No More Supplements? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

No More Supplements?

swisht4u
09-20-2011, 02:54 AM
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/health/new-law-could-empty-vitamins-aisle-2554533/

Looks like the FDA is trying to bring down the supplement industry.

It's long been known they are in bed with big Pharma.
Some supplements work very well and compete with drugs and cost the drug companies billions of dollars in lost revenue.

What do you think about this?

Do we need supplements?

Does it matter that the government is taking away another one of our freedoms?

Discuss...........

buddyholly
09-20-2011, 04:45 AM
I guess the answer is that we don't need supplements. Last week's TIME had an article by a guy that took all the supplements personally recommended by a major pharmaceutical company over 6 months. Blood tests showed that nothing in his body chemistry changed, except virtamin D. And for this the company recommended spending $250/month.

I don't know on what information you are basing your statement that some supplements work very well. Supplements are not supposed to ''work'', they are just more of what the body is already producing. In fact, if something is not being adequately produced, most people would feel ill and see a doctor. So what do you mean by ''work very well?'' What is the measurement that demonstrates they work very well.
In fact the guy in the TIME article did say that he felt he must be doing his body a favour by taking vitamins and minerals, so he started eating more junk food, thinking it would be OK now, the plus would balance the negative. He gained 10 lbs in three months, his body chemistry stayed the same, except for extra fat.

In the TIME article it was pointed out that the FDA has never approved a single supplement as a useful drug.

The article you linked is very biased, stating how many people drugs have killed versus supplements. Of course, it ignored the number of people whose lives have been saved by taking drugs. And of course people don't die of taking supplements, simply because they do nothing.

I imagine the FDA is finally going to make those companies produce a genuine product and not just a bottle of useless pills.

Wish they would do the same with homeopathic medicines, but if people want to buy expensive water then I guess the FDA doesn't care. After all the homeopathic medicine bottles state clearly on the label that the content is pure distilled water. Anyone who wants to treat their illness with distilled water I guess deserves to be charged top dollar.

Chip_s_m
09-20-2011, 05:32 AM
The FDA has no moral authority to even exist, let alone to tell me what to put in my body. At some point you would think that the increasing inconveniences imposed by the growing police state will awaken the populace to the immoral nature of government. The impending bankruptcy can only help.

JolánGagó
09-20-2011, 01:40 PM
Neither FDA or any govermental body has any business in telling me what I should or could take. FDA does a useful job in evaluating drugs, fine. Supplements aren't drugs, If FDA doesn't want to endorse them that's fine too.

Forbbiding? my arse, I'll take what I want be it from the block parapharmacy or by internet from Tumbuctu.

Is the FDA trying to setup yet another illegal market? It seems the utter failure of global "war on drugs" has taught nothing to some.

buddyholly
09-20-2011, 01:45 PM
The FDA has no moral authority to even exist, let alone to tell me what to put in my body.

Its authority to exist is vested in it by the people, actually.

A vast majority would reject your position, I think. What if you didn't know what you were putting in your body? Are you saying that the US should allow imports of Chinese pills, containing who-knows-what contaminants, just because you want to put them in your body?
The FDA doesn't ban weed-killer because it is poisonous to humans. But I am sure it would be interested if someone tried to sell it as a food supplement.

swisht4u
09-20-2011, 10:25 PM
I guess the answer is that we don't need supplements. Last week's TIME had an article by a guy that took all the supplements personally recommended by a major pharmaceutical company over 6 months. Blood tests showed that nothing in his body chemistry changed, except virtamin D. And for this the company recommended spending $250/month.

I don't know on what information you are basing your statement that some supplements work very well. Supplements are not supposed to ''work'', they are just more of what the body is already producing. In fact, if something is not being adequately produced, most people would feel ill and see a doctor. So what do you mean by ''work very well?'' What is the measurement that demonstrates they work very well.
In fact the guy in the TIME article did say that he felt he must be doing his body a favour by taking vitamins and minerals, so he started eating more junk food, thinking it would be OK now, the plus would balance the negative. He gained 10 lbs in three months, his body chemistry stayed the same, except for extra fat.

In the TIME article it was pointed out that the FDA has never approved a single supplement as a useful drug.

The article you linked is very biased, stating how many people drugs have killed versus supplements. Of course, it ignored the number of people whose lives have been saved by taking drugs. And of course people don't die of taking supplements, simply because they do nothing.

I imagine the FDA is finally going to make those companies produce a genuine product and not just a bottle of useless pills.

Wish they would do the same with homeopathic medicines, but if people want to buy expensive water then I guess the FDA doesn't care. After all the homeopathic medicine bottles state clearly on the label that the content is pure distilled water. Anyone who wants to treat their illness with distilled water I guess deserves to be charged top dollar.

There's already been 1000's of studies of good benefit with blood tests, the results are repeatable.
Even doctors recommend fish oil to patients is one example.
An article by time quoting no benefit is a complete joke and am surprised you'd even bring it up. Who's behind this article is the only thing interesting about it.
However not everybody is up to date on supplements.

If the supplement industry is abolished or severely reduced the price of drugs can be increased. No competition.

Many drugs are also derived from supplements, including herbs.
This doesn't make them more effective always but it does make them patentable and priced accordingly.

In the TIME article it was pointed out that the FDA has never approved a single supplement as a useful drug.

The FDA can't approve a supplement as a drug, the FDA's definition of a drug is something that cures a disease. If any supplement supplier claims that vitamin C cures any disease, even if true, the FDA classifies vitamin C as a drug.

This is the kind of reasoning the FDA uses.

buddyholly
09-21-2011, 01:11 AM
An article by time quoting no benefit is a complete joke and am surprised you'd even bring it up. Who's behind this article is the only thing interesting about it.






The FDA can't approve a supplement as a drug, the FDA's definition of a drug is something that cures a disease. If any supplement supplier claims that vitamin C cures any disease, even if true, the FDA classifies vitamin C as a drug.

This is the kind of reasoning the FDA uses.

I don't know why you would say it was a complete joke. He had medically supervised repeated blood tests and nothing changed in his body except vitamin D. Yet the supplement producer recommended he consume about $250/month of pills.
Do you claim this report is all lies and made up fiction? And why would you be surprised I bring it up. I can't think of anything more relevant to your discussion.

Or would you prefer that your beliefs are not challenged?

So, although the big scam in medicines/supplements is homeopathy, I would suggest that the dietary supplement industry is way ahead of the pharmaceutical companies in ripping off the public by selling them stuff they don't need. And I looked at supplement prices in the pharmacy. They are way up there with the cost of real medicines.

That TIME article did conclude, by the way, that if taking a placebo makes you feel better about yourself, then by all means take the sugar pills.

buddyholly
09-21-2011, 01:34 AM
Looks like the FDA is trying to bring down the supplement industry.

It's long been known they are in bed with big Pharma.
Some supplements work very well and compete with drugs and cost the drug companies billions of dollars in lost revenue.



My Google search mostly showed that the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health Education Act allows supplement producers put just about anything in a bottle and sell it. They don't even have to demonstrate that it does you any good - nor even that it is not harmful. So why you would think that the pharma companies are in bed with the FDA. They have to test everything for years before getting approval and have to actually show some effect.

Are you aware that when you buy a bottle of, say, vitamin C, you have no guarantee of what is in the bottle? There is no agency with the responsibility of assuring that you get what you paid for. Pharma companies on the other hand had better put in the bottle what they say is in the bottle. Wouldn't you prefer to know that the supplement you buy is actually in the bottle?

On the other hand the supplement companies can just about sell what they want. One report said that about 25% of supplements contain small amounts of banned substances and it is these ingredients that make the user feel better in the short term, but may be of harm in the long run.

Chip_s_m
09-21-2011, 02:52 AM
Its authority to exist is vested in it by the people, actually.

Legal authority differs from moral authority. Democracies have and will continue to do terribly immoral things.

A vast majority would reject your position, I think. What if you didn't know what you were putting in your body? Are you saying that the US should allow imports of Chinese pills, containing who-knows-what contaminants, just because you want to put them in your body?
The FDA doesn't ban weed-killer because it is poisonous to humans. But I am sure it would be interested if someone tried to sell it as a food supplement.

What makes you think I wouldn't know what I'd be putting in my body? Haven't you ever read a product review?

swisht4u
09-21-2011, 03:19 AM
My Google search mostly showed that the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health Education Act allows supplement producers put just about anything in a bottle and sell it. They don't even have to demonstrate that it does you any good - nor even that it is not harmful. So why you would think that the pharma companies are in bed with the FDA. They have to test everything for years before getting approval and have to actually show some effect.

Are you aware that when you buy a bottle of, say, vitamin C, you have no guarantee of what is in the bottle? There is no agency with the responsibility of assuring that you get what you paid for. Pharma companies on the other hand had better put in the bottle what they say is in the bottle. Wouldn't you prefer to know that the supplement you buy is actually in the bottle?

On the other hand the supplement companies can just about sell what they want. One report said that about 25% of supplements contain small amounts of banned substances and it is these ingredients that make the user feel better in the short term, but may be of harm in the long run.

The large brand name supplement makers have people checking their products all the time. If they could find something wrong that would put a feather in their cap and a good article. The supplements are regulated by competitors who try to find something wrong with them. The FDA is still there, they can pull dangerous supplements or contaminated supplements off the shelf at any time.

