The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry



"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:DPClc-
> [email protected]...
> >
> > [snip] And the better questions:
> >
> > Since the little pills he pops are subject to no
> > regulation at all how does he know what is in them?
>
> Well this doesn't matter to me because it's unlikely
> (almost impossible) that I am going to overdose on
> vitamins even if the quantities listed were shaky. I doubt
> that 50mg means 150mg or 1mg on vitamins either, and since
> there's a huge margin of error with vitamins I don't
> really care..

Wasn't it you who wanted to get the best price? What if the
bottle said 150mg but the tablet only had 1mg?

What if the tablet had 50mg of soemthing else entirely?

> > Doesn't the fact that just about every study on the
> > matter shows that the "supplements" almost never have in
> > them what they say they do bother him (the typical
> > result is that about 10% are accurately labelled, 10%
> > have more, 80% have less (often none), and often there
> > are other ingredients not mentioned on the label)?
>
> I could quote the things about medicines also, and the
> hype in their brochures, about how many of them are
> unproven and useless but I won't go there.

Because you can't. Go ahead - give it a try. Styart with the
PDR (that's the approved labeling) and then find somethong
from the manufacturer that isn't consistent with that
document. By definition, the approved labeling includes all
of the proven claims - why? Because that is the law.

> Well it does, how can you regulate for instance a herb
> who's contents are going to differ in different batches?

You bet you can. And herds are not people, so it's not a
who, it is a what.

> > Wouldn't he rather have at least some assurances that he
> > is getting what he pays for?
>
> I get what I pay for.

No, you might be getting what is on the label - and then
again, you admit you might not.

> > I'm sure he will answer with some gibberish about
> > quality products and reputable dealers (they always do).
> > To this I ask how, other than the price, do you know?
>
> 'They always do'

the infamous "they" again.

js
 
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:6Lhmc-
> [email protected]...
> > Anth wrote:
> > >
> > > Mortality/Morbidity: Morbidity and mortality from pure
> vitamins are
> > > rare. One study of acute or chronic overdoses, with
> > > more
> than 40,000
> > > exposures, reported 1 death and 8 major adverse
> > > outcomes.
> > >
> > > Do you know how small 49000/100,000,000 is ?
> >
> > Do you know the difference between an acute overdose and
> > chronic ingestion?

CBI - it's become quite obvious - we are arguing based on
medical science, data, and statistics and Anth is arguing
anecdote, opinion, and conjecture.

My question is - why are we wasting our time. Other than the
entertainment value and the chuckles from his posts, I don't
see much merit.

> I'm talking about where ingestion becomes unsafe

No - you started with the premise that vitamins were non-
toxic - that they are perfectly safe, even in megadoses.

> and the person needs medical attention or the safety of
> the person is in question.

Hepatotoxicity is hardly an innocuous side effect.
Hypotension is potentially life threatening. You want to
roll the dice?

"Niacin toxicity does exist, but is rare. Dr. Hoffer found
that even 40,000 mg daily is not toxic but estimated that
over 200,000 mg/day is fatal."

Fatal???

> I also do not consider 'flushing' (I flush on RDA niacin)
> or a minor stomach upset caused by the fact that people
> have taken the vitamin on an empty stomach to be a sign of
> toxicity.

That is irrelevant. The FDA considers ADRs (AEs) to be signs
of tocicity. The medical community considers these events to
be signs of toxicity. Just because you don't is meaningless.
If that's all you have - your personal opinion and

> "Vitamins are toxic - I flushed on one niacin pill!!"

Some patients experience significant flushing after even
therapeutic doses of niacin - this is an example of an
acute toxicity.

Some patients experience experience hepatotoxicity even at
chronic doses of as little as 500mg per day!

> "Vitamins are toxic, I had a gastric upset when I took
> 500mg of niacin!!!"

nausea and diarrhea - not exactly pleasant for me - perhaps
you enjoy it?

>
> C'mon these guys are nuts!

