
> > > > because people like
you
> > think
> > > > it is ok to do so,
> > >
> > > But you don't have any problem with pharm drug
> > > regulation? Why not open up the whole thing, eliminate
> > > ALL regs? Let the dumb ones kill themselves -- let
> > > those selling any alt. or conventional remedy make ANY
> > > claim they want -- let alt. & conventional medicine
> > > play on a level field? Sounds good? Probably to a lot
> > > of lawyers....
> >
> > Personally I see a large diference between drugs and
> > vitamins.
>
> Why? Many pharm drugs trace their roots back to herbal
> products. To think that a product that can actually effect
> the human body's functions -- whether a pharmaceutical or
> a vitamin supplement -- can't also have serious adverse
> effects (particularly when taken in large doses)
> contradicts fact. Just as Tylenol taken in excess can
> cause liver damage, large doses of Vitamin B6 (over 200 mg
> daily) can cause nerve damage, even though it is a water
> soluble vitamin.
>
> > Show me the death rates for vitamins vs drug I think you
> > will find
vitamins
> > are very safe.
>
> Both those statistics are difficult to pin down. Anti
> pharm sources disagree with the figures cited by the CDC
> WRT drug deaths. Throw in other variables (an alcohol
> abuser who already had liver problems dying after taking
> too much Tylenol as one example, a hypertensive cardiac
> patient popping ephedra like Tic Tacs having a fatal CVA
> is another) & the figures become harder to pin down.

Difficult to pin down perhaps because they are so low. Look
at any toxicology centre, and see how your point melts away
about vitamins being toxic. More people die per 100,000 from
regulated medicines than do vitamins.

Many people are taking vitamins - rarely if ever with deadly
consequence.

> Vitamins are generally safe. So is aspirin. Mega doses of
> either can be deadly.

Vitamins are 'safe' (Let's be picky here and talk about the
fat soluble vitamins - usual argument) I take vitamin c,
show me where that is deadly, I also take amino acids - show
me where they are deadly. They aint, so why regulate them?

> > > > just because you don't advocate big doses of
> > > > vitamins. The people that take the vitamin doses do
> > > > so out of their own
choice -
> > it is
> > > > not forced down their throats, and the overall
> > > > damage that these
> > vitamins
> > > > causes is very small when compared with other
> > > > medicines which are
> > regulated.
> > >
> > > Maybe Tylenol should come in 50,000 mg tabs -- hey,
> > > why not? People could take just a few instead of all
> > > that tiresome swallowing & bloating with glass after
> > > glass of liquids! It's their choice, after all. It's
> > > not forced down their throats, right? Regulating
> > > Tylenol doesn't stop folks from taking as many of the
> > > little buggers as they want to, does it??
> >
> > Irrelevant since Tylenol isn't a vitamin last time I
> > looked.
>
> "Irrelevant"?? Hardly, unless your ideas of freedom of
> choice WRT one's own health is merely lip service, Anth

Diversion I don't take Tylenol, never have - I take
*vitamins* .
> > > Regulation isn't prohibition. OTC meds are the perfect
> > > example of that. Regulation doesn't stop those who
> > > want to take high doses of supplements from taking
> > > them.

Regulation means I can't access the doses at the prices
and quantities I want, and it would mean I am a criminal
if I tried.

> > Oh but it will since selling large dose vitamins wil
> > become a criminal offense. People like me will be forced
> > to either break the law or take the lower doses.
>
> Nonsense. You still want to take megadoses of a
> supplement? Who's stopping you? Nobody. Just as someone
> can take 10 ES Tylenol tabs (5000 mg), you can certainly
> swallow 20 Vit. B6 tabs. to ingest a toxic amount.

(Ignored the usual anything is toxic argument) I can put my
hand in a fire and burn it if I want, or warm my hand on the
flame. . If CODEX is put into place I will be stopped or
become a criminal.

> Oh please, when does regulation of *anything* stop?
> [Besides, don't many foods contain those vitamins you want
> to take in such megadoses? And don't forget that both
> conventional & alt. health care make a BUNDLE from
> obesity, whether targeting weight loss or the problems
> resulting from being overweight.

It stops when the money grabbing pharma cartels are stripped
of their powers.

> And don't forget that both conventional & alt. health care
> make a BUNDLE from obesity, whether targeting weight loss
> or the problems resulting from being overweight.

People have got wise and now they go on atkins for a
few weeks.

> Whether it's phentermine or products like Hydroxycut,
> there's big bucks to
be made in selling overweight
> people the dream of being thin.] Your response to my
> question about allowing megadoses of a pharm product like
> acetaminophen was to simply say it wasn't a vitamin -- is
> it your position that such products should be freely
> available to anyone or not?

Again diversion, vitamins are foodstuffs, why not make it
illegal for the 'fat people' who purposely gorge mega dose
foods to quit eating as much food?