And reading this:
So why you would think that the pharma companies are in bed with the FDA.

I know right now you haven't any background in this matter, it's not up for debate to anyone who follows this area.
You can google "fda corruption big pharma". I'm not being condenscending, many are not aware of this cozy relationship and it's bad.

To help you out:
http://www.naturalnews.com/019366.html

Here the FDA doesn't want you to hear about the healthful properties of cherries, this is censorship of information that can help people. Control of information that they think you shouldn't have. This is information about cherries for god's sake.

and here, about walnuts:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/8294-walnuts-are-drugs-says-fda

Both of these have great benefits but the truth can't be told, says the FDA.
Control of what you hear.

There's more but that should get you started.

Don't get me started on how the testing done with drugs assures their safety, how many have died and have been damaged by drugs, all tested and deemed safe by the FDA.

Compare that to the safety of supplements, maybe 7 deaths in 3 years, maybe.

buddyholly
09-21-2011, 01:11 PM
Don't get me started on how the testing done with drugs assures their safety, how many have died and have been damaged by drugs, all tested and deemed safe by the FDA.

Compare that to the safety of supplements, maybe 7 deaths in 3 years, maybe.

Here you show your bias and misconception.

I see no need to get you started on the safety of drugs. As anyone on medicine knows, every prescription comes with pages of small print describing the risks and side effects. Instead of complaining about people who have died from using drugs why not talk about the millions of lives saved or improved. The risk of taking the drugs is made absolutely clear. You can make an informed choice.

I just read the article on cherries and was struck by two things:

1)The article is surrounded by ads for supplements.

2) The article claims that cherries, blueberries, cabbage and other foods have healing powers and if the public knew about these healing powers then the pharma industry would collapse. Everyone knows these foods are healthy and may prevent illness, but to suggest they should replace medicine as a cure for illness is bordering on witchcraft and the kind of thing the FDA is trying to control. Eating cherries may help prevent cancer, but they won't cure cancer and that is the kind of misinformation the FDA needs to oversee. There is no lack of knowledge that cherries are healthy. But if I saw cherries in the supermarket labelled as ''cancer-curing'' I would definitely be outraged. Yet this article says that cherries can heal better than any other medicine. Dangerous stuff, indeed.

And anyway, why did you quote that article in support of supplements? The article clearly states that all the medicine anyone could possibly need can be found in natural foods. Seems to me that should lead you to conclude you don't need manufactured supplements, just more cabbage.

That article over and over again interchanges ''healthful'' properties with ''healing'' properties, attempting to lull the reader into the false impression that these are the same thing.


And then you compare the ''safety'' of supplements, as if you are comparing two types of medicine. Maybe supplements are safe simply because they do nothing.
Besides, my reading showed that supplement makers have not been required to report on the possible damage their products may have done. They were able to throw all correspondence in the garbage.

buddyholly
09-21-2011, 01:56 PM
I know right now you haven't any background in this matter, it's not up for debate to anyone who follows this area.
You can google "fda corruption big pharma". I'm not being condenscending, many are not aware of this cozy relationship and it's bad.

To help you out:
http://www.naturalnews.com/019366.html



I tried to trace this article that should be so helpful to me.

It led me to Truth Publishing, a web company that seems to be there to sell stuff by Mike Adams. On the first page he was offering CD's that tell you how to prepare for the coming Swine Flu Pandemic that will make Hurricane Katrina look like a walk in the park.

And it says he has been warning for more than 5 years of the coming Bird Flu Pandemic. It just hasn't come yet, but everyone should buy his book on how to prepare.

As I suspected, the source of Natural News is just another internet scam to promote the products of Mike Adams.

He also sells a book that explains how cancer, diabetes and all other diseases don't exist, - that all diseases are states of mind invented by surgeons and drug manufacturers. A conspiracy theory that takes the breath away in stupidity, yet stated with the author's knowledge that there are actually people out there with a hunger to buy this garbage.

So, is this the kind of internet scaremongering that makes you such an expert that you can claim what you know is not up for debate? Oh, please! You sound just like Al Gore. What you recommend I read to educate myself has turned out to be some of the greatest garbage I have seen on the internet - and there is a lot of garbage out there. It is sad that people fall for this over and over again. But hey, its's only $195 dollars a pop for a copy of ''The Illusion of Disease'', down from $265.
Everyone should buy two copies. One for the home and one for the office. Doesn't everyone need to be told that mammograms are the leading cause of breast cancer? But wait, didn't chapter one tell me that cancer doesn't exist?

Well, anyway I am now even more convinced of the need for the FDA to control this preying on the people's health fears. Following the advice of this scam artist could actually kill people who need treatment. ''Your cancer is just a state of mind induced by the conspiracy of surgeons and drug manufacturers.'' It is indeed hard to believe there is a following for this stuff. That people will actually pay $195 dollars for a book telling them that diseases are the inventions of doctors and surgeons. Is this a course taken for everyone who studies medicine at university? Conspiracy 101 - how to continue the medicine scam?

Sunset of Age
09-21-2011, 02:47 PM
Buddyholly is spot-on.
For anyone who'd like to know more about the silly and ill-willed practices of nutritionists, homeopaths, and other pseudo-medicine scams (who actually thrive on the health fears of ignorant people :o), I wholeheartedly advise to do some reading up on the matter over here: Bad Science (http://www.badscience.net/).

buddyholly
09-21-2011, 04:10 PM
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/health/new-law-could-empty-vitamins-aisle-2554533/

Looks like the FDA is trying to bring down the supplement industry.



Did it concern you that this article links you to a Washington lobbying group that invites you to send it money?

swisht4u
09-21-2011, 05:59 PM
Did it concern you that this article links you to a Washington lobbying group that invites you to send it money?

Those were the first few links that came up on a google search, there are thousands more, it wasn't meant to be the 'last word' but as an example.
Do some more research, you won't have to look far. You're coming into this with limited knowledge on this matter is all I'm saying.
Check out how the FDA is dependent on big pharma, the more you read the more you'll agree.

Check vitamin D defiency for example, there have been so many studies from top universities how this one supplement alone can save millions of lives and fend off disease.

Then check fish oil, there are 1000's of positive studies on this one also.

The studies are what counts, and there are plenty. This is what drug companies don't want, competition.

Then there are plant extracts, take pomegranate, it has been shown to remove arterial plaque. Bad for the drug companies who want to sell you drugs. If the FDA takes these off the shelf then drugs will be used instead.

Green tea has numerous benefits, studies show, results have been published.

I leave this up to the reader but don't come in with limited knowledge and make a stand with no legs.

So tell me about vitamin D, do you think it's good? Or a scam? Lets get into what you know here.

swisht4u
09-21-2011, 06:05 PM
Buddyholly is spot-on.
For anyone who'd like to know more about the silly and ill-willed practices of nutritionists, homeopaths, and other pseudo-medicine scams (who actually thrive on the health fears of ignorant people :o), I wholeheartedly advise to do some reading up on the matter over here: Bad Science (http://www.badscience.net/).

I'm not saying there aren't less than honest practicioners out there, there are.
No one seems to be worse than the bodybuilding community, coming out with stuff to build muscle at rates faster than steroids. Thse are the guys to go after, not the supplements themselves.

BuddyHolly is not spot on BTW.

Sunset of Age
09-21-2011, 08:07 PM
Those were the first few links that came up on a google search, there are thousands more, it wasn't meant to be the 'last word' but as an example.
Do some more research, you won't have to look far. You're coming into this with limited knowledge on this matter is all I'm saying.
Check out how the FDA is dependent on big pharma, the more you read the more you'll agree.

Check vitamin D defiency for example, there have been so many studies from top universities how this one supplement alone can save millions of lives and fend off disease.

Then check fish oil, there are 1000's of positive studies on this one also.

The studies are what counts, and there are plenty. This is what drug companies don't want, competition.

Then there are plant extracts, take pomegranate, it has been shown to remove arterial plaque. Bad for the drug companies who want to sell you drugs. If the FDA takes these off the shelf then drugs will be used instead.

Green tea has numerous benefits, studies show, results have been published.

I leave this up to the reader but don't come in with limited knowledge and make a stand with no legs.

So tell me about vitamin D, do you think it's good? Or a scam? Lets get into what you know here.

I'm sorry, but all of this is total :bs: quackery.
I guess you've never really suffered a REAL life-threatning disease. Be happy about that... very happy. :wavey:

Lopez
09-21-2011, 08:22 PM
From what I've understood is that vitamin D levels are indeed too low for most people and they should take supplements. However, nourishment is a difficult subject. Certain vitamins only get absorbed with certain types of food (a reason why the whole "superfood" thing is a big joke) and it's difficult to say what should be done. Certainly supplements are never the alternative to medicine, unless the disease is so mild that they work as placebos.

In most cases supplements just give you, and I quote Dr. Sheldon Cooper, "expensive pee".

Sunset of Age
09-21-2011, 08:30 PM
From what I've understood is that vitamin D levels are indeed too low for most people

Only for those who never go outside. Just 30 minutes outside, exposing yourself to sunlight (face/arms is sufficient), is enough to get your daily dose of necessary vitamin D. ;)
Even more, taking supplements of vitamin D puts oneself at a serious risk of overdosing.

In most cases supplements just give you, and I quote Dr. Sheldon Cooper, "expensive pee".

Exactly.