You argued for 3 grams of niacin. Regardless, flushing is a
sign of systemic toxicity. There is no getting around this,
Anth. Hepatotoxicity, gi disturbances, arrhythmias, ulcer5s,
and the like are just the top of the iceberg of what vitamin
toxicities are.

> (Noted that people are ignoring the statistics I posted
> 49000 cases per 100,000,000, approx 37000 in children)

Thanks again for making my point. And given that there are
no obligations on the part of the vitamin manufacturers to
report adverse events, the number could well be dramatically
under reported.

> > It is also pretty rare for people to have adverse
> > effects from acute overdoses of warfarin. I don't think
> > anyone would describe it as non-toxic if taken over time
> > and not appropriately
> monitored.
>
> Would you consider it safe?

The benefit outweighs the risk - pulmonary embolisms are
almost always fatal but warfarin bleeds are readily
reversible with small doses of IV vit K1.

js
 
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> How do you explain that there's very little cases of
> niacin toxicity recorded?

It is a supplement. There is no body that collects
that data.

> Also how do yo explain that I flush at RDA quantities, are
> you saying that RDA quantities are unsafe?

No, "safety" is a relative term. Everything is both safe and
unsafe depending on the curcumstances. I am saying that
Niacin, at doses recommended by the FDA to prevent
deficiency, does have some smal amount of toxicity. I think
by almost anyone's definition it is safe. However, you are
not talking about taking it at "RDA doses". You are
discussing therapeutic doses. At these doses it's safety is
comparable to other prescription medications given to treat
cholesterol. They are considered generally safer than the
condition they treat. However, they are dangerous enough
that they should be monitored by a physician (apparently
your own beloved Hoffer agrees). They probably are not safe
enough to warrant being taken at therapeutic doses (i.e.
gram quantities which are much higher than the RDA) by a
person at very low risk of cardiac disease.

> No I don't believe flushing is a sign of toxicity.

You can believe anything you want. You can believe that the
half of the day when the sun is shining overhead is not
"day" but the rest of the world will still call it that.

Flushing is by any reasonable definition a toxicity. It is
often toxic enough to cause reasonable people to accept an
increased risk of cardiac disease and stroke in order to
avoid it. Would you consider an MI or stroke a toxicity of
elevated cholesterol? If large numbers of reasonable people
think risking them is preferable to the flushing from niacin
what does that say about whether niacin can be toxic?

Also, as has been pointed out to you (including references
by Hoffer), flushing is not the only toxicity.

I guess you have no comment about the beta-carotine and
lung cancer.

--
CBI, MD
 
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:DPClc-
> [email protected]...
> >
> > [snip] And the better questions:
> >
> > Since the little pills he pops are subject to no
> > regulation at all how does he know what is in them?
>
> Well this doesn't matter to me because it's unlikely
> (almost impossible) that I am going to overdose on
> vitamins even if the quantities listed were shaky. I doubt
> that 50mg means 150mg or 1mg on vitamins either, and since
> there's a huge margin of error with vitamins I don't
> really care..

Research suggests that ther eis a small chance that the
pill may have several times the dose that the bottle says
it has. I agree that this is unlikely to be a big problem.
The much more common problem (80-90% in some studies) is
that it has a fraction of the dose, possible none of it. I
agree that this will not hurt your health but it doesn't
help your wallet.

>
> > Doesn't the fact that just about every study on the
> > matter shows that the "supplements" almost never have in
> > them what they say they do bother him (the typical
> > result is that about 10% are accurately labelled, 10%
> > have more, 80% have less (often none), and often there
> > are other ingredients not mentioned on the label)?
>
> I could quote the things about medicines also, and the
> hype in their brochures, about how many of them are
> unproven and useless but I won't go there.

On this topic you can't. Say what you want about the
drug itself but at least the FDA makes sure we know what
is in the pill.

> Well it does, how can you regulate for instance a herb
> who's contents are going to differ in different batches?