> How about simply putting both alt. & conventional
> remedies of all
potencies on the shelf (with
> the only requirement being that the contents/dose be
> accurately labeled) & letting consumers decide for
> themselves what to take?

> Liver damage is liver damage -- what's the difference if
> it's the result of some moron overdosing on Tylenol or
> Kava kava? Prohibit the dummies who practice the "if some
> is good, more must be better" philosophy from suing
> anybody. Leave it up to the buyer to find accurate
> information about the product. If this is acceptable WRT
> supplements, there should be no problem applying these
> guidelines to pharmaceuticals

I must be suffering from liver damage then, taking so high
doses of vitamins. *Vitamins*

> It has NOTHING to do with any "control". Feel free to take
> Kava kava by the handful. Sprinkle 1000mg of Vitamin B6 on
> a sundae & go to town. You can certainly do it swallowing
> a few more of the lower dose tabs.

Again you arer being selection I quoted *vitamins* Take your
blinkers off and see how the pharma giants have tooled up
with CODEX to control.

> Fortunately most people will not do that, resulting in
> fewer adverse results. But you can do so if that's what
> you want. After all, idiots OD on many pharm products that
> are sold in appropriate doses, accurately labeled. No
> reason idiots shouldn't be able to do so with GRAS dosages
> of alt. products, right?

(Difficult to pin down perhaps because they are so low) Anth
N.B.Do you take mega doses of vitamins, if not then shut
the hell up! I don't want some 'buzzy body' killing
my freedom?
 
It's the old "If they aren't like me, I am afraid of it,
will attack destroy it"

"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:IOqdnZ8kkLPZFg7dRVn-
[email protected]...
> "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]
> > > m...
> > >
> > > > Regulation isn't prohibition. OTC meds are the
> > > > perfect example of that. Regulation doesn't stop
> > > > those who want to take high doses of supplements
> > > > from taking them.
> > >
> > > Oh but it will since selling large dose vitamins wil
> > > become a criminal offense. People like me will be
> > > forced to either break the law or take the
lower
> > > doses.
> >
> > Oh please. Now you are just sounding silly, not to
> > mention paranoid. No one stops you from taking all the
> > Tylenol, aspirin, or any other OTC drug that you want to
> > take. Regulating "supplements" as OTC drugs would insure
> > some truth in labelling and manufacturing standards but
> > would not impede you from taking all you want. In fact,
> > it would help you because you would then actually have
> > some idea what is in the bottle (unlike now).
>
> Excuse me? I never said I wanted to take Tylenol asprin or
> any other. I suggest you read the post *again* before you
> open your stupid MD mouth. Regulating vitamins would mean
> I don't have access to doses that I *want*
to
> take and their current prices. If you don't like
> supplements then you can bog off and quit rambling about
> them, some people do like taking them. It is your
> 'controllers' and you the 'puppets' who are being
> controlled currently, and these people are trying to
> control me to and turn me into a criminal.. Anth
 
Anth wrote:
> "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>>> "Michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> Regulation isn't prohibition. OTC meds are the perfect
example of
>>>> that. Regulation doesn't stop those who want to take
high doses of
>>>> supplements from taking them.
>>>
>>> Oh but it will since selling large dose vitamins wil
become a
>>> criminal offense. People like me will be forced to
>>> either break the law or
take the
>>> lower doses.
>>
>> Oh please. Now you are just sounding silly, not to
mention paranoid.
>> No one stops you from taking all the Tylenol, aspirin, or
any other
>> OTC drug that you want to take. Regulating "supplements"
as OTC drugs
>> would insure some truth in labelling and manufacturing
standards but
>> would not impede you from taking all you want. In fact,
it would help
>> you because you would then actually have some idea what
is in the
>> bottle (unlike now).
>
> Excuse me? I never said I wanted to take Tylenol asprin or
any other.

No but those are other products that you are free to take
as much of as you want (or not) and [here is the important
part so pay attention this time] they are regulated as
some are suggesting "supplements" be regulated. IOW -
things regulated in this way do not have the doses people
can take limited.

> I suggest you read the post *again* before you open your
stupid MD
> mouth. Regulating vitamins would mean I don't have access
to doses
> that I *want* to take and their current prices.

Why not? Explain this little bit of paranoia. Please cite
examples of OTC products in which the dose that may be taken
is limited.

