What has anyone done to save Nutritional Supplements and stop SB 722?

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Steve Bayt, Mar 3, 2004.

  1. Steve Bayt

    Steve Bayt Guest

    Before I post my weekly e-column ( I quess one could call it that)against Senate Bill 722, I would
    like to do a simple poll, for which really only needs the one-line brain dead comments ala. Marc
    Roberts March 4,[email protected]

    Has anyone in this group done anything against SB 722,like writing or e-mailing senator. Or now
    doing likewise for HR 3377 and Congress members?

    Perhaps the best motto against S.B 722 would be: "If it ain't broke don't fix it." For with only an
    average of 116 hospitalizations annually for supplement adverse reactions, there is no where else to
    go but get worse.

    Illinois Senator Durbin wants to fix something that isn't broke. While ABC News reported monday
    night that 6.2 million Americans are now so addicted to prescriptions drugs that hospitalization is
    the only treatment to avoid death.

    SB 722 would expose supplements to the same performence records that precription drugs
    have achieved.

    So, in order to simplify this primary data resarch this is the only place I am going to post this. I
    don't want to have to spend a bazillion hours going to a bazillion groups to see what value The Net
    is actually having in establishing itself as a functional medium.

    So, what has anyone done about SB 722 or HR 3377? I am going to check once at 7:00 p.m. EST
    Wednesday then once daily. Until there is a Marc Roberts March 10,[email protected] posting
    stupid replies which have no sign of intelligent life.
     
    Tags:


  2. "Steve Bayt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Before I post my weekly e-column ( I quess one could call it that)against Senate Bill 722, I would
    > like to do a simple poll, for which really only needs the one-line brain dead comments ala. Marc
    > Roberts March 4,[email protected]

    Please get that right. it is Mar*k* *P*robert March 3, [email protected]

    I will not be MarkProbert March 4, [email protected] until tomorrow. If you cannot get my
    email addy right, or know that March 4, 2004 is not until tomorrow,how can we expect you to be
    right on anything?

    I see you were unhappy about my pointing out that SB 722 would not do what you claimed. Sadly, you
    did not want to engage in a disucssioon of the bill, not provide a precise reference where the bill
    would do what you claimed.

    You still have an opportunity to rectify that deficiency and expalin how the bill wil ldo what you
    claim. please cite specific parts of the bill so I can readily refeence it. Thanks.

    > Has anyone in this group done anything against SB 722,like writing or e-mailing senator.

    To the contrary, I emailed my congresscritters and told them what a wonderful idea this bill is.
    Imagine requiring supplement manufacturers to submit all reports of adverse events reported to them
    to the FDA. Shocking!

    Or now doing likewise for HR 3377 and Congress
    > members?

    Thanks for the tip. I was not aware of the House number, and will email every member of congress,
    including the one who is my HS classmate.

    > Perhaps the best motto against S.B 722 would be: "If it ain't broke don't fix it."

    Well, we agree. The system is broke, and it needs to be fixed.

    For with only an average of 116 hospitalizations
    > annually for supplement adverse reactions, there is no where else to go but get worse.

    We know that this is not true, as the FDA found far more of them when they had to pull teeth on the
    question of the danger of Ephedra. why do you feel the need to make things up?

    > Illinois Senator Durbin wants to fix something that isn't broke.

    But it is broke, as I pointed out.

    While
    > ABC News reported monday night that 6.2 million Americans are now so addicted to prescriptions
    > drugs that hospitalization is the only treatment to avoid death.

    I looked for that report but could not find it. Can you post a URL?

    > SB 722 would expose supplements to the same performence records that precription drugs have
    > achieved.

    Outstanding! Same regulations. What a great idea. Ihave advocated a single standard for years.

    However, SB 722 does not do such a thing. If you think I am wrong, please cite the specific language
    in SB 722.

    > So, in order to simplify this primary data resarch this is the only place I am going to post this.
    > I don't want to have to spend a bazillion hours going to a bazillion groups to see what value The
    > Net is actually having in establishing itself as a functional medium.