They do all the time. You pick a component, or several, and
assay for them. it will not be as precise as other
pharmaceuticals but at least you will have a rough idea. At
the very least you will know that you are not being totally
ripped off by buying a bottle of nothing.

> > Wouldn't he rather have at least some assurances that he
> > is getting what he pays for?
>
> I get what I pay for.

How do you know?

> > I'm sure he will answer with some gibberish about
> > quality products and reputable dealers (they always do).
> > To this I ask how, other than the price, do you know?
>
> 'They always do'

IOW- you don't.

--
CBI, MD
 
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > Do you know the difference between an acute overdose and
> > chronic ingestion?
>
> I'm talking about where ingestion becomes unsafe and the
> person needs medical attention or the safety of the person
> is in question.

That is what I am talking about. In this regard there is a
huge difference between and acut eingestiona nd chronic
exposure. I agree that vitamins are generally pretty safe
when you talk about the kid of acute ingestions that tend to
crop up in ER's. The toxicity associated with mega dose
vitamins tends to crop up after prolonged exposures. So your
pointing out that the people don;t end up in ER's with OD's
is meaningless since that is not when anyone claims you
would be likely to see the toxicity.

> C'mon these guys are nuts! (Noted that people are ignoring
> the statistics I posted 49000 cases per 100,000,000,
> approx 37000 in children)

As above.

> > It is also pretty rare for people to have adverse
> > effects from acute overdoses of warfarin. I don't think
> > anyone would describe it as non-toxic if taken over time
> > and not appropriately
> monitored.
>
> Would you consider it safe?

Again - and this is the whole point - is depends on the
circumstances.

If a parent calls me and says that junior got into grandma's
coumadin bottle and took 10 pills I tell her it is very safe
and unlikely to have any adverse effects. If a patient is
taking coumadin at 1/10th that dose every day but not
getting their blood checked reguarly I tell them that it is
extremely dangerous.

--
CBI, MD
 
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I didn't say the were non-existent

Liar. You said megadoses of vitamins are safe and don't have
toxicities using niacin as an example.

"Look at any toxicology centre, and see how your point melts
away about vitamins being toxic."

"They are not evidence that mega dose vitamins are toxic.
If they were then we would be getting more reports of
their toxicity from the docs that were using them in
their protocols. I posted reported of doctors who used a
variety of vitamins in mega doses without problems,
typically vitamin b3. has the vitamins been overly toxic
in those doses then the doc would have reported this,
which he didn't."

"I would certainly not call it toxic."

"I flush with RDA amounts of niacin - does that prove that
it is toxic I think not."

> I said that vitamins were safe, as Rich pointed out with
> his case study of niacin toxicity. The usual argument
> goes that everything is toxic in sufficient doses. People
> are taking mega doses of vitamins without reported
> toxicity, that casts serious doubt on the fact that they
> are not safe.

Megadoses of vitamins are associated with increase risk of
toxicities. Megadoses of vitamins are not inherently safe.

> > Niacin related flushing is, by medical definition, a
> > toxic reaction. It happens, even at lower doses.

> > You're done - but thanks for proving my point.
> >
> > js

js
 
On Thu, 6 May 2004 00:06:23 +0100, "Anth" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>What gets me is that the guy sits here and basically
>tells me that I am having a toxic reaction to an RDA
>vitamin (niacin)

No. It is not toxic to feel a hot burning sensation in one's
head. That is completely normal:)) I wonder if niacin
causes brain damage secondary to flushing preventing people
who experience it from realizing that it is a toxic
reaction??

Anth is an all or nothing kind of guy. He gets flushing
and thinks it is not toxic since it goes away and he
feels alright.

>When I get angry I get red, that must be a toxic
>reaction also.

No. Getting red when you get angry is a normal physiologic
response. Feeling a hot itching sensation in your head
after ingesting niacin is hardly normal. It is a mild
toxic reaction.

> When I go into a hot bath I go red also... *sighs*

And people who get into a bath that is too hot get burned
and can die.