--
CBI, MD
 
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]
> > > m...
> > > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > > CODEX is **** - I don't want some agency
> > > > > regulating my access to
> vitamins
> > > > > that I can use to treat disease or self medicate,
> > > > > and I don't want
> people
> > > > > taking my freedom to do this away from me just
> > > > > because people like
> you think
> > > > > it is ok to do so,
> > > >
> > > > But you don't have any problem with pharm drug
> > > > regulation? Why not open up the whole thing,
> > > > eliminate ALL regs? Let the dumb ones kill
> > > > themselves -- let those selling any alt. or
> > > > conventional remedy make ANY claim they want -- let
> > > > alt. & conventional medicine play on a level field?
> > > > Sounds good? Probably to a lot of lawyers....
> > >
> > > Personally I see a large diference between drugs and
> > > vitamins.
> >
> > Why? Many pharm drugs trace their roots back to herbal
> > products. To think that a product that can actually
> > effect the human body's functions -- whether a
> > pharmaceutical or a vitamin supplement -- can't also
> > have serious adverse effects (particularly when taken in
> > large doses) contradicts fact. Just as Tylenol taken in
> > excess can cause liver damage, large doses of Vitamin B6
> > (over 200 mg daily) can cause nerve damage, even though
> > it is a water soluble vitamin.
> >
> > > Show me the death rates for vitamins vs drug I think
> > > you will find
> vitamins
> > > are very safe.
> >
> > Both those statistics are difficult to pin down. Anti
> > pharm sources disagree with the figures cited by the CDC
> > WRT drug deaths. Throw in other variables (an alcohol
> > abuser who already had liver problems dying after taking
> > too much Tylenol as one example, a hypertensive cardiac
> > patient popping ephedra like Tic Tacs having a fatal CVA
> > is another) & the figures become harder to pin down.
>
> Difficult to pin down perhaps because they are so low.
> Look at any toxicology centre, and see how your point
> melts away about vitamins being toxic. More people die per
> 100,000 from regulated medicines than do vitamins.
>
> Many people are taking vitamins - rarely if ever with
> deadly consequence.
>
> > Vitamins are generally safe. So is aspirin. Mega doses
> > of either can be deadly.
>
> Vitamins are 'safe' (Let's be picky here and talk about
> the fat soluble vitamins - usual argument) I take vitamin
> c, show me where that is deadly, I also take amino acids
> - show me where they are deadly. They aint, so why
> regulate them?
>
> > > > > just because you don't advocate big doses of
> > > > > vitamins. The people that take the vitamin doses
> > > > > do so out of their own
> choice - it is
> > > > > not forced down their throats, and the overall
> > > > > damage that these
> vitamins
> > > > > causes is very small when compared with other
> > > > > medicines which are
> regulated.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe Tylenol should come in 50,000 mg tabs -- hey,
> > > > why not? People could take just a few instead of all
> > > > that tiresome swallowing & bloating with glass after
> > > > glass of liquids! It's their choice, after all. It's
> > > > not forced down their throats, right? Regulating
> > > > Tylenol doesn't stop folks from taking as many of
> > > > the little buggers as they want to, does it??
> > >
> > > Irrelevant since Tylenol isn't a vitamin last time I
> > > looked.
> >
> > "Irrelevant"?? Hardly, unless your ideas of freedom of
> > choice WRT one's own health is merely lip service, Anth
>
> Diversion I don't take Tylenol, never have - I take
> *vitamins* .
> > > > Regulation isn't prohibition. OTC meds are the
> > > > perfect example of that. Regulation doesn't stop
> > > > those who want to take high doses of supplements
> > > > from taking them.
>
> Regulation means I can't access the doses at the prices
> and quantities I want, and it would mean I am a criminal
> if I tried.
>
> > > Oh but it will since selling large dose vitamins wil
> > > become a criminal offense. People like me will be
> > > forced to either break the law or take the lower
> > > doses.
> >
> > Nonsense. You still want to take megadoses of a
> > supplement? Who's stopping you? Nobody. Just as someone
> > can take 10 ES Tylenol tabs (5000 mg), you can certainly
> > swallow 20 Vit. B6 tabs. to ingest a toxic amount.
>
> (Ignored the usual anything is toxic argument) I can put
> my hand in a fire and burn it if I want, or warm my hand
> on the flame. . If CODEX is put into place I will be
> stopped or become a criminal.
>
> > Oh please, when does regulation of *anything* stop?
> > [Besides, don't many foods contain those vitamins you
> > want to take in such megadoses? And don't forget that
> > both conventional & alt. health care make a BUNDLE from
> > obesity, whether targeting weight loss or the problems
> > resulting from being overweight.
>
> It stops when the money grabbing pharma cartels are
> stripped of their powers.
>
> > And don't forget that both conventional & alt. health
> > care make a BUNDLE from obesity, whether targeting
> > weight loss or the problems resulting from being
> > overweight.
>
> People have got wise and now they go on atkins for a
> few weeks.
>
> > Whether it's phentermine or products like Hydroxycut,
> > there's big bucks to
> be made in selling overweight
> > people the dream of being thin.] Your response to my
> > question about allowing megadoses of a pharm product
> > like acetaminophen was to simply say it wasn't a vitamin
> > -- is it your position that such products should be
> > freely available to anyone or not?
>
> Again diversion, vitamins are foodstuffs, why not make it
> illegal for the 'fat people' who purposely gorge mega dose
> foods to quit eating as much food?
>
> > How about simply putting both alt. & conventional
> > remedies of all
> potencies on the shelf (with
> > the only requirement being that the contents/dose be
> > accurately labeled) & letting consumers decide for
> > themselves what to take?
>
> > Liver damage is liver damage -- what's the difference if
> > it's the result of some moron overdosing on Tylenol or
> > Kava kava? Prohibit the dummies who practice the "if
> > some is good, more must be better" philosophy from suing
> > anybody. Leave it up to the buyer to find accurate
> > information about the product. If this is acceptable WRT
> > supplements, there should be no problem applying these
> > guidelines to pharmaceuticals
>
> I must be suffering from liver damage then, taking so high
> doses of vitamins. *Vitamins*
>
> > It has NOTHING to do with any "control". Feel free to
> > take Kava kava by the handful. Sprinkle 1000mg of
> > Vitamin B6 on a sundae & go to town. You can certainly
> > do it swallowing a few more of the lower dose tabs.
>
> Again you arer being selection I quoted *vitamins* Take
> your blinkers off and see how the pharma giants have
> tooled up with CODEX to control.
>
> > Fortunately most people will not do that, resulting in
> > fewer adverse results. But you can do so if that's what
> > you want. After all, idiots OD on many pharm products
> > that are sold in appropriate doses, accurately labeled.
> > No reason idiots shouldn't be able to do so with GRAS
> > dosages of alt. products, right?
>
> (Difficult to pin down perhaps because they are so
> low) Anth
> N.B.Do you take mega doses of vitamins, if not then shut
> the hell up! I don't want some 'buzzy body' killing my
> freedom?