    Of course you are.

    > So, what has anyone done about SB 722 or HR 3377? I am going to check once at 7:00 p.m. EST
    > Wednesday then once daily. Until there is a Marc Roberts March 10,[email protected] posting
    > stupid replies which have no sign of intelligent life.

    Cannot even get the date right.....
     
  3. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Steve Bayt <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Before I post my weekly e-column ( I quess one could call it that)against Senate Bill 722, I would
    >like to do a simple poll, for which really only needs the one-line brain dead comments ala. Marc
    >Roberts March 4,[email protected]
    >
    >Has anyone in this group done anything against SB 722,like writing or e-mailing senator. Or now
    >doing likewise for HR 3377 and Congress members?
    >
    >Perhaps the best motto against S.B 722 would be: "If it ain't broke don't fix it." For with only an
    >average of 116 hospitalizations annually for supplement adverse reactions, there is no where else
    >to go but get worse.

    Nobody knows how many such adverse reactions there are. That's the point. "An average of 116." That
    sounds so scientific. Too bad it's gibberish.

    >SB 722 would expose supplements to the same performence records that precription drugs have
    >achieved.

    Supplements must be far more dangerous than I'd ever thought, if that's true.

    So who's paying you to run this campaign?

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
    correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
    shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
     
  4. Steve Bayt

    Steve Bayt Guest

    "Mark Probert-March 3, 2004" <Mark [email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Steve Bayt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Before I post my weekly e-column ( I quess one could call it that)against Senate Bill 722, I
    > > would like to do a simple poll, for which really only needs the one-line brain dead comments
    > > ala. Marc Roberts March 4,[email protected]
    >
    > Please get that right. it is Mar*k* *P*robert March 3, [email protected]
    >
    > I will not be MarkProbert March 4, [email protected] until tomorrow. If you cannot get my
    > email addy right, or know that March 4, 2004 is not until tomorrow,how can we expect you to be
    > right on anything?
    >
    > I see you were unhappy about my pointing out that SB 722 would not do what you claimed. Sadly, you
    > did not want to engage in a disucssioon of the bill, not provide a precise reference where the
    > bill would do what you claimed.
    >
    > You still have an opportunity to rectify that deficiency and expalin how the bill wil ldo what you
    > claim. please cite specific parts of the bill so I can readily refeence it. Thanks.
    >
    > > Has anyone in this group done anything against SB 722,like writing or e-mailing senator.
    >
    > To the contrary, I emailed my congresscritters and told them what a wonderful idea this bill is.
    > Imagine requiring supplement manufacturers to submit all reports of adverse events reported to
    > them to the FDA. Shocking!
    >
    > Or now doing likewise for HR 3377 and Congress
    > > members?
    >
    > Thanks for the tip. I was not aware of the House number, and will email every member of congress,
    > including the one who is my HS classmate.
    >
    > > Perhaps the best motto against S.B 722 would be: "If it ain't broke don't fix it."
    >
    > Well, we agree. The system is broke, and it needs to be fixed.
    >
    > For with only an average of 116 hospitalizations
    > > annually for supplement adverse reactions, there is no where else to go but get worse.
    >
    > We know that this is not true, as the FDA found far more of them when they had to pull teeth on
    > the question of the danger of Ephedra. why do you feel the need to make things up?
    >
    > > Illinois Senator Durbin wants to fix something that isn't broke.
    >
    > But it is broke, as I pointed out.
    >
    > While
    > > ABC News reported monday night that 6.2 million Americans are now so addicted to prescriptions
    > > drugs that hospitalization is the only treatment to avoid death.
    >
    > I looked for that report but could not find it. Can you post a URL?
    >
    > > SB 722 would expose supplements to the same performence records that precription drugs have
    > > achieved.
    >
    > Outstanding! Same regulations. What a great idea. Ihave advocated a single standard for years.
    >
    > However, SB 722 does not do such a thing. If you think I am wrong, please cite the specific
    > language in SB 722.
    >
    > > So, in order to simplify this primary data resarch this is the only place I am going to post
    > > this. I don't want to have to spend a bazillion hours going to a bazillion groups to see what
    > > value The Net is actually having in establishing itself as a functional medium.
    >
    > Of course you are.
    >
    > > So, what has anyone done about SB 722 or HR 3377? I am going to check once at 7:00 p.m. EST
    > > Wednesday then once daily. Until there is a Marc Roberts March 10,[email protected] posting
    > > stupid replies which have no sign of intelligent life.
    >
    > Cannot even get the date right.....