Lopez
09-21-2011, 09:21 PM
Only for those who never go outside. Just 30 minutes outside, exposing yourself to sunlight (face/arms is sufficient), is enough to get your daily dose of necessary vitamin D. ;)
Even more, taking supplements of vitamin D puts oneself at a serious risk of overdosing.

I probably expressed myself a bit poorly... What I meant is that I've understood that there are talks conducted on raising the recommended daily levels, one reason being elevated vitamin D-levels in top-athletes. Naturally, one can conclude that since most athletes spend a lot of time outside, it's not wonder their levels are elevated :lol:.

I clearly don't remember enough about the article/documentary on the issue :p

buddyholly
09-21-2011, 10:05 PM
Those were the first few links that came up on a google search, there are thousands more, it wasn't meant to be the 'last word' but as an example.
Do some more research, you won't have to look far. You're coming into this with limited knowledge on this matter is all I'm saying.
Check out how the FDA is dependent on big pharma, the more you read the more you'll agree.

Check vitamin D defiency for example, there have been so many studies from top universities how this one supplement alone can save millions of lives and fend off disease.

Then check fish oil, there are 1000's of positive studies on this one also.

The studies are what counts, and there are plenty. This is what drug companies don't want, competition.

Then there are plant extracts, take pomegranate, it has been shown to remove arterial plaque. Bad for the drug companies who want to sell you drugs. If the FDA takes these off the shelf then drugs will be used instead.

Green tea has numerous benefits, studies show, results have been published.

I leave this up to the reader but don't come in with limited knowledge and make a stand with no legs.

So tell me about vitamin D, do you think it's good? Or a scam? Lets get into what you know here.

Green tea is not a supplement, it is a drink like tea and coffee. You find it on the grocery shelves.
I would not consider fish oil a supplement either.
You get vitamin D from the sun and food. What brought me here was not so much the usefullness of some supplements, but your wanting to make a conspiracy theory out of it.
I notice that you never talk about levels of these supplements in the body. You write like we don't get these things anywhere else but on the supplement shelf. Have you ever been tested to find out if there is anything you are deficient in? Or do you just take them as an insurance, with no concern at all about getting too much?

And when you start off with a link to a place that tries to scare people into spending $200 dollars for a guide on how to avoid the coming Swine Flu pandemic, or how bottles of water called homepathic medicine can cure you, and how there is no such thing as disease, it is all an invention of doctors and surgeons to get you to spend money on cures, then I know your self-described extensive knowledge of the supplement industry is a delusion.
You are clearly looking under your bed for government/big business conspiracies and are attracted to websites that provide you with this garbage. Anything conspiracy-related attracts you, but something factual and documented that just tends to debunk the supplement industry you will immediately label a joke and wonder why people believe it (probably without even the benefit of having actually read it). Yet you rush to encourage me to educate myself at a site that claims that there is no such thing as disease, just a brain washed public. Come on! You accuse me of having limited knowledge and the main example of where you get your knowledge comes from an internet scam site. Oh dear!

It is not by co-incidence that the last debate I got into was about big oil. The first link provided by the thread starter turned out to be an internet hoax. He, and now you, were quick to shout that the links provided were just accidents not actually the ''last word'' on the subject and can be ignored if they are garbage. Doesn't that indicate that you are incapable of judging what you read? Or worse, since you say the link you provided just came up on Google as an example, does that mean you accepted the headline and didn't even look closely at the garbage you were suggesting I read.
Claiming that I know nothing and you are fully read up on the subject is bordering on hilarious, considering the stuff you present to support your argument.

So let me tell you about vitamin D. With the amount I acquire naturally from eating fish, eggs, milk and yoghurt, plus the amount I get from sunshine, I already get more vitamin D than considered necessary. (One small portion of salmon has more than one day's needs. Or if you don't eat fish, some orange juice, some yoghurt , an egg and a nice walk outdoors will do the trick.) Why would I even want to get it out of a bottle when there are much nicer ways to get all I need - and be nourished at the same time? If you take vitamin D supplement have you been shown to have a vitamin D deficiency and not getting the daily recommended intake by natural means?
There are also reports that excessive levels of vitamin D in your body can cause illness, but I don't need to go any further than saying that I get all I need in my food and outdoor activities. What about you?

swisht4u
09-21-2011, 11:04 PM
Green tea is not a supplement, it is a drink like tea and coffee. You find it on the grocery shelves.
I would not consider fish oil a supplement either.
You get vitamin D from the sun and food. What brought me here was not so much the usefullness of some supplements, but your wanting to make a conspiracy theory out of it.
I notice that you never talk about levels of these supplements in the body. You write like we don't get these things anywhere else but on the supplement shelf. Have you ever been tested to find out if there is anything you are deficient in? Or do you just take them as an insurance, with no concern at all about getting too much?

And when you start off with a link to a place that tries to scare people into spending $200 dollars for a guide on how to avoid the coming Swine Flu pandemic, or how bottles of water called homepathic medicine can cure you, and how there is no such thing as disease, it is all an invention of doctors and surgeons to get you to spend money on cures, then I know your self-described extensive knowledge of the supplement industry is a delusion.
You are clearly looking under your bed for government/big business conspiracies and are attracted to websites that provide you with this garbage. Anything conspiracy-related attracts you, but something factual and documented that just tends to debunk the supplement industry you will immediately label a joke and wonder why people believe it (probably without even the benefit of having actually read it). Yet you rush to encourage me to educate myself at a site that claims that there is no such thing as disease, just a brain washed public. Come on! You accuse me of having limited knowledge and the main example of where you get your knowledge comes from an internet scam site. Oh dear!

It is not by co-incidence that the last debate I got into was about big oil. The first link provided by the thread starter turned out to be an internet hoax. He, and now you, were quick to shout that the links provided were just accidents not actually the ''last word'' on the subject and can be ignored if they are garbage. Doesn't that indicate that you are incapable of judging what you read? Or worse, since you say the link you provided just came up on Google as an example, does that mean you accepted the headline and didn't even look closely at the garbage you were suggesting I read.
Claiming that I know nothing and you are fully read up on the subject is bordering on hilarious, considering the stuff you present to support your argument.

So let me tell you about vitamin D. With the amount I acquire naturally from eating fish, eggs, milk and yoghurt, plus the amount I get from sunshine, I already get more vitamin D than considered necessary. (One small portion of salmon has more than one day's needs. Or if you don't eat fish, some orange juice, some yoghurt , an egg and a nice walk outdoors will do the trick.) Why would I even want to get it out of a bottle when there are much nicer ways to get all I need - and be nourished at the same time? If you take vitamin D supplement have you been shown to have a vitamin D deficiency and not getting the daily recommended intake by natural means?
There are also reports that excessive levels of vitamin D in your body can cause illness, but I don't need to go any further than saying that I get all I need in my food and outdoor activities. What about you?

Call your congressman and senators, tell them you want your supplements and you don't want the FDA to remove any supplements from the market, then report back to me.

In the mean time keep reading and let me know of any problems.

swisht4u
09-21-2011, 11:18 PM
I'm sorry, but all of this is total :bs: quackery.
I guess you've never really suffered a REAL life-threatning disease. Be happy about that... very happy. :wavey:

Good you never suffered a bad disease.

Just for vitamin D:

Top ten facts about vitamin D and cancer


Many studies have found solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) and vitamin D associated with reduced risk of breast, colon, and rectal cancer.

A randomized controlled trial with 1100 IU/day vitamin D3 plus 1450 mg/day calcium found a 77% reduction in all-cancer incidence.

Geographical studies have found reduced risk in mortality rates for 20 types of cancer in regions of higher solar UVB doses.

Observational studies have found that the risk of breast, colon, and rectal cancer fall as vitamin D blood levels rise at least up to 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L).

Mechanisms have been proposed to explain how vitamin D acts to reduce the risk of cancer from starting, growing, and spreading.
Those who develop nonmelanoma skin cancer may have produced enough vitamin D to reduce their risk of internal cancers.

Those with higher vitamin D blood levels at time of cancer diagnosis had nearly twice the survival rate of those with the lowest levels.

African-Americans have an increased risk of cancer in part due to lower vitamin D blood levels because of darker skin.

Higher UVB exposure early in life has been found associated with reduced risk of breast and prostate cancer.

Those diagnosed with breast, colon and prostate cancer in summer in Norway had higher survival rates than those diagnosed in winter.

Doctors are subscribing this vitamin to patients regularly.

In the winter you don't get enough, the body is covered, not enough time outside, the strength of the sun is too weak. People don't spend enough time outside like they used to through the centuries and they use sunscreen on top of it, the body has a system developed thru the early times of makind to use what it normally gets from the sun, but we don't have that anymore. So disease develops without the normal levels.

There's more, much more. Reading is good, come back with questions if need be.

swisht4u
09-21-2011, 11:23 PM
I probably expressed myself a bit poorly... What I meant is that I've understood that there are talks conducted on raising the recommended daily levels, one reason being elevated vitamin D-levels in top-athletes. Naturally, one can conclude that since most athletes spend a lot of time outside, it's not wonder their levels are elevated :lol:.

I clearly don't remember enough about the article/documentary on the issue :p

They already raised the levels, there were so much evidence that they had little choice. Many are saying they haven't raised the levels enough but it's a start.

Test have shown that higher vitamin D levels increase athletic performance.