No diversions on my part, just denial on yours, Anth. You've
avoided the idea of allowing people freedom of choice to
take whatever conventional or natural meds they want --
reserving that right just for the products *you* want to
take. Regs wouldn't make anyone a criminal if they want to
down 200 mg of Vit. B6 & damage themselves neurologically.
[Your reference to Vit. C being safe because it is water
soluble shows that you're as uninformed as many others are
WRT vitamin safety issues. Water solubility is no blanket
assurance that a vitamin is safe to take in mega doses. The
regs you so desperately want to avoid are apparently just
what your misinformed ilk need.]

And for somebody who's whining about freedom, you
hypocritically tell somebody else to "shut the hell up" --
no way, Anth, but not
 
"Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> It's the old "If they aren't like me, I am afraid of it,
> will attack destroy it"

Do you actually read a thread before you toss in nonsense
like the above? It doesn't show......
 
> No diversions on my part, just denial on yours, Anth.
> You've avoided the idea of allowing people freedom of
> choice to take whatever conventional or natural meds they
> want -- reserving that right just for the products *you*
> want to take. Regs wouldn't make anyone a criminal if they
> want to down 200 mg of Vit. B6 & damage themselves
> neurologically.

> [Your reference to Vit. C being safe because it is water
> soluble shows that you're as uninformed as many others
> are WRT

Excuse ...... me where did I say that about water soluble,
could you be hallucinating?

> vitamin safety issues. Water solubility is no blanket
> assurance that a vitamin is safe to take in mega doses.
> The regs you so desperately want to avoid are apparently
> just what your misinformed ilk need.]

I think you are confused with someone else?

> And for somebody who's whining about freedom, you
> hypocritically tell somebody else to "shut the hell up" --
> no way, Anth, but not

Yeah I tell you to shut the hell up because you are out
to spoil my freedom, using silly arguments which you
know little or nothing about. Vitamins have a very safe
track record. You probably don't even take mega dose
vitamins. Anth
 
"CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Anth wrote:
> > "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >>> "Michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> news:[email protected]
> >>> m...
> >>>
> >>>> Regulation isn't prohibition. OTC meds are the
> >>>> perfect
> example of
> >>>> that. Regulation doesn't stop those who want to take
> high doses of
> >>>> supplements from taking them.
> >>>
> >>> Oh but it will since selling large dose vitamins wil
> become a
> >>> criminal offense. People like me will be forced to
> >>> either break the law or
> take the
> >>> lower doses.
> >>
> >> Oh please. Now you are just sounding silly, not to
> mention paranoid.
> >> No one stops you from taking all the Tylenol,
> >> aspirin, or
> any other
> >> OTC drug that you want to take. Regulating
> >> "supplements"
> as OTC drugs
> >> would insure some truth in labelling and manufacturing
> standards but
> >> would not impede you from taking all you want. In fact,
> it would help
> >> you because you would then actually have some idea what
> is in the
> >> bottle (unlike now).
> >
> > Excuse me? I never said I wanted to take Tylenol
> > asprin or
> any other.
>
> No but those are other products that you are free to take
> as much of as you want (or not) and [here is the important
> part so pay attention this time] they are regulated as
> some are suggesting "supplements" be regulated. IOW -
> things regulated in this way do not have the doses people
> can take limited.

How can you regulate something if you can't test it properly
because your method of testing has such a bad track record
it can't get >40% - 1st you need to fix your 'broken'
testing methods? Pharma can't even produce a decent track
record on it's own products with potential problems either
being ignored via study design or seletion bias.

