The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry



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
 
Anth wrote:
>
> 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.

I didn't (and wouldn't) tell you that.

>> 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)

Define the difference for us.

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

Yes, I have - several times. The question you have asked
cannot be answered with a simple yes or no since there is no
single standard of "safe". Whenever you judge the safety of
something you must consider the safety of the alternatives,
including taking nothing (which is often not the safest
alternative). So to specifically answer your question - all
prescription drugs have toxicities and can cause harm. Any
chemical that alters the body's functioning (including
vitamins) is in the same boat. In order for a prescription
to be properly prescribed it muct be in the opinions of the
physician and patient the safest alternative available.

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

Actually, vitamin C increase intestinal absorption of urate
which can then predispose to calcium urate kidney stones. I
admit that it takes very large doses of vitamin C and does
not happen often but it has been reported to have happened.

--
CBI, MD
 
Anth wrote:
> I didn't say they [vitamin toxicities] were non-existent
<snip>

> People are taking mega doses of vitamins without reported
toxicity, <snip>

Umm.....Anth....those two sentences are contradictory and
the second one is just blatantly wrong.

--
CBI, MD
 
Anth wrote:
> "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!

Anth - I think it would really help if you would give your
definition of "safe". No one has said they were not safe by
some reasonable measure. We have just said that they are not
free of toxicity.

--
CBI, MD
 
Anth wrote:
>> 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.

By whom?

No one controls the quality. Every study I have ever seen
showed that the labelling of "supplements" is horribly off
with most bottle containing a small fraction or none of what
they say they do.

>>>
>>> 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,

I bet you can't.

> Typically anti-depressants which are recent in the news
being no
> better than placebo.

If you have sene that then it was not true. In just about
every study of SSRI's the placebo group had an about 30%
response while the antidepressant group had about 60%.

> 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.

And fewer people have been shown to be helped by them.
Everything is relevant.

> Actually what I get in vitamins is what I pay for.

How do you know? Who has checked?

> You just email a pharma company and tell them that their
vitamins are
> not regulated.

They know already.

> I think that's a very serious acusation saying that their
vitamins
> contain less than they label on the bottle..

Yes it is. And I have sene it made in several journal
articles.

--
CBI, MD
 
How do you explain that there's very little cases of
niacin toxicity recorded? Also how do yo explain that I
flush at RDA quantities, are you saying that RDA
quantities are unsafe? No I don't believe flushing is a
sign of toxicity. Anth

"CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:_Ohmc.6-
[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.
>
> --
> CBI, MD
 
"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.

(I think you are talking about the Finnish CARET study,
where the incidence of lung cancer was increased by taking
the beta carotene).

The topic was the safety of _vitamins_, not supplements the
guy quoted that niacin was toxic he posted a reference to
possible contraindications, I disagree, niacin has an
extensive safety record even in high doses. People have
taken mega doses of vitamins without ill effects, or
hospitalisations. The FDA upper limit on B vitamins has not
been set because they couldn't agree on it. . Here's some
hard figures

100,000,000 people taking vitamins :- '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. ~10,000 cases reported in adults, how can
people sit there and justify that vitamins are not safe when
there's so little cases reported?

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/niacin/

The tolerable upper intake level (UL): Flushing of the skin
primarily on the face, arms, and chest is a common side
effect of nicotinic acid and may occur initially at doses as
low as 30 mg/day. Although flushing on nicotinamide is rare,
the Food and Nutrition Board set the tolerable upper intake
level (UL) for niacin (nicotinic acid and nicotinamide) at
35 mg/day to avoid the adverse effect of flushing in the
general population. The UL is not meant to apply to
individuals who are being treated with a nutrient under
medical supervision, as should be the case with high-dose
nicotinic acid for elevated blood cholesterol levels (8).

You are talking about an 'adverse' effects not toxicity,
what about hypervitaminosis?

You quote that you give people high dose niacin in your
practice, does this mean you are giving patients something
which you consider unsafe?