    Once again [email protected] etc.,[email protected] displays virtually no intelligence. I have
    posted many articles equal in word count to a magazine article. I have lost track (somewhere around
    20) of the many aspects I have explored of how tragic SB 722 would be.

    One has to go beyond the exact wording of a bill and understand the applications of piece of
    legislation. That requires critical thinking and maybe a Degree in Public Administration which I am
    only a few college classes from.

    There is nothing to fix about the entire supplement industry. No industry anywhere has such surreal
    statistics of success and "non-bad things?" You have a better chance of winning a Mega Million
    dollar lottery then getting one of the ADVERSE REACTION EVENTS that SB 722 and HR 3377 will use to
    eliminate entire prouduct lines.

    I would suggest if [email protected](ad nasuem),[email protected] wants to post comments to
    destroy apects of society, he should focus on one or two subjects and specialize in them and not try
    to post stuff about everything.

    I have postponed many of my other crusades (HIV TESTING, Replacing Homeless welfare with employment,
    etc.) to specialize on SB 722, HR 3377.

    AS for the second reply. NO I am not being paid by anyone to do this. But, if any journalistic
    opportunities were to present itself in the form of maybe a syndicated activist column in the
    mainstream media, I would certainly take it.

    As for the future of SB 722, there is good news. But, I want to confirm everything before I provide
    any updated information, and also check out copyright laws and ethics about an article I found.

    So, [email protected],etc(ad naseum,[email protected] Either become a productive member of the
    Internet, or find something else to do except post insane comments all the time on The Net.
     
  5. "Steve Bayt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Mark Probert-March 3, 2004" <Mark [email protected]> wrote
    in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > > "Steve Bayt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > Before I post my weekly e-column ( I quess one could call it that)against Senate Bill 722, I
    > > > would like to do a simple poll, for which really only needs the one-line brain dead comments
    > > > ala. Marc Roberts March 4,[email protected]
    > >
    > > Please get that right. it is Mar*k* *P*robert March 3,
    [email protected]
    > >
    > > I will not be MarkProbert March 4, [email protected] until tomorrow.
    If
    > > you cannot get my email addy right, or know that March 4, 2004 is not
    until
    > > tomorrow,how can we expect you to be right on anything?
    > >
    > > I see you were unhappy about my pointing out that SB 722 would not do
    what
    > > you claimed. Sadly, you did not want to engage in a disucssioon of the
    bill,
    > > not provide a precise reference where the bill would do what you
    claimed.
    > >
    > > You still have an opportunity to rectify that deficiency and expalin how
    the
    > > bill wil ldo what you claim. please cite specific parts of the bill so I
    can
    > > readily refeence it. Thanks.
    > >
    > > > Has anyone in this group done anything against SB 722,like writing or e-mailing senator.
    > >
    > > To the contrary, I emailed my congresscritters and told them what a wonderful idea this bill is.
    > > Imagine requiring supplement manufacturers
    to
    > > submit all reports of adverse events reported to them to the FDA.
    Shocking!
    > >
    > > Or now doing likewise for HR 3377 and Congress
    > > > members?
    > >
    > > Thanks for the tip. I was not aware of the House number, and will email every member of
    > > congress, including the one who is my HS classmate.
    > >
    > > > Perhaps the best motto against S.B 722 would be: "If it ain't broke don't fix it."
    > >
    > > Well, we agree. The system is broke, and it needs to be fixed.
    > >
    > > For with only an average of 116 hospitalizations
    > > > annually for supplement adverse reactions, there is no where else to go but get worse.
    > >
    > > We know that this is not true, as the FDA found far more of them when
    they
    > > had to pull teeth on the question of the danger of Ephedra. why do you
    feel
    > > the need to make things up?
    > >
    > > > Illinois Senator Durbin wants to fix something that isn't broke.
    > >
    > > But it is broke, as I pointed out.
    > >
    > > While
    > > > ABC News reported monday night that 6.2 million Americans are now so addicted to prescriptions
    > > > drugs that hospitalization is the only treatment to avoid death.
    > >
    > > I looked for that report but could not find it. Can you post a URL?
    > >
    > > > SB 722 would expose supplements to the same performence records that precription drugs have
    > > > achieved.
    > >
    > > Outstanding! Same regulations. What a great idea. Ihave advocated a
    single
    > > standard for years.
    > >
    > > However, SB 722 does not do such a thing. If you think I am wrong,
    please
    > > cite the specific language in SB 722.
    > >
    > > > So, in order to simplify this primary data resarch this is the only place I am going to post
    > > > this. I don't want to have to spend a bazillion hours going to a bazillion groups to see what
    > > > value The Net is actually having in establishing itself as a functional medium.
    > >
    > > Of course you are.
    > >
    > > > So, what has anyone done about SB 722 or HR 3377? I am going to check once at 7:00 p.m. EST
    > > > Wednesday then once daily. Until there is a Marc Roberts March 10,[email protected]
    > > > posting stupid replies which have no sign of intelligent life.
    > >
    > > Cannot even get the date right.....
    >
    >
    > Once again [email protected] etc.,[email protected] displays virtually no intelligence. I have
    > posted many articles equal in word count to a magazine article. I have lost track (somewhere
    > around 20) of the many aspects I have explored of how tragic SB 722 would be.

