[swisht4u]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ), I wholeheartedly advise to do some reading up on the matter over here: Bad Science.

 

[buddyholly]

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]

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]

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 ), I wholeheartedly advise to do some reading up on the matter over here: Bad Science.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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