When the Chicago Blackhawks hockey team went on a 5,000 IU a day vitamin D regimen they won the Stanley cup. Not proof but more evidence piling up, and it continues to pile up daily.

Sunset of Age
09-21-2011, 11:25 PM
Look, if you want to be a 'true believer', be happy about it. I won't bother you anymore on this utter garbage. :wavey:

swisht4u
09-22-2011, 12:00 AM
Look, if you want to be a 'true believer', be happy about it. I won't bother you anymore on this utter garbage. :wavey:

I've already shown the facts, at least some of them.
This has little to do with beliefs, it's all documented and that's the kind information you'll have to refute if you want any kind of recognition here.

Come back when you have something grasshopper.

buddyholly
09-22-2011, 01:40 AM
Look, if you want to be a 'true believer', be happy about it. I won't bother you anymore on this utter garbage. :wavey:

I'll have to go with this. You are now just ignoring that we have pointed out that you presented arguments are based on crank websites. And like all the other conspiracy theorists, you have now adopted the ''prove I'm wrong'' attitude.
It is not acceptable to just say, "Well, it's not my fault that Google gave me this junk that I posted without reading.'' You have to take some responsibility instead of just trying to pass the blame for your actions onto others.

You have not provided one indication that you have a clue whether or not you are vitamin deficient. You don't seem to care, you think you are bravely defying the government by swallowing stuff you probably don't need.

I can't find any evidence the FDA wants to take these off the market anyway. That is just a scare tactic.
They just want to regulate an industry that is thriving on a gullible public like yourself. And to prevent companies selling something that also contains amounts of other substances that may be toxic.

Finally, recommending to non-Americans that they call their senators and congressmen suggests to me you are a little bit misinformed on geography as well. The US is not the world, you know. Or maybe you don't.

buddyholly
09-22-2011, 02:03 AM
Test have shown that higher vitamin D levels increase athletic performance.



So do steroids.

v-money
09-22-2011, 02:06 AM
The FDA is a money driven and corrupt regulation branch. It is disgusting how they poison the people with all sorts of pharmaceutical drugs. In the United States health is so poor because medicine doesn't try to get people to exercise, or to eat better, or take vitamins so one's metabolic processes can function properly. Quite the opposite, general health is non of their concern because there now exists a pill to fix just any ill. Why prevent disease when you can make money on it.

There is a lot of scientific evidence to suggest that vitamins and supplements are useful as swisht4u has suggested, but even if we ignore this evidence, the FDA has no business in controlling their use. These vitamins and supplements are not dangerous and very few deaths have been attributed to them (something like 1 death per year), although when one does occur it floods our newspapers scaring us with false propaganda. If people knew that over 700, 000 people per year died from adverse drug reactions (this doesn't included prescription drug misuse), then maybe they could pressure the FDA to control something that actually does kill people.

Medicine is no longer about individual health, it's just about money. I'm in my senior year of college and I have completed my pre-med requirements (with very good grades, I may add), but I now fear my own involvement in this corrupt business if I continue to medical school and to the professional level. Actually have started thinking about becoming a dietitian or a physical therapist to avoid all this shit.

buddyholly
09-22-2011, 02:47 AM
In the mean time keep reading and let me know of any problems.

That is my whole point. I took the trouble to read what you suggested and found a website that claims that there are no diseases such as cancer and diabetes, we are all just brainwashed by doctors and surgeons in this great conspiracy to get us to buy medicine.

I pointed out that I have a problem with that and you pretend not to hear. Why should I try any more? You apparently only hear what you want to hear.

swisht4u
09-22-2011, 03:06 AM
That is my whole point. I took the trouble to read what you suggested and found a website that claims that there are no diseases such as cancer and diabetes, we are all just brainwashed by doctors and surgeons in this great conspiracy to get us to buy medicine.

I pointed out that I have a problem with that and you pretend not to hear. Why should I try any more? You apparently only hear what you want to hear.

I appreciate you taking the time, that website wasn't the best but that is a mark against my selection of a good site, nothing more. It doesn't change what is happening with the FDA. I leave much of this to the reader, the thread isn't to bring you over to the dark side, it's meant to make you aware of what's happening.
This should be enough for you to venture out and find information, if you care about it.
I didn't want to get into if supplements are helpful, with this point there is no doubt and the FDA knows this to be true BTW.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/13/fda-to-ban-new-supplements-and-classify-them-like-food-preservatives.aspx

http://www.lef.org/featured-articles/0719_FDA-views-supplements-as-synthetic-food-preservatives.htm

On a similar note, best way for health I know.
Eat healthy
Physical activity
supplement with nutrients.

buddyholly
09-22-2011, 03:15 AM
In the United States health is so poor because medicine doesn't try to get people to exercise, or to eat better, or take vitamins so one's metabolic processes can function properly.

Wake up! Is there anywhere else in the world with such a high level of information blasting out every day on how important to one's health it is to exercise, cut down on fats, cut down on carbs, eat more veggies, eat more fruit, eat more cold water fish, etc, etc, etc.? I doubt it.
Is there anywhere else in the world with more gym's/person?

If most people choose to ignore it, that is another subject. After all, swisht4u claims that people should be free to put in their bodies whatever the hell they want and it should be of no concern to the government.

BTW, Forbes ranks the US as #11 in its list of the world's healthiest countries, ahead of Spain and France.

v-money
09-22-2011, 03:20 AM
Surely conventional medicine is the best choice for the treatment of cancer, diabetes, and many other diseases, but what is being missed is that vitamins and supplements don't claim to be cures for this at all. Maybe in very high concentrations some are used as treatments for cancer, but they are mostly a preventative tool and certainly not harmful. The FDA needs to focus on what they really should be regulating, instead of worrying about vitamins. Pharmaceutical drugs get an easy green light from the FDA, despite very non-rigorous experimental trials.

buddyholly
09-22-2011, 03:20 AM
I appreciate you taking the time, that website wasn't the best but that is a mark against my selection of a good site, nothing more. It doesn't change what is happening with the FDA. I leave much of this to the reader, the thread isn't to bring you over to the dark side, it's meant to make you aware of what's happening.
This should be enough for you to venture out and find information, if you care about it.
I didn't want to get into if supplements are helpful, with this point there is no doubt and the FDA knows this to be true BTW.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/13/fda-to-ban-new-supplements-and-classify-them-like-food-preservatives.aspx

http://www.lef.org/featured-articles/0719_FDA-views-supplements-as-synthetic-food-preservatives.htm

On a similar note, best way for health I know.
Eat healthy
Physical activity
supplement with nutrients.

OK, then let's return to basics. Where does it say the FDA is going to ban diet supplements? From what I read they are going to make sure that supplement producers provide an honest product, much as they do with drug and food producers.
It seems to me the supplement companies just want to put whatever they please in the bottle and fear having to be honest about it.

BTW, mercola.com is a site that exists to sell supplements online. Is this the best place you can suggest for an unbiased opinion on the supplement business? It seems the only things you read are articles written on commercial supplement-selling sites. His site also pushes tips on sheng fui and the sale of homeopathic medicine, probably the biggest health scam ever fed to the public. So once again, it is immediately apparent to me that you are attracted to the worst kind of internet junk. The fact that supplement vendors mix in homeopathy and other faddish junk with their supplement claims is a good indication of the kind of people they are hoping to attract.

v-money
09-22-2011, 03:27 AM
Wake up! Is there anywhere else in the world with such a high level of information blasting out every day on how important to one's health it is to exercise, cut down on fats, cut down on carbs, eat more veggies, eat more fruit, eat more cold water fish, etc, etc, etc.? I doubt it.
Is there anywhere else in the world with more gym's/person?

If most people choose to ignore it, that is another subject. After all, swisht4u claims that people should be free to put in their bodies whatever the hell they want and it should be of no concern to the government.

BTW, Forbes ranks the US as #11 in its list of the world's healthiest countries, ahead of Spain and France.

What kind of president do you think the FDA is setting by trying to control vitamins and supplements? Something that has long been used to help people, possibly being controlled.

Also being told something and having the means to do it are two completely different things. The FDA may have healthy eating facts posted somewhere on their website but these are not the foods that they are putting out in great number onto the market. If they were so worried about health they could at least have some regulation on foods served in US high schools for example. Provide kids with more then a carton of milk and some pizza.

buddyholly
09-22-2011, 03:54 AM
What kind of president do you think the FDA is setting by trying to control vitamins and supplements? Something that has long been used to help people, possibly being controlled.



If you mean precedent, they are not trying to control the distribution of supplements and vitamins, but trying to assure the product is honestly presented. This they already do for food and drugs.

And persisting in arguments claiming that the government should be involved in deciding what food people eat kind of shoots down your argument that the government has no business in examining what is actually in a supplement bottle.
Not that I think pizza and fries in school lunches is a good thing. But it seems unrelated to ensuring the product in supplement bottles is what it says it is.

v-money
09-22-2011, 08:15 AM
If you mean precedent, they are not trying to control the distribution of supplements and vitamins, but trying to assure the product is honestly presented. This they already do for food and drugs.

And persisting in arguments claiming that the government should be involved in deciding what food people eat kind of shoots down your argument that the government has no business in examining what is actually in a supplement bottle.
Not that I think pizza and fries in school lunches is a good thing. But it seems unrelated to ensuring the product in supplement bottles is what it says it is.

