Consumer Report lists dangerous supplements

Oh great...the FDA and some governments went after ephedra.
Now they are going after it's sister "bitter orange."

In every independent study done on ephedra shows that the
ingredient is SAFE for healthy individuals as long as the
dosage is not above 100mg taken in a day. MOST ephedra
products contain a dosage of 30-50mg a day.

The tests did show an increase in heart rate and blood
pressure for some.

The problem with ephedra DOES NOT come from the ingredient
itself. The problem is when stupid people take more than the
suggested amount recommended on the bottle or they have some
serious health problem and they are combining ephedra with
other medications.

Have people died because of ephedra and THEIR misuse?
Sure have.

At the same time, more people have had side effects and been
killed by aspirin. That is a fact, yet what is being done
about that?

Just trying to put things in perspective...

Alot of times...facts get muddled with people's
emotions and fear.

Trent

-- Look and Feel Great! FREE weight loss and anti-aging
group. Join now @
groups.yahoo.comweightloss healthOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

From: [email hidden] Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Date: 03 Apr 2004 02:38:19 GMT Subject: Consumer Report
lists dangerous supplements

medscape.com472871Open ↗

April 2, 2004 -- Despite known hazards, many potentially
dangerous dietary supplements are readily available for
purchase in stores and on the Internet, according to a new
report in the May issue of Consumer Reports.

The magazine released yesterday its "dirty dozen" list of
dietary supplements that it says are too dangerous to be
on the market.

The list includes yohimbe, bitter orange, chaparral, and
andro to name a few. But researchers say the supplements
are sold under many names, which makes it hard for
consumers to know what they are getting.

Many of the supplements that made the list have already
been banned in other countries. But researchers say
regulatory barriers created by Congress have prevented the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from taking
similar actions to protect consumers in this country.

snip

It caused the death and physical harm for enough people to
show it is dangerous. It shoud be gone or used by
perscription by which a doc can guide it's safe use. The
majic in a bottle marketing set needs to stop crying over a
situation where there is minimal regulation over their
activities, having gotten themselves a sweetheart bill to
protect themselves. The deaths and harm was not info coming
from the marketing set, it came in spite of them and finally
came to the attention of the fda, who can then and only then
act because the law doesn't require companies report serious
side effects. So some frantic overweight person thinks if a
35 mg pill will do something, then 3 will do better, even
baseball players must think so also. Without any real
research and guidence from a doc, how can a person make an
informed choice for purchase or use?

Quoted message said:

Oh great...the FDA and some governments went after ephedra.
Now they are going after it's sister "bitter orange."

In every independent study done on ephedra shows that the
ingredient is SAFE for healthy individuals as long as the
dosage is not above 100mg taken in a day. MOST ephedra
products contain a dosage of 30-50mg a day.

The tests did show an increase in heart rate and blood
pressure for some.

The problem with ephedra DOES NOT come from the ingredient
itself. The problem is when stupid people take more than
the suggested amount recommended on the bottle or they have
some serious health problem and they are combining ephedra
with other medications.

Have people died because of ephedra and THEIR misuse?
Sure have.

At the same time, more people have had side effects and
been killed by aspirin. That is a fact, yet what is being
done about that?

Just trying to put things in perspective...

Alot of times...facts get muddled with people's emotions
and fear.

Trent

-- Look and Feel Great! FREE weight loss and anti-aging
group. Join now @
groups.yahoo.comweightloss healthOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

From: [email hidden] Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Date: 03 Apr 2004 02:38:19 GMT Subject: Consumer Report
lists dangerous supplements

medscape.com472871Open ↗

April 2, 2004 -- Despite known hazards, many potentially
dangerous dietary supplements are readily available for
purchase in stores and on the Internet, according to a
new report in the May issue of Consumer Reports.

The magazine released yesterday its "dirty dozen" list of
dietary supplements that it says are too dangerous to be
on the market.