>He also cherry picks the first page he comes to in google
>on vitamin toxicity and uses that as an excuse to say
>vitamins are unsafe.

Vitamins are relatively safe. When taken in megadoses they
can give toxic reactions, some mild toxicity and some
severe toxicity.

>He talks about my reaction to RDA value of niacin then says
>that this is a toxic reaction, I should watch out otherwise
>I will suffer from liver failure!.

Stick your head in the sand and deny that megadose niacin
can cause serious hepatotoxicity. Go right ahead. I
completely defend your right to take megadoses of vitamins
and deny that they can be harmful. It is your life after
all. I respect your right to be stupid.

>I suggest the guy goes to the FDA and pronounces that
>everyone shouldn't take niacin as it is toxic even in
>RDA doses.

Who said that. I think you should be able to take whatever
you want. It is important that people be informed as to the
dangers of taking large doses.

>Actually the FDA is a bad idea as they are probably bought
>out anyways. Infact I'm pretty sure they are bought out.

Bought out by whom??? Evidence??

Aloha,

Rich

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
On Thu, 6 May 2004 00:07:30 +0100, "Anth" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Also cigarettes are toxic also - we should regulate
>them - NOT!.

We should inform people of the dangers of cigarette smoking
and allow them to make their own choices. But I think that
smokers should pay a very large premium on their health
insurance so their health problems are not subsidized by
nonsmokers.

Aloha,

Rich

>Anth
>
>"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
On Thu, 6 May 2004 04:49:56 +0100, "Anth" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I do see your points and I also see your 'double think' and
>bias. Medicines are ok to feed to people, but vitamins are
>not - we should regulate access to them.

Strawman argument. I have not seen a single person make the
above assertions without qualification. I will now qualify
your statement and allow you to respond.

Medications are appropriate when they are prescribed in the
right doses for the right malady. Vitamins are appropriate
when prescribed for deficiency states and for conditions
where they have been objectively shown to be effective for
treatment or prevention.

Persons taking medications or vitamins should be given
informed consent as to the risks and benefits of them based
on the doses used.

Aloha,

Rich

>Anth
>
>"CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Anth wrote:
>> > If vitamins are not safe (they have less reported
>> toxicites than
>> > normal medications) then what does this make of
>> > medicines?
>> Of course
>> > this point will be ignored as usual. Anth
>>
>>
>> You completely miss the points that have been made to yuo
>> several times.
>>
>> 1) Safe is relative. They are safe when compared to many
>> meds but they also do have toxicities.
>>
>> 2) If you are going to compare them to prescription drugs
>> you can't just compare the toxicities. You must also
>> compare the therapeutic value.
>> --
>> CBI, MD
>

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
On Thu, 6 May 2004 06:09:20 +0100, "Anth" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I've told you that I accept that there's toxicity issues
>with vitamins.

Perhaps you can share with the group what you think that
these issues are. If you say that you have already told us
then I will assume that you are unable to discuss this topic
intelligently since you have *not* been specific about what
you consider the toxic effects of vitamins to be.

List the vitamins that you believe to have toxicity issues
and what doses you think should be avoided. Note that I am
*not* talking about restricting people from taking as much
as they want of whatever vitamin they want. I *am* talking
about what *you* think are the toxic doses of various
vitamins and what the toxicities are.

Aloha,

Rich

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > I didn't say the were non-existent
> >
> > Liar. You said megadoses of vitamins are safe and don't
> > have toxicities using niacin as an example.
>
> Liar also you said vitamins were not safe and then you
> admitted later on that niacin was safe!

I said that niacin at therapeutic doses is relatively safe.

> Megadoses of vitamins are safe and I will maintain that
> they are safe period until I see people suffering from
> adverse toxicity.

OK - fine. you go right ahead and maintain it - meanwhile,
the toxicities you say don't exist will happen to other
people, and not you.