Yes I meant precedent:)

You're absolutely right, the FDA should control what people consume if they are actually doing their job. I never said that the government shouldn't investigate the contents supplements, but everyone sees that it's obviously not what they are going to do. I apologize for ranting and not making it clear but I fully support effectively getting good eating and nutrition options and making them available, but only if the FDA did so fairly and effectively. Currently the FDA has the responsibility of dealing with water quality, food quality and drug quality in the US and I personally see them as inadequate in all of them.

If the FDA just want to check that our Calcium tablets actually contain Calcium, than I am totally supporting it. If they test whether the pills actually raises blood ion concentrations, that would be even better. If anyone tells me that trace elements, minerals and vitamins don't have a biological role in cellular processes (which I think was said earlier in this thread!), than I will tell you that you know no molecular biology and you should stop talking out of your ass. In fact some of the things in those bottles are essential nutrients for humans, Vitamin C for example. Just a few days ago I learned about the importance of folic acid for pregnant women on a molecular basis. Folic acid is essential for the synthesis of dihydrofolate which synthesis n5,n10-methedyl-tetrahydrofolate, which is a methyl donor for deoxythymidine triphosphate, which is pretty fucking important as it's one of the bases in our DNA. So women of childbearing age should take it to prevent birth defects in children. Folic Acid is a common supplement with no scientific claim to curing diseases (no recommended daily value), but by preventing a DNA replication error it is preventing, well...cancer. Now if the FDA want to make sure that we get all of that great preventative medicine, then great, fewer people on chemotherapy. But I think the FDA may say that the average american diet( which in reality unsupplemented and lacking) will cover necessary levels, which is a straight lie.

Yes, maybe I'm thinking cynically, but for some reason no doctors prescribes vitamins despite learning about them in molecular biology courses throughout their academic path. It wouldn't surprise me to see vitamins get limited from the market instead of upgraded to necessary nutrients. (And yes I do realize that supplement companies are multi-million dollar corporations as well).

buddyholly
09-22-2011, 01:58 PM
But I think the FDA may say that the average american diet( which in reality unsupplemented and lacking) will cover necessary levels, which is a straight lie.



The introduction of supplements happened a millimillisecond ago in terms of human evolution. What I can not figure out is how we got so far without the necessary levels of all that stuff in the bottles. Surely if something necessary is missing, the whole thing fails. I mean, are you saying we evolved to where we are without the basic necessities of living? That seems like a contradiction. Seems like you are saying that my grandmother living to 94 years was a miracle. She did that without supplementing her diet with necessary chemicals. Pretty good going.

What do you think of bottles of water being sold as homeopathic medicine? Do you find it disturbing that if you go to website telling you to buy all these supplements, the same site is often urging you to buy homeopathic medicine as well?

v-money
09-22-2011, 04:13 PM
The introduction of supplements happened a millimillisecond ago in terms of human evolution. What I can not figure out is how we got so far without the necessary levels of all that stuff in the bottles. Surely if something necessary is missing, the whole thing fails. I mean, are you saying we evolved to where we are without the basic necessities of living? That seems like a contradiction. Seems like you are saying that my grandmother living to 94 years was a miracle. She did that without supplementing her diet with necessary chemicals. Pretty good going.

I assure you that your grandmother is not only blessed with good genetics, but has also had a fairly good diet to get to this age. The average American diet is lacking and I can't believe that some people are denying this. People don't even meet the required levels of things recommended by the FDA, like calcium and some vitamins. I can see why one would argue for supplement regulation but someone denying people the means to buy required dietary supplements that contribute to a whole host of molecular processes, is clueless. A little extra supplements won't hurt you, but a lack of trace elements could have serious effects.

What do you think of bottles of water being sold as homeopathic medicine? Do you find it disturbing that if you go to website telling you to buy all these supplements, the same site is often urging you to buy homeopathic medicine as well?

I think you made a typo here, but I understand your point...why would we trust the companies selling us these drugs? And I say don't! Do you own research and use your own reasoning. I have never surfed the web looking at vitamin websites on why vitamins are good or bad, but knowing just some college chemistry and biology, I think the answer is clear. Supplements will supplement a lacking diet, period.

swisht4u
09-22-2011, 11:15 PM
@buddyholly
OK, then let's return to basics. Where does it say the FDA is going to ban diet supplements? From what I read they are going to make sure that supplement producers provide an honest product, much as they do with drug and food producers.


Senator Durbin introduced a bill that will allow the FDA to remove any new supplements it deems. By 'new' they mean any supplements brought to market in the last 17 years. This would include plant extracts.
Few would worry if the FDA was honest but with the connections to big pharma the way they are the FDA cannot be trusted. They don't even allow truthful claims even if there are good studies. They don't want the public to hear about benefits.
Even if it's food like walnuts or cherries.


There's not much else to it than what I've said, it's not . That link with Mercola puts it in a nutshell, he does sell vitamins but that doesn't disqualify what he said.
Then take the information and make your own decision.

buddyholly
09-23-2011, 01:02 AM
There's not much else to it than what I've said, it's not . That link with Mercola puts it in a nutshell, he does sell vitamins but that doesn't disqualify what he said.
Then take the information and make your own decision.

If he's lauding homeopathic medicine, then that is enough for me. He is a scam artist.

buddyholly
10-11-2011, 04:09 AM
If anyone tells me that trace elements, minerals and vitamins don't have a biological role in cellular processes (which I think was said earlier in this thread!), than I will tell you that you know no molecular biology and you should stop talking out of your ass. In fact some of the things in those bottles are essential nutrients for humans, Vitamin C for example. Just a few days ago I learned about the importance of folic acid for pregnant women on a molecular basis.

Yes, maybe I'm thinking cynically, but for some reason no doctors prescribes vitamins despite learning about them in molecular biology courses throughout their academic path. It wouldn't surprise me to see vitamins get limited from the market instead of upgraded to necessary nutrients. (And yes I do realize that supplement companies are multi-million dollar corporations as well).

A new study out today from the University of Minnesota, found that women who take dietary supplements die sooner than women who don't. Too much folic acid was one of the supplements specifically mentioned.

So yes you are cynical. Doctors have not been prescribing supplements to people who have not been diagnosed with a deficiency.

It would seem the position that it does no harm to take a bunch of supplements is now very suspect. It may shorten your life.
Much better to spend your money on good food.

buddyholly
10-11-2011, 04:12 AM
A little extra supplements won't hurt you, but a lack of trace elements could have serious effects.





Dying from taking supplements is a serious effect, I think.

swisht4u
10-12-2011, 01:13 AM
A new study out today from the University of Minnesota, found that women who take dietary supplements die sooner than women who don't. Too much folic acid was one of the supplements specifically mentioned.

So yes you are cynical. Doctors have not been prescribing supplements to people who have not been diagnosed with a deficiency.

It would seem the position that it does no harm to take a bunch of supplements is now very suspect. It may shorten your life.
Much better to spend your money on good food.

Not a good study by any means... grasshopper. :wavey:

http://www.anh-usa.org/shame-on-ama-archives-of-internal-medicine/

buddyholly
10-12-2011, 01:32 AM
Not a good study by any means... grasshopper. :wavey:

http://www.anh-usa.org/shame-on-ama-archives-of-internal-medicine/

Shame on you for immediately accepting a criticism of a peer-reviewed scientific paper from an organization that promotes the sale of supplements, - as well as bottles of water, called homeopathic medicine.

That link is just an pathetic attempt at limiting the damage. Your article does not dispute that older women who took vitamins died quicker. And that was the only conclusion of the study. The article just says the study is junk because the women only reported three times in 19 years. Well hello, most people only die once, so even if they reported at the start of the study and again, 19 years later, the death rate over the 19 years would be exactly the same as if they reported every day.

And of course the article had to be written with the authors hoping that the reader would be stupid enough to miss the point that they themselves were forced to make. They say that the slightly different death rates between those that took supplements and those who didn't were not significant.

Well, OK, then, they themselves conclude that spending a pile of money over your lifetime on supplements IS A WASTE OF MONEY.

Sunset of Age
10-12-2011, 01:44 AM
Apparently there are still plenty folks around believing the notorious Linus Pauling Vitamin C-overdose scam, which is all of this resembles most of all.
I really don't know whether to laugh or cry about that, as all what superfluous doses of vit-C will bring you is in the best case *nothing*, but in the worst case, kidney stones the size of bricks. :p

But do continue believing in the Church of Supplements, folks! :wavey:

swisht4u
10-12-2011, 02:13 AM
Shame on you for immediately accepting a criticism of a peer-reviewed scientific paper from an organization that promotes the sale of supplements, - as well as bottles of water, called homeopathic medicine.

That link is just an pathetic attempt at limiting the damage. Your article does not dispute that older women who took vitamins died quicker. And that was the only conclusion of the study. The article just says the study is junk because the women only reported three times in 19 years. Well hello, most people only die once, so even if they reported at the start of the study and again, 19 years later, the death rate over the 19 years would be exactly the same as if they reported every day.

And of course the article had to be written with the authors hoping that the reader would be stupid enough to miss the point that they themselves were forced to make. They say that the slightly different death rates between those that took supplements and those who didn't were not significant.

Well, OK, then, they themselves conclude that spending a pile of money over your lifetime on supplements IS A WASTE OF MONEY.

You have said nothing of value, full of unverified assumptions.
I already told you earlier to read up on issues before stepping in another stink pie.