The list includes yohimbe, bitter orange, chaparral, and
andro to name a few. But researchers say the supplements
are sold under many names, which makes it hard for
consumers to know what they are getting.

Many of the supplements that made the list have already
been banned in other countries. But researchers say
regulatory barriers created by Congress have prevented
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from taking
similar actions to protect consumers in this country.

snip

Quoted message said:

It caused the death and physical harm for enough people to
show it is dangerous.

Indeed! The FDA should remove alcohol and tobacco from the
market IMMEDIATELY!!!

All wine, beer, whiskey--all of it! AT ONCE!!!

George M. Carter

Consumer Reports=Worthless Garbage.
------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
"Sparkle, Neely, SPARKLE!"

We would be very happy to entertain your supporting evidence
where in that specific article they are at fault, other then
being a threat to one's fondly held worldview of course.
Just as a poit of curisity, do you partake of any of the
supplements in the report?

Quoted message said:

Consumer Reports=Worthless Garbage.
-----------------------------------------------------------
--------------
"Sparkle, Neely, SPARKLE!"

In principle I agree with you. The big difference between
the supplements at issue and the substances you mention is
that the latter have had wide spread publicity as to their
dangers, restrictions on their sale, and one can make an
informed choice. Supplements on the other hand exist in an
info black hole and is so as a matter of law. The marketers
of them do not have to report serious side effects of their
wares, have accurate labels, provide what the label says it
is, show it is in even some minimal way effective for it's
proported benefit; in short it thrives on deliberatly by law
providing as little info as possible. Only when by methods
other then the marketers does the fda learn of serious side
effects,ie. death and serious physical/mental harm, can it
work. Then, and only then, is a consumer in a position to
make an informed choice. Ignorence is the real stock and
trade of supplement sellers, "trust me, this mircle in this
here bottle really does what I says it does, believe me".
Consumer Reports is making up the info gap only a little and
see what whining and noise it creates, not info to the
contrary, only grousing that fondly held worldviews are
being overturned.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It caused the death and physical harm for enough people to
show it is dangerous.

Indeed! The FDA should remove alcohol and tobacco from the
market IMMEDIATELY!!!

All wine, beer, whiskey--all of it! AT ONCE!!!

George M. Carter

Quoted message said:

In principle I agree with you. The big difference between
the supplements at issue and the substances you mention is
that the latter have had wide spread publicity as to their
dangers, restrictions on their sale, and one can make an
informed choice.

Nonsense. Supplements can JUST as easily have a labeling
change. DO NOT EXCEED RECOMMENDED DOSE. Just like over the
counter antihistamines or aspirin. How many people die from
misuse of those drugs?

It is disingenuous, hypocritical [censored] to remove ephedra
from the market.

George M. Carter

nonsense, the label is the least of the problem. Surveys
show the match between many labels and actual content make
them worthless for any purpose. The area of least informed
choice is safety and effectivness. By law the sellers are
exempt from reporting dangerous side effects and can make
any claim as to what it is alledged to do, so long as they
say it is just a food supplement. None of that adds up to
informed choice coming anywhere near to otc products. In
labels, safety, and effectifness otc producs must be up to
standards; supplements are nowhere near that in theory nor
practice and informed comsumer choice isn't even in the
ballpark. It's still "just believe me son, this here mircle
in a bottle will do it all for you, just beleve me".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In principle I agree with you. The big difference between
the supplements at issue and the substances you mention is
that the latter have had wide spread publicity as to their
dangers, restrictions on their sale, and one can make an
informed choice.

Nonsense. Supplements can JUST as easily have a labeling
change. DO NOT EXCEED RECOMMENDED DOSE. Just like over the
counter antihistamines or aspirin. How many people die from
misuse of those drugs?

It is disingenuous, hypocritical [censored] to remove ephedra
from the market.