> > I suggest you read the post *again* before you open your
> stupid MD
> > mouth. Regulating vitamins would mean I don't have
> > access
> to doses
> > that I *want* to take and their current prices.
>
> Why not? Explain this little bit of paranoia. Please cite
> examples of OTC products in which the dose that may be
> taken is limited.

There's doses and potential warnings on vitamins, they have
a safer track record than pharmaceuticals. There's very
little deaths from vitamins (if any) what's the point of
suppressing them on the basis of safety?

> --
> CBI, MD

Anth
 
In article <[email protected]>, "Gymmy Bob"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Well put Anth!
>
>"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:dN6dnb4K1qj-gAjdRVn-
>[email protected]...
>> There's doses and potential warnings on vitamins, they
>> have a safer track record than pharmaceuticals. There's
>> very little deaths from vitamins (if any) what's the
>> point of suppressing them on the basis of safety?
Epherda hardly killed anyone. An FDA study found that
people sickened by ephedrine products suffered from heart
attack, stroke, angina, and heart arrhythmia. The
products also caused seizures, psychiatric disorders,
dizziness, personality changes, memory loss, rashes,
vomiting, diarrhea and fatigue. A five-year study
performed at the National Poisons Information Service in
London, England, provides evidence that some alternative
remedies are associated with significant toxicities such
as severe allergic reactions, heavy metal poisonings, and
hepatotoxicity. (Shaw D, Leon C, et al. "Traditional
remedies and food supplements: a five year toxicological
study." Drug Saf. 1997;17(5):342-356.)

Supplements Associated with Illnesses and Injuries
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdsuppch.html

ASHLAND, OREGON. Investigators at the U.S. National Fish and
Wildlife Forensics Laboratory report that they have found
potentially toxic levels of arsenic and mercury in Chinese
herbal balls. Herbal balls are a mixture of medicinal herbs
and honey and are dissolved in warm wine or water and then
drunk as a tea. The investigators analyzed the balls as part
of their effort to prevent the importation of products from
endangered species. They found that the mercury content in
the 32 balls tested varied between 7.8 and 621.3 mg per ball
while the arsenic content varied between 0.1 and 36.6 mg.
The most contaminated preparation was An Gong Niu Huang Wan
from the Tung Jen Tang Pharamaceutical Factory in Nanjing.
These balls contained between 3.21 and
36.6 mg of arsenic and between 80.7 and 621.3 mg of mercury,
most likely in the form of sulfides. The investigators
warn that chronic poisoning has been reported in people
ingesting as little as 10 mg per day of arsenic sulfide
and among people ingesting approximately 260 mg per day
of mercury sulfide. Espinoza, Edgard O., et al. Arsenic
and mercury in traditional Chinese herbal balls. The New
England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 333, No. 12, September
21, 1995, pp. 803-04

EXETER, ENGLAND. Dr. Edzard Ernst, MD, Professor of
Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter has just
released a major report on the safety of herbal medicines.
Dr. Ernst surveyed the medical literature between 1992 and
1996 for reports concerning adverse effects of herbal
remedies. Among his findings are:

* Royal jelly has been linked to several cases of severe
bronchospasm;
* Twenty-two cases of severe toxic effects involving
pennyroyal have been reported;
* Germander has been linked to 30 cases of acute
liver failure;
* Chaparral, comfrey and skullcap have all been linked
to liver problems and the shiitake mushroom has been
associated with dermatitis;
* Chinese herbal medicines have been linked to a host of
adverse effects and are often contaminated, especially
with heavy metals;
* Siberian ginseng can interact with digoxin, licorice
with prednisone, and some Chinese herbal preparations
with warfarin;
* Four per cent (108) of 2695 patients admitted to a
Taiwanese hospital had drug-related problems. Herbal
medicines ranked third among the categories of
medicines responsible for causing adverse effects;
* Out of 1701 patients admitted to a Hong Kong hospital
three were admitted because of adverse reactions to
Chinese herbal drugs;
* The London-based National Poisons Unit received a
total of 1070 enquiries relating to herbal and
other traditional medicines between January 1983
and March 1989.

Dr. Ernst concludes that the following herbal medicines are
safe: camomile, garlic, Ginkgo biloba, peppermint,
sabal, saw palmetto, and St. John's wort. He also points
out that herbal remedies often are safer than the
corresponding pharmaceutical drugs. For instance, St.
John's wort has fewer side effects than synthetic
antidepressants. Herbal remedies for prostate problems
are as effective and significantly safer than the
popular drug Finasteride and a mixture of fennel,
peppermint and wormwood is more effective and far safer
then metoclopramide. Editor's note: More than 80 per
cent of the world's population rely on herbal medicines
to cure their illnesses and annual sales in Europe and
the United States exceed $8 billion. Dr. Ernst's
exhaustive study documents a total of 37 fatalities and
less than 200 other adverse effects involving herbal
remedies during a five-year period. That works out to an
average of 7 fatalities and less than 40 adverse events
per year ascribable to the use of herbal medicines.
Considering that in the United States alone more than
7500 people die every year from taking nonsteroidal anti-
inflammatory drugs and over 750,000 people experience an
adverse drug event within American hospitals every year
it is clear that herbal medicines are actually
remarkably safe. Ernst, Edzard. Harmless herbs? A review
of the recent literature. American Journal of Medicine,
Vol. 104, February 1998, pp. 170-78