> > "Look at any toxicology centre, and see how your point
> > melts away about vitamins being toxic."
> >
> > "They are not evidence that mega dose vitamins are
> > toxic. If they were then we would be getting more
> > reports of their toxicity from the docs that were using
> > them in their protocols. I posted reported of doctors
> > who used a variety of vitamins in mega doses without
> > problems, typically vitamin b3. has the vitamins been
> > overly toxic in those doses then the doc would have
> > reported this, which he didn't."
> >
> > "I would certainly not call it toxic."
> >
> > "I flush with RDA amounts of niacin - does that prove
> > that it is toxic I think not."
> >
> > > I said that vitamins were safe, as Rich pointed out
> > > with his case study of niacin toxicity. The usual
> > > argument
> goes
> > > that everything is toxic in sufficient doses. People
> > > are taking mega doses of vitamins without reported
> > > toxicity, that casts serious doubt on the fact that
> > > they are not safe.
> >
> > Megadoses of vitamins are associated with increase
> > risk of toxicities. Megadoses of vitamins are not
> > inherently safe.
> >
> > > > Niacin related flushing is, by medical definition, a
> > > > toxic reaction. It happens, even at lower doses.
> >
>
> I think you playing with words and definitions or
> trying to.

Anth - you have tripped over your own words far to often to
have any credibility left.

Good bye.

js
 
"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > message > >
Conclusion
> > : You never showed me one bit of evidence to say
> > : vitamins were
> > > > dangerous.
> > >
> > > Huh? didn't you bother to read?
> >
> > Nice try,
>
> thanks.
>
> > bctually I did bother to read,
>
> no, you didn't.
>
> > those warnings are based on potential problems,
>
> well - DUH!
>
> > which may be based on paranoia or on anecdotes
>
> Ah, no. The adverse events associated with vitamin
> megadose toxicities are documented in the MEDICAL
> literature.
>
> > which have cropped up in the medical literature over the
> > years from reported vitamins use.
>
> ok - SO? Medical evidence not good enough for you?

That wasn't 'evidence' it was pure speculation, for instance
people have toxic reactions to foods does this mean they are
toxic? I think not. (peanuts springs to mind)

> > They are not evidence that mega dose vitamins are toxic.
> Of course they are. What would you call it?

I would certainly not call it toxic.

> > If > they were then we would be getting more reports of
> > their toxicity
from the
> > docs that were using them in their protocols.
>
> What protocols? In the hyperlipidemic studies of niacin
> there were numerous reports of adverse events - from
> flushing to hepatotoxicity. I see the reports routinely.
> Your unfamiliarity with the medical literature is an issue
> you need to deal with.

I see you never read the article I posted about Hoffer and
his 3g niacin - typical. So where is your evidence - where
are all the people suffering from toxic effects of vitamins?
Certain types of niacin causes flushing, there are forms of
niacin which do not. I flush with RDA amounts of niacin -
does that prove that it is toxic I think not. Your argument
is flawed.

> > I posted reported of doctors who used a variety of
> > vitamins in mega
doses
> > without problems, typically vitamin b3. has the vitamins
> > been overly toxic in those doses then the doc would
have
> > reported this, which he didn't.
>
> What - now it is "overly toxic"? Give it up, Anth.

No toxic (3g) is a _mega_ dose - where are all of Hoffer's
patients suffering from niacin toxicity problems?.

> > If the FDA/CODEX gets their way you woud be lucky to get
> > >RDA vitamins.
> Niacin can have toxic side effects and these effects are
> more pronounced at higher doses. Taking mega doses of
> vitamins is not without risk - irrespective of what you
> might want to believe.

> end of story.

Maybe for you but not for me.

> js

Anth
 
I quoted fat soluble vitamins because they are generally
used as evidence of vitamin toxicity. If vitamins are so
toxic as you make out where are all the people suffering
from toxic reactions? Anth

"Michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > 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
>
> It wasn't anyone "like me" who brought up fat soluble
> vitamins in this thread. Do you often mistake YOUR words
> for someone else's? People "like you" who do so would be
> the ones hallucinating -- not someone who knows what was
> said & who said it.
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8624173&dopt=Abstract

Department of Internal Medicine, Kansas University Medical
Center, Kansas City, USA.