Anth

> --
> CBI, MD
 
"CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[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?

I'm talking about where ingestion becomes unsafe and the
person needs medical attention or the safety of the person
is in question. 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.

"Vitamins are toxic - I flushed on one niacin pill!!"
"Vitamins are toxic, I had a gastric upset when I took 500mg
of niacin!!!"

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)

> 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?

> --
> CBI, MD

Anth
 
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) When I get angry I get red, that must be a toxic
reaction also. When I go into a hot bath I go red also...
*sighs* 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. 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!. I suggest the guy goes to the FDA and pronounces
that everyone shouldn't take niacin as it is toxic even in
RDA doses. Actually the FDA is a bad idea as they are
probably bought out anyways. Infact I'm pretty sure they
are bought out. Anth

"Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:JfmdnQIIv7FfXwfdRVn-
[email protected]...
> 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
> >
>
 
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. 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
 
Have you got any evidence of this? This is one of the common
things quoted as 'myths' on a site I visit. Anth

"CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:aLDmc.7-
[email protected]...
> Anth wrote:
> > (Significant potential) The governemnt says mega dose
> > vitamin c produces kidney
> stones -
> > there's no evidence of that also.
>
> Actually, vitamin C increase intestinal absorption of
> urate which can then predispose to calcium urate kidney
> stones. I admit that it takes very large doses of vitamin
> C and does not happen often but it has been reported to
> have happened.
>
> --
> CBI, MD
 
If you declare prescription drugs as safe then you should
also declare vitamins as safe. If you declare prescription
drugs as safe and then declare mega dose vitamins as unsafe
then I would not accept that. If you are talking toxicity
I'm talking a large margin for error between dangerous doses
and non dangerous. When I talk about toxicity I talk about
LD50's in general. Dangerous vs not dangerous. Granted there
are unpleasant effects but I hardly would rate those as
dangerous. Anth

"CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:mQDmc.7-
[email protected]...
> Anth wrote:
> > "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!
>
> Anth - I think it would really help if you would give your
> definition of "safe". No one has said they were not safe
> by some reasonable measure. We have just said that they
> are not free of toxicity.
>
> --
> CBI, MD
 
"CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Anth wrote:
> > I didn't say they [vitamin toxicities] were non-existent
> <snip>
>
> > People are taking mega doses of vitamins without
> > reported
> toxicity, <snip>
>
> Umm.....Anth....those two sentences are contradictory and
> the second one is just blatantly wrong.

Again you are twisting words I've told you that I accept
that there's toxicity issues with vitamins. I do not accept
that a harmless flushing reaction in niacin is toxic. People
do take mega doses of vitamins without reports of toxicity,
am I not a person?. Where's the contradictions in there? Are
you just trying to be pedantic or what? Anth

> --
> CBI, MD
 
You cross posting assholes, ALL of you:

What ever makes you think the Nurses News group would be
interested in your insanity?

Don't bother answering, most of us have set our filters,
you bastards.

Will, CRNA
 
Anth 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)

You are. No one has stated whether it is sufficient enough
to make it no longer worth it to take it. Apparently you
feel it is not that bad and does not warrant stopping it.
Fine. No one is arguing that.

> 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.

he never said they were unsafe. I suspect that you have a
rather peculiar idea of what the word safe means. He is
saying that they are not without toxicity and he is correct
and he has plenty of data to support that contention.

> 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!.

He never said that RDA doses of niacin are likely to cause
liver failure. Livier failure becomes and issue at much
higher doses - but does become an issue.

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

No one has said that but you.

You seem to like to make statements and then when cornered
by you innability to support them make up strawman
arguments. The other thread where you claim that
establishing manufacturing standards for "supplements" will
result in making them illegal is another good example.

--
CBI, MD

--
CBI, MD
 
Anth 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.

You really need to drop the paranoid colored lenses
when you read.

1) I never said that vitamins are not OK to "feed people".

2) I never advocated regulating access to them.

--
CBI, MD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back