AMARILLO, TEXAS. As herbal remedies grow in popularity it
becomes increasingly important that users and their health
care practitioners know of the potential interactions
between herbs and pharmaceutical drugs. Many herbs have
powerful effects which may be increased or counteracted by
pharmaceutical drugs and vice versa. Dr. Lucinda Miller, a
pharmacist at the Texas Tech University, has just published
a comprehensive report listing the most common interactions.
Among her main findings are the following:

* Echinacea, if used for more than eight consecutive
weeks, could cause liver toxicity and therefore
should not be used with drugs such as anabolic
steroids, amiodarone, and methotrexate which are
toxic to the liver.
* NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) should
not be used when feverfew is taken for migraine
headaches.
* Feverfew, garlic, ginger, ginseng, and Ginkgo biloba
all affect bleeding time and should not be taken by
patients using warfarin.
* Until more data is available, St. John's wort should
not be taken with monoamine oxidase inhibitors or
selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors like Prozac
and Paxil.
* Licorice, plantain, hawthorn, and ginseng may
interfere with digoxin therapy and valarian root
should not be taken when barbiturates are used.
* Evening primrose oil and borage are contraindicated in
patients taking anticonvulsants and licorice can
offset the pharmacological effect of the potassium-
sparing diuretic spironolactone.
* Immunostimulants such as Echinacea and zinc should not
be given with immunosuppressants such as
corticosteroids (prednisone, etc.) and cyclosporine
and are contraindicated in patients suffering from
rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus.

Ds. Miller points out that more than 60 million Americans
now use herbal remedies, but that 70 per cent of them do
not tell their physician or pharmacist that they do so.
She recommends that physicians when taking a patient's
medical history pay just as much attention to what herbs
they are taking as to what drugs they are taking. (171
references) Miller, Lucinda G. Herbal medicinals.
Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 158, November 9,
1998, pp. 2200-11

And this isn't even discussing the interactoins with each
other and traditional medicines. But, hey other than
this, you are right.

--------------------------------------------------------
"Writers even write the silences"

- J. Michael Straczynski
 
Anth wrote:
>
> There's doses and potential warnings on vitamins, they
have a safer
> track record than pharmaceuticals. There's very little
> deaths from vitamins (if any) what's
the point of
> suppressing them on the basis of safety?

Why not try reading my posts before responding?

--
CBI, MD
 
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > No diversions on my part, just denial on yours, Anth.
> > You've avoided the idea of allowing people freedom of
> > choice to take whatever conventional or natural meds
> > they want -- reserving that right just for the products
> > *you* want to take. Regs wouldn't make anyone a criminal
> > if they want to down 200 mg of Vit. B6 & damage
> > themselves neurologically.
>
> > [Your reference to Vit. C being safe because it is
> > water soluble shows that you're as uninformed as many
> > others are WRT
>
> Excuse ...... me where did I say that about water soluble,
> could you be hallucinating?

Your mention of the dangers of some fat soluble vitamins
being used as the basis those favoring regs cite (which I
never said, so any hallucinating must be on your part):

["Vitamins are 'safe' (Let's be picky here and talk about
the fat soluble vitamins - usual argument) I take vitamin
c, show me where that is deadly"]

What you call "the usual argument" wasn't ever brought up by
me. You made reference to fat soluble vitamins while arguing
your mega doses of Vitamin C (a water soluble vitamin) are
safe. If the the water solubility of Vit. C wasn't part of
your assertion that it is safe, why bring up the fat
solubility of other vitamins?

> > vitamin safety issues. Water solubility is no blanket
> > assurance that a vitamin is safe to take in mega doses.
> > The regs you so desperately want to avoid are apparently
> > just what your misinformed ilk need.]
>
>
> I think you are confused with someone else?

See above.

> > And for somebody who's whining about freedom, you
> > hypocritically tell somebody else to "shut the hell up"
> > -- no way, Anth, but not

>
> Yeah I tell you to shut the hell up because you are out to
> spoil my freedom,

Nobody's out to stop you from taking diarrhea inducing doses
of Vitamin C. Just as pharm. products that are regulated by
classification (OTC, prescription, Schedules) can still be
readily obtained, supplements would be too. They'd have to
be accurately labeled & that alone would help consumers use
the products safely. OD on Vitamin B, kill your liver with
Kava kava, turn yourself orange with Vitamin A -- you'd
still have the freedom to engage in all sorts of stupidity.
You'd just have to take a few more tabs to do it. Your
insistence on preserving a freedom for yourself that regs
wouldn't take away -- while trying (unsuccessfully) to
stifle my freedom to express my POV -- is to be expected
from someone who can't understand the difference between
regulation & prohibition.