    Bbbbbuuuttttt Stevie, youhave never shown exactly how SB 722 will do what you claim...when I read
    it, all I found was that the manufacturers of the chemicals called "supplements" are required to
    report any adverse they get notice of to the FDA. What is so wrong about this? Do you favor allowing
    these chemcialmanufacturers to cover-up what they do?

    > One has to go beyond the exact wording of a bill and understand the applications of piece of
    > legislation. That requires critical thinking and maybe a Degree in Public Administration which I
    > am only a few college classes from.

    I see..so you think you know it all...sad that...the purpose of a good education is to first learn
    how toquestion, and then how to find answers....you seem to have all the answers....

    > There is nothing to fix about the entire supplement industry. No industry anywhere has such
    > surreal statistics of success and "non-bad things?" You have a better chance of winning a Mega
    > Million dollar lottery then getting one of the ADVERSE REACTION EVENTS that SB 722 and HR 3377
    > will use to eliminate entire prouduct lines.

    So you say...but the FDA has shown otherwise with regrad tojust one chemical..i.e. Ephedra.

    > I would suggest if [email protected](ad nasuem),[email protected] wants to post comments to
    > destroy apects of society, he should focus on one or two subjects and specialize in them and not
    > try to post stuff about everything.

    I suggest that you find a cure for your rectocrania.

    > I have postponed many of my other crusades (HIV TESTING, Replacing Homeless welfare with
    > employment, etc.) to specialize on SB 722, HR 3377.

    It would be far better if you hired a homeless person to do your thinking for you.

    > AS for the second reply. NO I am not being paid by anyone to do this. But, if any journalistic
    > opportunities were to present itself in the form of maybe a syndicated activist column in the
    > mainstream media, I would certainly take it.

    I see, so you admit that you have an ulterior motive. And, how do we know that you are not being
    paid for posting?

    > As for the future of SB 722, there is good news. But, I want to confirm everything before I
    > provide any updated information, and also check out copyright laws and ethics about an article
    > I found.

    Why not also check out a few sites on reading comprehension.

    > So, [email protected],etc(ad naseum,[email protected] Either become a productive member of
    > the Internet, or find something else to do except post insane comments all the time on The Net.
     
Loading...