As a result of the many scientific and popular press reports
of the benefits of antioxidant vitamins (vitamin A, beta-
carotene, vitamin E, and ascorbic acid), it is estimated
that 40% of the US population is consuming vitamin
supplements. The efficacy of these supplements is not yet
proved, and some have questioned their safety. Approximately
10 to 15 cases of vitamin A toxic reactions are reported per
year in the United States, usually at doses greater than
100,000 IU/d. No adverse effects have been reported for beta-
carotene. The frequency of vitamin E toxic reactions is not
well delineated, but case reports are few at dosages less
than 3200 mg/d. Ascorbic acid toxic reactions are rare at
dosages less than 4 g/d. Despite a lack of clinical trial
data, it seems that antioxidant vitamins are safe, although
prudence might dictate their avoidance by women of
childbearing potential, persons with liver disease or renal
dysfunction, and those taking certain medications or
undergoing specific laboratory tests.

Anth

"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:[email protected]...
 
<Rich.@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 4 May 2004 22:55:39 +0100, "Anth"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > where are all of Hoffer's patients
> > suffering from niacin toxicity problems?.
>
> Dead?
>
> You seem very confident that Hoffer's patients did not
> suffer from toxicity secondary to megadose niacin. Please
> explain your confidence. It is faith??

Yes I am very confident.

> Hepatotoxicity from megadose niacin is well known.

I think you are mistaken.

http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic638.htm Background: More
than 100 million Americans regularly use vitamins. In the
US, consumer spending on vitamins and minerals has doubled
in the last 6 years, reaching $6.5 billion annually. Iron-
containing vitamins are the most toxic, especially in
pediatric acute ingestions (see Toxicity, Iron). Fat-soluble
vitamins are more dangerous in acute ingestions. Overall,
49,709 exposures to different types of vitamins were
reported to the poison control centers across the US in
1998, accounting for 14 major adverse outcomes and no
deaths. Of the total exposures, 39,396 exposures occurred in
children younger than 6 years.

Mortality/Morbidity: Morbidity and mortality from pure
vitamins are rare. One study of acute or chronic overdoses,
with more than 40,000 exposures, reported 1 death and 8
major adverse outcomes.

Do you know how small 49000/100,000,000 is ?

Anth

> Aloha,
>
>
> Rich
 
<Rich.@.> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 4 May 2004 23:21:33 +0100, "Anth"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ><Rich.@.> wrote in message news:40c16405.535900343@news-
> >server.hawaii.rr.com...
> >> On Tue, 4 May 2004 22:55:39 +0100, "Anth"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hepatotoxicity from megadose niacin is well known.
> >
> >I think you are mistaken.
> [snip snip snip] Now I will provide you couple references
> that support my assertion. I realize that you will likely
> reject them for some reason or another. It is your choice.
> YOu have demonstrated that you have quite a double
> standard wrt determining what evidence satisfies you. You
> have clearly shown that you have already made up your mind
> about the safety of all vitamins and can not be confused
> by the facts.

I'm not confused by the facts at all. Where are all the
people suffering from vitamin toxicity ? You seem to think
that vitamins are not safe, I supplied evidence to the
contrary. (I spent a lot of time the other day answering
your whims about Coley's toxins then you buggered off and
didn't even comment)

http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/NI/niacin.html

Toxicity data (The meaning of any abbreviations which appear
in this section is given here.) ORL-RAT LD50 7000 mg kg-1
LD50 in rats is 7g per kilo - equivalent (if these figures
apply for humans) average 80 kilo human taking 560 grammes
to kill 50% of the population?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&-
db=PubMed&list_uids=14614780&dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000

I can take (and have taken) 30-50 g of ascorbate in one day
with suffering bowel problems, this doen't mean it is not
safe. Flushing is not toxicity or lack of safety, bowel
problems are not toxicity or lack of safety unless you
consider crapping ones trousers a sign of not being safe.

http://www.iahf.com/codex/20001206.html FDA Not able to
establish upper limits for b vitamins.