> using silly arguments which you know little or
> nothing about.

You have been the one presenting ludicrous arguments, Anth.
Your saying that regs would forbid you from mega dosing on
vitamins, that you'd be a criminal for buying & using a
legal product the way you see fit, that the current lack of
standards somehow insures the price you want to pay for such
supplements shows that your knowledge about supplements,
pharm drugs, CODEX, & regulations (actual & proposed) could
be fit on a moth ball -- although separating the moth's legs
might prove to be a challenge.

> Vitamins have a very safe track record.

Haphazard & biased reporting of adverse events related to
misuse of vitamins, herbs, & other supplements makes
accurate assessment of supplement safety difficult. [This
was one reason why ephedra was demonized, despite little in
the way of danger *when used properly by people for whom its
use wasn't contraindicated*. The LACK of regulation was what
led to ephedra being pulled from the shelves.] The dosage of
the vitamins & other nutriceuticals taken is one of the
major considerations WRT their safety & regulating dosages
of OTC remedies would prevent the misuse of the products
being used as grounds to prohibit their use altogether.

In the 1980's it was proclaimed that mega doses of Vitamin
B6 was helpful in managing the s/s of PMS. It was then that
the cases of nerve damage from such mega doses began to be
recognized & reported. It's likely that there were more
cases of such adverse effects that weren't attributed to
taking the vitamin (with many people erroneously thinking it
was "all-natural -- not like a drug" & couldn't possibly be
the cause of any neurological problems). That doesn't mean
Vit. B6 should be pulled from the stores. Selling the
product in GRAS doses doesn't prohibit a buyer from taking
mega doses of it, either.

> You probably don't even take mega dose vitamins. Anth

I eat a well balanced diet as part of a healthy lifestyle.
I'm not interested in vitamin induced diarrhea or nerve
damage, any more than I want gastric bleeding from aspirin.
I treat vitamins, herbs, & other supplements with the same
care I use in my minimal intake of pharmaceuticals.

I encourage you to continue expressing your POV, Anth. I'll
continue to express mine. Your decision to mega dose on just
about anything has my full support.
 
Fat soluable : I was referring to the fact that people like
you would make that a point to say why they are toxic. I
said nothing about fat soluble that being evidence of
safety. It is you who is hallucinating. Anth

"Michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > > No diversions on my part, just denial on yours, Anth.
> > > You've avoided the idea of allowing people freedom of
> > > choice to take whatever conventional or natural meds
> > > they want -- reserving that right just for the
> > > products *you* want to take. Regs wouldn't make anyone
> > > a criminal if they want to down 200 mg of Vit. B6 &
> > > damage themselves neurologically.
> >
> > > [Your reference to Vit. C being safe because it is
> > > water soluble shows that you're as uninformed as many
> > > others are WRT
> >
> > Excuse ...... me where did I say that about water
> > soluble, could you be hallucinating?
>
> Your mention of the dangers of some fat soluble vitamins
> being used as the basis those favoring regs cite (which I
> never said, so any hallucinating must be on your part):
>
> ["Vitamins are 'safe' (Let's be picky here and talk about
> the fat soluble vitamins - usual argument) I take vitamin
> c, show me where that is deadly"]
>
> What you call "the usual argument" wasn't ever brought up
> by me. You made reference to fat soluble vitamins while
> arguing your mega doses of Vitamin C (a water soluble
> vitamin) are safe. If the the water solubility of Vit. C
> wasn't part of your assertion that it is safe, why bring
> up the fat solubility of other vitamins?
>
>
> > > vitamin safety issues. Water solubility is no blanket
> > > assurance that a vitamin is safe to take in mega
> > > doses. The regs you so desperately want to avoid are
> > > apparently just what your misinformed ilk need.]
> >
> >
> > I think you are confused with someone else?
>
> See above.
>
> > > And for somebody who's whining about freedom, you
> > > hypocritically tell somebody else to "shut the hell
> > > up" -- no way, Anth, but not

