The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry



"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > You quote a 'flush' from niacin to be toxic which is
> > crazy talk. Anth
>
> Insofar as the FDA regulates drugs, toxicity grading of
> AEs and SAEs is a requirement as part of the mandated
> reporting process. Therefore, be legal definition,
> flushing is considered an adverse event associated with
> niacin and typical it has a fairly low toxicity grade.
>
> These are medical and legal definitions of toxicity, Anth.
> Feel free to call them "crazy" if you wish, but the facts
> are the facts.
>
> Here's a lay oriented description of how drugs are tested
> - tested for safety and efficacy. Note the continued use
> of the term "toxicity" when refering to safety profiles.
>
> http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/section22/chapter3-
> 02/302a.jsp
>
> Now - the conclusion is:
>
> Niacin is toxic and the toxicities can escalate as the
> dose increases. The toxicities are as benign as flushing
> to as severe as hepatotoxicity.
>
> Niacin is relatiely safe but is not absent of toxicicites.
>
> Done? Good.

Now you admit niacin is safe, I thought the whole point of
this was toxicity? Do you know how big the safety margin is
before niacin becomes toxic? Do you think LSD is toxic? It
can have serious effects on the body, says nothing about its
toxicity? Anth

> js
 
By taking samples from the population, usually a good
estimate. Anth

<Rich.@.> wrote in message news:40c264de.536117468@news-
server.hawaii.rr.com...
> On Tue, 4 May 2004 22:56:38 +0100, "Anth"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> The world is a very big place Anth. How on earth can
> anyone tell you where all these people are??
>
> Aloha,
>
> Rich
> >Anth
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
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
 
"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:DPC-
> > [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?

That is rubbish, the amounts listed in vitamins are pretty
much quality controlled.

> > > 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.

I bet I can, people are decieved all the time by the hype
around prescription drugs. Typically anti-depressants which
are recent in the news being no better than placebo. Do you
declare prescription medicines safe? Let me tell you
something, If you declare prescription meds as safe then by
default you should declare vitamins as safe. Less people
suffer adverse effects and actually die from them.

> > 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.

I see you are trying to be 'pissy' let me be 'pissy' also
it's herb not 'herd' wiseguy ;)

> > > 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.

Actually what I get in vitamins is what I pay for. You just
email a pharma company and tell them that their vitamins are
not regulated. I think that's a very serious acusation
saying that their vitamins contain less than they label on
the bottle..

> > > 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.

Which was a quote not from me, but someone else. .
> js
 
These back and forth arguments about vitamin regulation lead
nowhere while generating too many messages that just say the
same thing over and over. Let's try examining some
constructive solutions to this problem. For example, I would
recommend that a reasonable compromise would be to follow
the example of the cigarette industry. Let the FDA mandate a
warning, no matter how dire, on all vitamin products it
considers to be "mega" doses, but keep them legal for people
to buy. That way everyone wins.

Ed Friedman
 
No you went right up to the worst case which isn't the case.
Where are all the deaths and fatal outcomes? IMO you are
talking complete shite. Anth

"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:[email protected]...
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:6Lh-
> > [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
 
"CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "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.

So RDA niacine causes flushing which is a sign of toxicity.
LSD causes hallucinations which is a sign of toxicity and
yet I am told LSD is non toxic.

> > 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.

I will dont' worry :)

> 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?

Absolutely not cholesterol is a 'big myth' Google
cholesterol sceptics and you will see.

> 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?

You are talking adverse effects not toxicity. (Talk LD50's)

> 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.

I have no comment because artificial beta carotene isn't a
vitamin, it is a precursor. Also there's conflicting studies
about this.

Noted You have not answered my question are prescription
drugs 'safe'?

> --
> CBI, MD
 
"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in
message >
> Niacin is relatively safe but not absent of toxicities is
> a far cry from your contention that niacin is safe even at
> megadoses.
>
> At 50 mg it is fairly innocuous - at 3 gms it is not.
> "You quote a 'flush' from niacin to be toxic which is
> crazy talk."
>
> No, it is reality - flushing caused by niacin is a
> toxicitiy reaction according to the medical and regulatory
> definition.

No I'm not done I flush with RDA niacin, so by your
definition I am having a toxic reaction. Anth

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

> "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.

> > > You're done - but thanks for proving my point.
> > >
> > > js
> js
 
Which of course you are right in the other thread, you
should weigh up the cost benefits of things and then
consider from there on. Personally I don't agree with
smoking although (mainly because I've witnessed it's
effects) This doesn't mean to say I'm going to stifle
someone else's choices on things. Also :- If I start
accepting all this 'toxicity' b.s. it will lead me into such
terrain as 'harmless toxicity' and 'relatively harmless
toxicity.' 'harmless toxic reaction' Which will eventually
along the lines lead to contradictions in my wordings. Anth

<Rich.@.> wrote in message news:409ec6e3.88560578@news-
server.hawaii.rr.com...
> 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
 
Goodbye Johathan, make sure you close the door after you.
Anth

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

Correct. However, there are bill s in congress that are
being fought tooth and nail, that would fix this oversight.

>
>
> > 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
 
It has become quite obvious that you are "arguing on
anecdote, opinion, and conjecture" of your medical
instructors.

What does that tell you about your powers of deduction?

*** for tat.

"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:[email protected]...
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:6Lh-
> > [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
 
Rich.@. wrote:
>
> 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.

All bleeding eventually stops as well.
 
It's the toxicity argument that is unwarranted vitamins are
proven to be safe.
>RDA amounts (mega doses) have a good safety record also.
The whole point of CODEX is that pharma wants to control
vitamins because they realise that they cure diseases, and
they fear loss of control for more expensive (and useless)
products. Also vitamins have warnings and constraints on the
bottles. Anth

"Ed Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> These back and forth arguments about vitamin regulation
> lead nowhere while generating too many messages that just
> say the same thing over and over. Let's try examining some
> constructive solutions to this problem. For example, I
> would recommend that a reasonable compromise would be to
> follow the example of the cigarette industry. Let the FDA
> mandate a warning, no matter how dire, on all vitamin
> products it considers to be "mega" doses, but keep them
> legal for people to buy. That way everyone wins.
>
> Ed Friedman
 
Anth wrote:
> 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?

In my office.

I often use niacin in gram quantities to treat lipid
disorders. I also see much more toxicity with it than with
statins. If Hoffer is giving people 3 grams a day he is
seeing toxicity - whether he cares to admit it or not.

> Certain types of niacin causes flushing, there are forms
of niacin
> which do not.

BS. Some forms are more likely to do it than others but
there are none that do not do it at all. I am not aware of
any that are less likely to cause the other toxicities.

--
CBI, MD
 
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?

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.

--
CBI, MD
 
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.

--
CBI, MD
 
I think we have established enough doubt and also proven
that differing opinions of natural supplements occur.

Why should the "pros" be dictated to by the "cons"

"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:Se2dnR2mCJBeJAfdRVn-
[email protected]...
> "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message >
> > Niacin is relatively safe but not absent of toxicities
> > is a far cry from your contention that niacin is safe
> > even at megadoses.
> >
> > At 50 mg it is fairly innocuous - at 3 gms it is not.
> > "You quote a 'flush' from niacin to be toxic which is
> > crazy talk."
> >
> > No, it is reality - flushing caused by niacin is a
> > toxicitiy reaction according to the medical and
> > regulatory definition.
>
> No I'm not done I flush with RDA niacin, so by your
> definition I am having
a
> toxic reaction. Anth
>
> > Done?
> >
> > js
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back