There are very few who agree with this study, only those who are open to scare tactics of the media. Not unlike how a bunch of turkeys act when you sneeze around them. :rolleyes:

If you would have read the link you would know that the study only had a general questionnaire 3 times in 18 years, who remembers what they took and the variation of intakes ruins the study. Don't you know anything about how studies should be conducted?

As a side note: You get into these kind of problems in all kinds of threads, it is bad for credibility. :wavey:

buddyholly
10-13-2011, 02:46 PM
You have said nothing of value, full of unverified assumptions.
I already told you earlier to read up on issues before stepping in another stink pie.

There are very few who agree with this study, only those who are open to scare tactics of the media. Not unlike how a bunch of turkeys act when you sneeze around them. :rolleyes:

If you would have read the link you would know that the study only had a general questionnaire 3 times in 18 years, who remembers what they took and the variation of intakes ruins the study. Don't you know anything about how studies should be conducted?

As a side note: You get into these kind of problems in all kinds of threads, it is bad for credibility. :wavey:

Two points:

You accuse me of making unverified assumptions, but I did not ''assume'' the study and its conclusions. You however, feel perfewctly justified in assuming the study has no validity. You immediately say ''there are very few who agree with this study,'' an unverified assumption if I ever heard one. The University of Minnesota canvassed tens of thousands. What was your sample size?
Throughout this thread you just make statements with no information at all. You are like the people in other threads that say the earth is 6000 years old, therefore all scientific evidence that it is billions of years old must be rejected as bad data, because it contradicts the prior assumption of 6000 years. It is you who assumes supplements are wonderful and immediately reject any kind of evidence that might shake your belief.

Secondly, as I said, most people only die once. The study reports that women who used supplements were more likely to die at an earlier age. I think most people can remember whether or not they took supplements. Variation of intakes and all the other little red herrings that you worry about, would not change the dead/not dead statistic. And if there is any bias in the results, I would imagine that people who took supplements were more likely to do other things to stay healthy, such as exercise and eating healthy, than the people who did not take them. Therefore the conclusion is even more damning to the supplement industry.

Filo V.
10-13-2011, 04:31 PM
People are arguing about the ever-so-strong desire to put disgusting, harmful shit in their bodies, and doctors pescribing unhealthy shit, knowingly. LOL.

swisht4u
10-13-2011, 10:23 PM
Two points:

You accuse me of making unverified assumptions, but I did not ''assume'' the study and its conclusions. You however, feel perfewctly justified in assuming the study has no validity. You immediately say ''there are very few who agree with this study,'' an unverified assumption if I ever heard one. The University of Minnesota canvassed tens of thousands. What was your sample size?
Throughout this thread you just make statements with no information at all. You are like the people in other threads that say the earth is 6000 years old, therefore all scientific evidence that it is billions of years old must be rejected as bad data, because it contradicts the prior assumption of 6000 years. It is you who assumes supplements are wonderful and immediately reject any kind of evidence that might shake your belief.

Secondly, as I said, most people only die once. The study reports that women who used supplements were more likely to die at an earlier age. I think most people can remember whether or not they took supplements. Variation of intakes and all the other little red herrings that you worry about, would not change the dead/not dead statistic. And if there is any bias in the results, I would imagine that people who took supplements were more likely to do other things to stay healthy, such as exercise and eating healthy, than the people who did not take them. Therefore the conclusion is even more damning to the supplement industry.

Negative my friend.

Gamma-tocotrienol inhibits prostate cancer stem cells

Researchers at Australia's Queensland University of Technology (QUT) have found that gamma-tocotrienol, one of eight forms of vitamin E, could help prevent prostate cancer regrowth due to an ability to inhibit prostate cancer stem cells. The research was described in an article published online on July 8, 2010 in the International Journal of Cancer.

"Emerging evidence supports that prostate cancer originates from a rare subpopulation of cells, namely prostate cancer stem cells (CSCs)," Dr Patrick Ling and his colleagues write in their introduction to the article. "Conventional therapies for prostate cancer are believed to mainly target the majority of differentiated tumor cells but spare CSCs, which may account for the subsequent disease relapse after treatment. Therefore, successful elimination of CSCs may be an effective strategy to achieve complete remission from this disease."

The authors note that gamma-tocotrienol has shown a suppressive effect in a number of cancers. Earlier research conducted by Dr Ling found that treatment with gamma-tocotrienol inhibited prostate cancer cell invasion as well as increased the sensitivity of the cells to programmed death induced by the chemotherapeutic agent docetaxel.

The current experiments demonstrated for the first time that gamma-tocotrienol downregulates the expression of prostate cancer stem cell markers in androgen-independent prostate cancer cell lines. Pretreatment of one of the cell lines with gamma-tocotrienol was found to suppress the cells' ability to initiate tumor growth.

Dr Ling noted that in studies with mice implanted with prostate cancer cells, gamma-tocotrienol inhibited tumor formation in over 70 percent of the animals.

"Prostate cancer is the most common type of cancer in developed countries," Dr Ling remarked. "It is responsible for more male deaths than any other cancer, except lung cancer."

"Currently there is no effective treatment for metastatic prostate cancer, because it grows back after conventional therapies in more than 70 percent of cases," he observed. "But with gamma-tocotrienol, QUT researchers have found a better way to treat prostate cancer, which has the potential to inhibit recurrence of the disease."

"Previous clinical trials using another vitamin E constituent to inhibit prostate cancer development were unsuccessful, but these trials did not use the vitamin E constituent gamma-tocotrienol," he added. "Other research has found gamma-tocotrienol is also effective in suppressing other types of cancer, including breast, colon, liver and gastric."

Alpha-tocopherol was used in the study.
Those with the highest levels of gamma-tocopherol were five times less likely to develop prostate cancer even of they take vitamin(the alpha tocopherol form in the study).

The study was good but the design of the study was not good.
A little research will show this.

http://drgeo.com/vitamin-e-and-prostate-cancer-study-unnecesary-hype

This kind of media fools many, some even get convinced that all supplements are bad.


:wavey:

buddyholly
10-18-2011, 02:02 PM
Now the Cleveland Clinic reports that too much vitamin E may increase the risk of prostate cancer.

The hurt keeps coming.

Earlier in this thread you claimed that folic acid prevents cancer by protecting against DNA damage in healthy cells. But apparently it has now been shown to protect pre-cancerous cells as well, if taken in high dosages.
Actually, the report refers to ''synthetic'' folic acid, not what occurs naturally in foods. The article in my morning paper today suggests that people on regular supplements, taking doses recommended by the manufacturers, may want to cut their intake in half.

The hurt keeps coming.

Nekromanta
10-18-2011, 05:05 PM
:zzz: is this even a topic??? As long as you have a strong body and liver you can eat/not eat whatever the heck you want..... You can outright poison yourself it can't kill you if you're strong... sissies will get cancer from everything/nothing...:zzz:

Sunset of Age
10-18-2011, 07:31 PM
Earlier in this thread you claimed that folic acid prevents cancer by protecting against DNA damage in healthy cells. But apparently it has now been shown to protect pre-cancerous cells as well, if taken in high dosages.
Actually, the report refers to ''synthetic'' folic acid, not what occurs naturally in foods. The article in my morning paper today suggests that people on regular supplements, taking doses recommended by the manufacturers, may want to cut their intake in half.

Perhaps a superfluous question, but what do you think is the difference between "synthetic" folic acid and "natural" folic acid? I well remember some quack industry advertising their pills containing "natural vitamin C" not that long ago but I don't get why natural ascorbic acid should be anything different from synthetic ascorbid acid. Last time I checked it's the same chemical. :)

Lopez
10-18-2011, 09:19 PM
Perhaps a superfluous question, but what do you think is the difference between "synthetic" folic acid and "natural" folic acid? I well remember some quack industry advertising their pills containing "natural vitamin C" not that long ago but I don't get why natural ascorbic acid should be anything different from synthetic ascorbid acid. Last time I checked it's the same chemical. :)

Tell that to the organic food lovers :p

buddyholly
10-18-2011, 10:01 PM
Perhaps a superfluous question, but what do you think is the difference between "synthetic" folic acid and "natural" folic acid? I well remember some quack industry advertising their pills containing "natural vitamin C" not that long ago but I don't get why natural ascorbic acid should be anything different from synthetic ascorbid acid. Last time I checked it's the same chemical. :)

I have thrown away the newspaper, but a Google search speaks of ''various forms of folic acid''. The form found naturally in foods is folate, which is apparently a different ''form'' from the synthetic folic acid. Synthetic folic acid is more stable.

Sunset of Age
10-18-2011, 10:24 PM
I have thrown away the newspaper, but a Google search speaks of ''various forms of folic acid''. The form found naturally in foods is folate, which is apparently a different ''form'' from the synthetic folic acid. Synthetic folic acid is more stable.

"Various forms of folic acid". Brilliant. Okay, there is the possibility of stronger and less stronger acidic values analogue to H2CO3 and HCO3− (both natural carbonic acids as you know), but I still don't see whatever it being 'synthetic' has to do with that. ;)

Perhaps they mean that in natural food there appear certain spore-elements going along with the stuff (whereas a synthetic variation is of course chemically pure), or something the like?

Whatever, it's all quackery.