> >
> > Yeah I tell you to shut the hell up because you are out
> > to spoil my
freedom,
>
> Nobody's out to stop you from taking diarrhea inducing
> doses of Vitamin C. Just as pharm. products that are
> regulated by classification (OTC, prescription, Schedules)
> can still be readily obtained, supplements would be too.
> They'd have to be accurately labeled & that alone would
> help consumers use the products safely. OD on Vitamin B,
> kill your liver with Kava kava, turn yourself orange with
> Vitamin A -- you'd still have the freedom to engage in all
> sorts of stupidity. You'd just have to take a few more
> tabs to do it. Your insistence on preserving a freedom for
> yourself that regs wouldn't take away -- while trying
> (unsuccessfully) to stifle my freedom to express my POV --
> is to be expected from someone who can't understand the
> difference between regulation & prohibition.
>
> > using silly arguments which you know little or nothing
> > about.
>
> You have been the one presenting ludicrous arguments,
> Anth. Your saying that regs would forbid you from mega
> dosing on vitamins, that you'd be a criminal for buying &
> using a legal product the way you see fit, that the
> current lack of standards somehow insures the price you
> want to pay for such supplements shows that your knowledge
> about supplements, pharm drugs, CODEX, & regulations
> (actual & proposed) could be fit on a moth ball --
> although separating the moth's legs might prove to be a
> challenge.
>
> > Vitamins have a very safe track record.
>
> Haphazard & biased reporting of adverse events related to
> misuse of vitamins, herbs, & other supplements makes
> accurate assessment of supplement safety difficult. [This
> was one reason why ephedra was demonized, despite little
> in the way of danger *when used properly by people for
> whom its use wasn't contraindicated*. The LACK of
> regulation was what led to ephedra being pulled from the
> shelves.] The dosage of the vitamins & other
> nutriceuticals taken is one of the major considerations
> WRT their safety & regulating dosages of OTC remedies
> would prevent the misuse of the products being used as
> grounds to prohibit their use altogether.
>
> In the 1980's it was proclaimed that mega doses of Vitamin
> B6 was helpful in managing the s/s of PMS. It was then
> that the cases of nerve damage from such mega doses began
> to be recognized & reported. It's likely that there were
> more cases of such adverse effects that weren't attributed
> to taking the vitamin (with many people erroneously
> thinking it was "all-natural -- not like a drug" &
> couldn't possibly be the cause of any neurological
> problems). That doesn't mean Vit. B6 should be pulled from
> the stores. Selling the product in GRAS doses doesn't
> prohibit a buyer from taking mega doses of it, either.
>
> > You probably don't even take mega dose vitamins. Anth
>
> I eat a well balanced diet as part of a healthy lifestyle.
> I'm not interested in vitamin induced diarrhea or nerve
> damage, any more than I want gastric bleeding from
> aspirin. I treat vitamins, herbs, & other supplements with
> the same care I use in my minimal intake of
> pharmaceuticals.
>
> I encourage you to continue expressing your POV, Anth.
> I'll continue to express mine. Your decision to mega dose
> on just about anything has my full support.
 
On Sun, 2 May 2004 23:45:56 +0100, "Anth" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Fat soluable : I was referring to the fact that people like
>you would make that a point to say why they are toxic.

People like her?? Do you disagree about fat soluble vitamins
being toxic when taken in large doses???

>I said nothing about fat soluble that being evidence
>of safety.

Perhaps you can rephrase the above so that it makes sense.
Do you proof read what you post here?

Perhaps you can clarify your position about the safety of
various vitamins when taken in megadoses. Do you think that
all vitamins are safe to take in large doses?? Which ones
are safe to take in large doses and which ones are not?? How
do you determine which vitamins or supplements are safe to
take in large doses??

>It is you who is hallucinating. Anth

Cue Anth to make a gratuitous personal attack instead
of directly answering the reasonable questions above.
Just watch.

Aloha,

Rich
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
On 3 May 2004 14:49:23 -0700, [email protected] (Michele) wrote:

> ["Vitamins are 'safe' (Let's be picky here and talk about
> the fat soluble vitamins - usual argument) I take vitamin
> c, show me where that is deadly"]

No let's opt for Vitamin A.

Any toxicity in mega-doses ?
--

W_B

Take out the G'RBAGE
[email protected]
 
<Rich.@.> crawled out of the woodwork in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 2 May 2004 23:45:56 +0100, "Anth"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Fat soluable : I was referring to the fact that people
> >like you would
make
> >that a point to say why they are toxic.
>
> People like her?? Do you disagree about fat soluble
> vitamins being toxic when taken in large doses???

Everything is toxic in sufficient doses you plonker. I
disagree with people trying to empose their draconian
views on me.

> >I said nothing about fat soluble that being evidence of
> >safety.
>
> Perhaps you can rephrase the above so that it makes sense.
> Do you proof read what you post here?

Do you?

> Perhaps you can clarify your position about the safety of
> various vitamins when taken in megadoses. Do you think
> that all vitamins are safe to take in large doses?? Which
> ones are safe to take in large doses and which ones are
> not?? How do you determine which vitamins or supplements
> are safe to take in large doses??

The safety of vitamins is clear cut, the safety of pharma
products isn't, and since they can't guarantee the efficacy
of their own testing, they want to test others.

>
> >It is you who is hallucinating. Anth

> Cue Anth to make a gratuitous personal attack instead
> of directly answering the reasonable questions above.
> Just watch.

Cue this cue that bleh... bleh... bleh usual ranting from
Rich who thinks he's an alt med prophet. About time you
emptied the verbal recycle bin.

> Aloha,
>
> Rich
> -------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back