> Now I will provide you couple references that support my
> assertion. I realize that you will likely reject them
> for some reason or another. It is your choice. YOu have
> demonstrated that you have quite a double standard wrt
> determining what evidence satisfies you. You have
> clearly shown that you have already made up your mind
> about the safety of all vitamins and can not be confused
> by the facts.

Now with this you are getting somwhere, but what you
describe is a carefully selected case of one person
suffering from niacin toxicity. From the abstract you cannot
determine what was wrong with the patient, whether they had
liver problems or any other disease and how much naicin they
took. (Everything is toxic in sufficient doses) Vitamins
have a very good safety record in the medical literature, do
you consider alcohol safe?.

> Effects of niacin therapy that simulate neoplasia: hepatic
> steatosis with concurrent hepatic dysfunction. J Comput
> Assist Tomogr 1999 Mar-Apr;23(2):314-7 (ISSN: 0363-8715)
> Kristensen T; Olcott EW Department of Radiology, Veterans
> Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Stanford University
> School of Medicine, CA 94304, USA. Niacin, a widely used
> antihyperlipidemic agent, can produce hepatic steatosis
> and clinical hepatic abnormalities that together simulate
> the presentation of hepatobiliary neoplasia. We describe a
> patient initially suspected of having hepatobiliary
> neoplasia for whom imaging studies played a pivotal role
> in reaching the correct diagnosis of niacin-induced
> hepatotoxicity. Radiologists should become knowledgeable
> of these niacin-related effects, add niacin effects to the
> differential diagnosis of hepatic steatosis, and
> understand the value of correlative imaging in
> distinguishing these effects from hepatobiliary neoplasia.
>
> Prog Cardiovasc Nurs 2001 Winter;16(1):14-20 (ISSN: 0889-
> 7204) Robinson AW; Sloan HL; Arnold G University of
> Louisana at Lafayette, College of Nursing and Allied
> Health Professions, PO Box 43810, Lafayette, LA 70504-
> 3810, USA. Niacin is an inexpensive drug useful in
> treating various forms of hyperlipidemia. Cardiac doses of
> niacin are effective in lowering serum triglyceride, low
> density lipoprotein, and lipoprotein-a levels and in
> elevating high density lipoprotein levels. Adverse
> reactions to niacin are varied and dose-dependent and
> range from annoying cutaneous flushing to hepatic
> toxicity. Patients advised to use the drug should be
> carefully screened and monitored. This paper reviews the
> pathologic and pharmacologic basis for niacin as an
> antilipemic agent. The biochemical and physiologic effects
> of the drug and its mechanisms of action are discussed.
> Emphasis is placed on the importance of aggressive
> management of serum lipids and the therapeutic uses of
> niacin. The use of niacin in primary and secondary
> prevention of heart disease is stressed. A patient
> education guide is included.
>
> Aloha,
>
> Rich

Anth
 
"CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:D[email protected]...
>
> [snip] And the better questions:
>
> Since the little pills he pops are subject to no
> regulation at all how does he know what is in them?

Well this doesn't matter to me because it's unlikely (almost
impossible) that I am going to overdose on vitamins even if
the quantities listed were shaky. I doubt that 50mg means
150mg or 1mg on vitamins either, and since there's a huge
margin of error with vitamins I don't really care..

> Doesn't the fact that just about every study on the matter
> shows that the "supplements" almost never have in them
> what they say they do bother him (the typical result is
> that about 10% are accurately labelled, 10% have more, 80%
> have less (often none), and often there are other
> ingredients not mentioned on the label)?

I could quote the things about medicines also, and the hype
in their brochures, about how many of them are unproven and
useless but I won't go there. Well it does, how can you
regulate for instance a herb who's contents are going to
differ in different batches?