Say Hey Kid
10-20-2011, 05:27 AM
Whether or not supplements have any benefits at all is completely irrelevant. The FDA has no legal right to impose these sanctions on the american people. These very same people reapproved Vioxx in the interests of the Merck & Co after it killed conservatively 20,000. These corrupt cocksuckers have shown time and time again they can't be trusted and don't have the best interest of the american people in mind.

This new proposed legislation is beyond ridiculous and would outlaw many herbs and supplements that people willingly take every single day. Whether or not they have an effect doesn't even fucking matter. If someone wants to take a valerian capsule every single day, the government has no right to tell them they can't.

Whatever happend to the idea of personal responsibility and making your own decisions in life?

buddyholly
10-20-2011, 01:45 PM
Whatever happend to the idea of personal responsibility and making your own decisions in life?

I'm certainly all for that. If people want to buy a bottle of water as medicine, then good luck with that. Be as responsible as you like. Just as long as the bottles are labelled as containing water. Which they actually are. Yet the same people who buy supplements also buy this water. They are usually sold together on websites. The site owners know their customer base.

But I don't think that everyone should be personally responsible for suing a supplement maker for making a false claim on the label. Society can't function that way. So, as with homeopathic water bottles, it is safe to assume that even if a supplement bottle is labelled, ''ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS PRODUCT DOES ANYTHING", people will still buy it.

swisht4u
10-21-2011, 05:26 AM
Whether or not supplements have any benefits at all is completely irrelevant. The FDA has no legal right to impose these sanctions on the american people. These very same people reapproved Vioxx in the interests of the Merck & Co after it killed conservatively 20,000. These corrupt cocksuckers have shown time and time again they can't be trusted and don't have the best interest of the american people in mind.

This new proposed legislation is beyond ridiculous and would outlaw many herbs and supplements that people willingly take every single day. Whether or not they have an effect doesn't even fucking matter. If someone wants to take a valerian capsule every single day, the government has no right to tell them they can't.

Whatever happend to the idea of personal responsibility and making your own decisions in life?

They are trading lives for money.
As outrageous as that sounds that's what it comes down to.

They set a limit on how many die as to justify their actions for drug companies.

It's another form of control over people to get what they want is another way of looking at it.

The FDA and constituents of the government will continue to erode personal freedom and we will be lambs led by them.

Say Hey Kid
10-21-2011, 06:09 AM
I'm certainly all for that. If people want to buy a bottle of water as medicine, then good luck with that. Be as responsible as you like. Just as long as the bottles are labelled as containing water. Which they actually are. Yet the same people who buy supplements also buy this water. They are usually sold together on websites. The site owners know their customer base.

But I don't think that everyone should be personally responsible for suing a supplement maker for making a false claim on the label. Society can't function that way. So, as with homeopathic water bottles, it is safe to assume that even if a supplement bottle is labelled, ''ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS PRODUCT DOES ANYTHING", people will still buy it.




That's a strawman argument, as water can not labeled as medicine under the current FDA requirements.


A product sold as a dietary supplement and promoted on its label or in labeling* as a treatment, prevention or cure for a specific disease or condition is considered an unapproved--and thus illegal--drug. To maintain the product's status as a dietary supplement, the label and labeling must be consistent with the provisions in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994.

Labels on all supplements contain the text "This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease". Most supplements/vitamins people take are plants, minerals, or other extracts that humans have been taking around the globe for many years due to a perceived benefit. Whether or not all of them are effective is questionable. Most individuals do the research for themselves into the supplement and make the decision whether or not they would like to try it out before mindlessly purchasing them.

The notion that the vast majority vitamins and supplements need to be banned because a few products may not be effective is asinine.

Supposedly under this legislation the vast majority of supplements will be banned by default, and the FDA will run studies , funded by the taxpayer, into whether or not certain supplements offer the benefits. The Agency who is conducting the studies is the same agency who knowingly put a drug back on the market. Vioxx, they knew was responsibily for killing thousands of people under pressure from Pharmaeceutial company "Merck & Co". The FDA certainly can't be trusted to test supplements in an unbiased manner, as their actions have shown the health of the american people means absolutely nothing to them.

The last thing we need is more government regulations.

Say Hey Kid
10-21-2011, 08:29 AM
They are trading lives for money.
As outrageous as that sounds that's what it comes down to.

They set a limit on how many die as to justify their actions for drug companies.

It's another form of control over people to get what they want is another way of looking at it.

The FDA and constituents of the government will continue to erode personal freedom and we will be lambs led by them.

Absolutely they are trading lives for money and that isn't even speculation. The FDA's own actions confirm that they not only don't care about the health of the general public, but they will put drugs on the market that will literally kill the general public.

Why in the world anyone would want this agency to have more power baffles me.

Lastly, I take very few supplements personally, only Fish Oil and occasionally Kava Kava, but in a free society individuals should have the right to consume what they please.

buddyholly
10-21-2011, 12:49 PM
That's a strawman argument, as water can not labeled as medicine under the current FDA requirements.




I am not sure how homeopathic bottles are labeled in the US. They are bottles of water.

And I am still not sure if the FDA is going to ban anything - or just regulate the labelling.

And while I am on the subject - what do you think of the ephedra ban? Should the supplement makers be allowed to put it on the market, even though the evidence shows it can kill? From what I read. Metabolife failed to act on 14,000 customer reports of adverse affects and the FDA found that in a single batch of the supplement the concentration varied by a factor of 10.

If you go back to the original link in post #1 and read the responses, they fall into two categories: those who just say they want their freedom to buy what they like and those who have some knowledge of the industry and say it needs regulation because there is no control over what is in the bottle. It seems to me that the people who are ''buying what they like'' may actually not know what they are buying.

Sunset of Age
10-21-2011, 01:44 PM
It seems to me that the people who are ''buying what they like'' may actually not know what they are buying.

This is the key to the entire problem I think. Judging on the tons of pseudo-medical claims being made about supplements (and other forms of quackery) and the huge industry that's been made out of it, one cannot conclude otherwise than that a lot of the buyers have no clue indeed, due to lack of education and/or critical thinking abilities.

I have no trouble calling the quackery industry a bunch of swindlers for this very reason as the majority of them know all too well themselves that they sell BS. On the other hand, if people want to invest their well-earned cash on this rubbish, they are free to do so... after all, money talks and shit walks. :shrug:

WF4EVER
10-21-2011, 01:54 PM
Buddyholly, you really need to educate yourself. Your posts reek of ignorance.

As a person who no longer uses pharmaceuticals, I can tell you I'm a shitload better off than when I was using antibiotics, cold medicines, etc. Because the gentleman you referenced was buying $250 worth of supplements per month, it doesn't mean he was buying the right supplements nor that they were of a high quality. Worse, you said it was from a major company? Even less reason to believe they were of a high quality; it's all about the money for these large companies, not quality.

If I get sick, the first place I'd look is for a natural or organic supplement, not a drug. These supplements are merely a means of receiving the nutrition that the body should have gotten from food in the first place; nutrition that in most cases would have prevented the illness.

With the way food is produced nowadays, genetically modified, overloaded with pesticides, hormone-injected and irradiated, no wonder so many people are sick. Ever think about that? All these pharmaceutical drugs and not a single cure for our diseases.

Fortunately, some of us are just smart enough not to go to the drug companies who probably have a hand in the very things that make us sick, expecting to be cured.

As for the FDA. Has the FDA ever approved a drug that didn't kill people or cause severe harm to the body, especially the liver? Do you know how many drugs get pulled off the shelves after being FDA-approved because of the results of people taking them? Accident? Or the FDA's only concern is Big Pharma making money so they can get their share. Or maybe they're just all incompetent at the FDA? Which option sounds better to you?

Every single drug that is advertised in the media comes with a multitude of side effects, and 99% of these drugs, if not ALL of them affect the liver. I wonder why. Maybe we don't need our damn livers anyway, so when the drugs destroy it we will live anyway.

When I see the side effects of some of these drugs, I wonder if it's not just better to suffer from the original disease and leave the damn drug alone. For me, it's a no-brainer. Obviously not for the millions of people who have died taking them.

My favourite statement when I buy a supplement is, to paraphrase, "This product has not been evaluated by the FDA." I'll take my chances with that product.

And to the original poster, the FDA is absolutely trying to take away another right from you. The right to healthy options. It didn't just start and they will not stop until they get all of us to support Big Pharma. I'd think that there are enough dangerous drugs out there for them to get off and keep off the market, instead of targeting natural supplements.

Lopez
10-21-2011, 09:22 PM
Great, another organic food believer :rolleyes:

JolánGagó
10-21-2011, 10:09 PM
When I see the side effects of some of these drugs, I wonder if it's not just better to suffer from the original disease and leave the damn drug alone. For me, it's a no-brainer.

That's because you don't have cancer, AIDS, bacterial encephalitis, syphylis or any other lethal illness for which there is no "natural" remedy known.

You react to buddyholly's radical stance with an equally radical opposite. No need for that, the Truth is somewhere in the middle. I don't believe regulatory bodies will tell me the Truth. I want to find it, or try to, myself and would the FDA and similar please get out of my way, thank you.

Say Hey Kid
10-22-2011, 12:15 AM
I am not sure how homeopathic bottles are labeled in the US. They are bottles of water..