> Wouldn't he rather have at least some assurances that he
> is getting what he pays for?

I get what I pay for.

> I'm sure he will answer with some gibberish about quality
> products and reputable dealers (they always do). To this I
> ask how, other than the price, do you know?

'They always do'

> --
> CBI, MD
 
(Significant potential) The governemnt says mega dose
vitamin c produces kidney stones - there's no evidence of
that also. Anth

"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:[email protected]...
> "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>-
...
> > Anth wrote:
> > >
> >
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&c-
md=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8624173&dopt=Abstract
> > >
> > > Department of Internal Medicine, Kansas University
> > > Medical
> > Center,
> > > Kansas City, USA.
> > >
> > > As a result of the many scientific and popular press
> > reports of the
> > > benefits of antioxidant vitamins (vitamin A,
> > beta-carotene, vitamin
> > > E, and ascorbic acid),
> >
> > I was holding off because I thought the topic was
> > niacin. I guess this is your way of giving up on that
> > losing argument (although now that I mention it I am
> > sure you will isue a denial). But what about beta
> > carotine INCREASING the incidence of lung cancer in
> > smokers? Cancer seems prety toxic to me.
>
>
> In addition to the ATBC and CARET trials you mention,
> seems the AREDS and WAVE trials, one in AMD and the other
> in Osteo, both showed significant potential for harm from
> mega dose vitamin therapy.
>
> Since the supplement manufacturers aren't required to
> report ADRs, there is less information available - I
> believe this should change. I suspect that given the 16
> BILLION dollars of supplements sold in the US each year
> without any significant control over the labeling,
> marketing, or promotion, and only nominal control on the
> manufacture in terms of purity, the industry might find it
> a bit challenging.
>
> And to think Anth argues that regulation being pushed to
> bring the standards for vitamins (and the claims made by
> those who profit from their sales) in line with what
> generally is accepted worldwide for drugs is a ploy by
> drug makers is, well, at best a feeble and transparent
> effort to keep science out of supplements.
>
> js
 
I didn't say the were non-existent I said that vitamins were
safe, as Rich pointed out with his case study of niacin
toxicity. The usual argument goes that everything is toxic
in sufficient doses. People are taking mega doses of
vitamins without reported toxicity, that casts serious doubt
on the fact that they are not safe. Anth

"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:[email protected]...
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&c-
md=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8624173&dopt=Abstract
> >
> > Department of Internal Medicine, Kansas University
> > Medical Center,
Kansas
> > City, USA.
> >
> > As a result of the many scientific and popular press
> > reports of the
benefits
> > of antioxidant vitamins (vitamin A, beta-carotene,
> > vitamin E, and
ascorbic
> > acid), it is estimated that 40% of the US population is
> > consuming
vitamin
> > supplements. The efficacy of these supplements is not
> > yet proved, and
some
> > have questioned their safety. Approximately 10 to 15
> > cases of vitamin A toxic reactions are reported per year
> > in the United States, usually at
doses
> > greater than 100,000 IU/d. No adverse effects have been
> > reported for beta-carotene. The frequency of vitamin E
> > toxic reactions is not well delineated, but case reports
> > are few at dosages less than 3200 mg/d. Ascorbic acid
> > toxic reactions are rare at dosages less than 4 g/d.
Despite a
> > lack of clinical trial data, it seems that antioxidant
> > vitamins are
safe,
> > although prudence might dictate their avoidance by women
> > of childbearing potential, persons with liver disease or
> > renal dysfunction, and those
taking
> > certain medications or undergoing specific laboratory
> > tests.
> >
> > Anth
> >
>
> Anth - no one disagreed that toxic reactions to vitamins
> are rare - but that is a far cry from what you want to
> believe - that they are nonexistant.
>
> Niacin related flushing is, by medical definition, a toxic
> reaction. It happens, even at lower doses.
>
> You're done - but thanks for proving my point.
>
> js
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back