If homeopathic water is listed as a medicine to cure disease, that is already against the law. If it's just listed as "homeopathic water", there is nothing wrong with buying it or selling it. I would never buy such a thing, but if someone wants to invest their money in homeopathy cures that is their right as a free person.

If you go back to the original link in post #1 and read the responses, they fall into two categories: those who just say they want their freedom to buy what they like and those who have some knowledge of the industry and say it needs regulation because there is no control over what is in the bottle. It seems to me that the people who are ''buying what they like'' may actually not know what they are buying.

To say there is no control over what is in the bottle is completely false. It's illegal to list supplements, vitamins, or anything else as something they are not. Long before the FDA was established it has been a crime to sell a sugarpill as a specific vitamin or supplement. The FDA already has the authority and one of their jobs is to routinely test new supplements to ensure they are what they say they are. If a supplement company is found to be selling a sugar capsule as melatonin, they will not only be fined by the FDA, but the owner will be arrested by the FBI and charged with false advertising and defrauding consumers. There are criminals in every business, and i'm sure there are rogue corporations selling fake vitamins, but the individuals selling fake products are criminals already breaking multiple laws. Criminals don't abide by laws, there is no reason to think these new regulations will prevent charlatans from selling fake products.

The vast majority of companies who sell supplements, and all the big name corporations are selling exactly what they claim. Whether or not the vitamins and supplements being sold has an effect isn't even relevant. Thousands of people take valerian to help them sleep everynight. It is ridiculous to take it off the shelf because there isn't scientific evidence stating it might have an effect people think. Let people do their own research for themselves and make the adult decision whether or not they should purchase and consume it.

Regarding ephedra being taken off the shelf, the FDA did not overstep their boundaries. They have the power to take supplements off the market that have adverse side effcts. Most people would consider that reasonable, taking all supplements off the market by default is unreasonable. The Metabolife founder spent time in prison for failing to report the adverse side effects of ephedra to the FDA, he also has been sued by consumers. Rightfully so. Meanwhile, the FDA has been habitually trying to pass legislation which would prohibit individuals from suing pharmaceutical companies for drugs approved by the FDA.

We already have reasonable laws in place protecting people from faulty supplements, there is no reason to ban all supplements and vitamins. Even if you are under the impression supplements are bogus, to prohibit someone from buying a vitamin under the pretext of protecting them from themselves is the essence of tyranny.

buddyholly
12-17-2013, 08:32 PM
Well I guess American doctors, at least, have an answer.

Vitamin supplements are a waste of money.

Mr. Oracle
12-17-2013, 10:35 PM
Well I guess American doctors, at least, have an answer.

Vitamin supplements are a waste of money.

Not only that, but the new "wisdom" is that they're harmful.
I remember pumping my grandmother full of vitamins because I wanted her to live forever. :sad:
Now they are telling me I may have done her in.
I'd gather the whole industry and those who peddle the products into a fenced in area and napalm it (napalm, can i even say that?)

swisht4u
12-18-2013, 12:05 AM
If homeopathic water is listed as a medicine to cure disease, that is already against the law. If it's just listed as "homeopathic water", there is nothing wrong with buying it or selling it. I would never buy such a thing, but if someone wants to invest their money in homeopathy cures that is their right as a free person.



To say there is no control over what is in the bottle is completely false. It's illegal to list supplements, vitamins, or anything else as something they are not. Long before the FDA was established it has been a crime to sell a sugarpill as a specific vitamin or supplement. The FDA already has the authority and one of their jobs is to routinely test new supplements to ensure they are what they say they are. If a supplement company is found to be selling a sugar capsule as melatonin, they will not only be fined by the FDA, but the owner will be arrested by the FBI and charged with false advertising and defrauding consumers. There are criminals in every business, and i'm sure there are rogue corporations selling fake vitamins, but the individuals selling fake products are criminals already breaking multiple laws. Criminals don't abide by laws, there is no reason to think these new regulations will prevent charlatans from selling fake products.

The vast majority of companies who sell supplements, and all the big name corporations are selling exactly what they claim. Whether or not the vitamins and supplements being sold has an effect isn't even relevant. Thousands of people take valerian to help them sleep everynight. It is ridiculous to take it off the shelf because there isn't scientific evidence stating it might have an effect people think. Let people do their own research for themselves and make the adult decision whether or not they should purchase and consume it.

Regarding ephedra being taken off the shelf, the FDA did not overstep their boundaries. They have the power to take supplements off the market that have adverse side effcts. Most people would consider that reasonable, taking all supplements off the market by default is unreasonable. The Metabolife founder spent time in prison for failing to report the adverse side effects of ephedra to the FDA, he also has been sued by consumers. Rightfully so. Meanwhile, the FDA has been habitually trying to pass legislation which would prohibit individuals from suing pharmaceutical companies for drugs approved by the FDA.

We already have reasonable laws in place protecting people from faulty supplements, there is no reason to ban all supplements and vitamins. Even if you are under the impression supplements are bogus, to prohibit someone from buying a vitamin under the pretext of protecting them from themselves is the essence of tyranny.

Forgot about this thread and missed this excellent post. :wavey:

You'll never get all the proper amounts of nutrients from eating right but it helps.

Areas were most people are deficient, vitamin D and magnesium.
The studies are all there and of course the nutrient pushers will jump on it just like they pushed the cell phone when it came out.

Supplementation is the only way to get it right.

When a group of doctors come out with a negative report on supplementation that isn't the end of the discussion.
Things you need to know.

Who funded the study.

Was the study good or was it leaving out vital information to make the report look how they want.

For instance some will use only one vitamin and it could be an inferior form of the vitamin, some vitamins work well with others much better than alone.
The dose of the vitamin may be incorrect, too low to do anything for instance.

The people taking the vitamins are not monitored, not sure if they took it like they should.

Do supplements work (for newbies)?
Yes, and doctors are prescribing them, fish oil and vitamin D for instance.
They prescribe them because the overwhelming weight of positive studies.

What about the bad reports? Always wait for the response from different areas, it takes a few days or weeks.

Those who say they don't work haven't got into the studies and reports on them.

Besides, I'd bet most those doctors are closet supplement users. :)

Don't post here unless you have some verifiable information or links.
We can argue all you want, I have the ammunition to do that but don't know everything so don't expect that I can answer all questions.

buddyholly
12-18-2013, 12:14 AM
What did humans do before supplments were on the shelves? Get it wrong?

swisht4u
12-18-2013, 12:34 AM
What did humans do before supplments were on the shelves? Get it wrong?

Food had much higher nutritional value years ago.
The land food was grown on wasn't seriously depleted by growing and harvesting year after year.
They started using fertilizer and other remedies to make up for it.

Nowadays the food has lower nutrients in it than before, the livestock eating it is not getting the nutritional value either.
The best beef for instance would be free range fed without added fertilizers, pesticides and hormones injected into the animals.

Still, back in old days you wouldn't get enough nutrients. In some parts of the world you may get enough calcium but miss something else. Somewhere else you would get enough vitamin C but not enough calcium.

We can live being deficient in some nutrients/vitamins but it is not optimal.

buddyholly
12-18-2013, 12:47 AM
So, an important medical journal concludes that supplements are a waste, and you say you know better?

OK, you must be very well educated in medicine to know better than a consensus of doctors.

buddyholly
12-18-2013, 12:51 AM
Food had much higher nutritional value years ago.
The land food was grown on wasn't seriously depleted by growing and harvesting year after year.
.
Yes, but people did not have access to a wide range of fresh vegetables, fruits and meats like they do today. Their diet was pretty much limited to food that they could grow right there.

So I think your reasoning is just plain wrong.

swisht4u
12-18-2013, 12:55 AM
So, an important medical journal concludes that supplements are a waste, and you say you know better?

OK, you must be very well educated in medicine to know better than a consensus of doctors.

This isn't the first time doctors have come out against supplements.
There is rebuttals all the time, those rebuttals don't make news headlines, that is what you missed.

You are not alone either, the power of the media is in action and your one of the many who have been effected by it.

The media can convince you to buy bottled water and pay a good price for something near free.
Convincing you of problems with supplements is easy.

Think about it... :wavey:

swisht4u
12-18-2013, 01:01 AM
Yes, but people did not have access to a wide range of fresh vegetables, fruits and meats like they do today. Their diet was pretty much limited to food that they could grow right there.

So I think your reasoning is just plain wrong.

The fruits and vegetables are not nutrient dense like they used to be, who's going to eat a pound of spinach to get a specific nutrient that's needed? Someone might but that's only one nutrient.
To get the right amounts of all of them wouldn't be possible.

Then you don't know how much is in each serving, maybe enough or not.
With supplements you know.

buddyholly
12-18-2013, 01:24 AM
Then you don't know how much is in each serving, maybe enough or not.
With supplements you know.

You may know how much you are getting, but you don't know if you need it. The doctors say you don't. It is that simple.

swisht4u
12-18-2013, 01:33 AM
You may know how much you are getting, but you don't know if you need it. The doctors say you don't. It is that simple.

Not that simple.
What doctors?
What is their motivation?
Who do they work for?

The media leads you and you follow, where else are you getting the information?

Use your head and look deeper. :wavey:

buddyholly
12-18-2013, 01:59 AM
I said at the start it is an editorial in the Annals of Internal Medicine. And the editorial is based on tree recent studies.

But it is clear that you are going to answer every post by saying you know better than the doctors and if the studies found they were useless in most cases, then the reports must be lying.