George M. Carter

Quoted message said:

From: [email hidden]
Date: 4/5/2004 6:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time

Quoted message said:

We would be very happy to entertain your supporting
evidence where in that specific article they are at fault,
other then being a threat to one's fondly held worldview of
course.<<

Unlike you, I am not a moron. I read the actual research on
supplements I take, or at least peruse relevant excerpts.
Oodles of supplements and drugs are dangerous if abused by
morons such as yourself, yet are safe and beneficial when
used properly by intelligent people, of whom you are not
one. As the saying goes, "Google is your friend." So is
medline. So are journals. Learn to think, Mark. You may find
it helpful someday.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Consumer Reports=Worthless Garbage.
----------------------------------------------------------
---------------
"Sparkle, Neely, SPARKLE!"

------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
"Sparkle, Neely, SPARKLE!"

Ah, so the specific support requested is a personal attack,
thought so, none forthcoming but wishfull thinking. It's
the artcle son, the article that you must show at fault in
it's content, Mmy existence has nothing to do with the
quality of the content, nor does your self proclaimed
expert status, having now confessed to having used google.
Not being informed is not the issue on my part, it is
theproblem on the part of the sellers of the supplement not
providing info such that consumer can make informed choices
apart from the marketing nonsense. When one buys an aspirin
it has been made and sold to a standard as to label info,
contents, saftety, and effectivness and the buyer need
never touch google or sift through journal articles. Once
again, please inform us as to the faulty content of the
article if you will.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We would be very happy to entertain your supporting
evidence where in that specific article they are at fault,
other then being a threat to one's fondly held worldview
of course.<<

Unlike you, I am not a moron. I read the actual research on
supplements I take, or at least peruse relevant excerpts.
Oodles of supplements and drugs are dangerous if abused by
morons such as yourself, yet are safe and beneficial when
used properly by intelligent people, of whom you are not
one. As the saying goes, "Google is your friend." So is
medline. So are journals. Learn to think, Mark. You may
find it helpful someday.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Consumer Reports=Worthless Garbage.
---------------------------------------------------------
----------------
"Sparkle, Neely, SPARKLE!"

-----------------------------------------------------------
--------------
"Sparkle, Neely, SPARKLE!"

Quoted message said:

nonsense, the label is the least of the problem. Surveys
show the match between many labels and actual content make
them worthless for any purpose.

Make what worthless? Labels? Possibly. But despite
many deaths from OTC products, they aren't removed
from the market.

Quoted message said:

The area of least informed choice is safety and
effectivness.

This can be said of MANY drugs. Indeed, I'd warrant there
are more extant data on ephedra's safety and efficacy for
specific conditions than many OTC products.

Quoted message said:

By law the sellers are exempt from reporting dangerous side
effects and can make any claim as to what it is alledged to
do, so long as they say it is just a food supplement. None
of that adds up to informed choice coming anywhere near to
otc products. In labels, safety, and effectifness otc
producs must be up to standards; supplements are nowhere
near that in theory nor practice and informed comsumer
choice isn't even in the ballpark. It's still "just believe
me son, this here mircle in a bottle will do it all for
you, just beleve me".

This is a misinterpretation of DSHEA. There are STILL many
regulatory means that can be utilized. Further, the LACK of
ability to use supplements for medical indications is a
serious deficiency that needs to be redressed. FDA needs to
have a more rapid means for evaluating and approving such
claims. E.g., the 40-plus-year lag between data and approval
of the folic acid for neural tube defects prevention claim.

Should ANY industry be trusted in terms of what they say?
SKEPTICISM should be the RULE!! But this is just as true
of the bloated pharma industry that has significantly
distorted clinical trials research and publishing with its
overwhelming investment in universities, hospitals and
researchers, causing a deterioration in credibility of
many published results. Indeed, MOST OTC and drugs are
used for things other than what they were approved. Risks
are MUCH higher.

George M. Carter

Of the three categories of drugs, supplement, otc, and
perscription, the first provides the least; nay almost no;
information for purposes of informed choice and is so by
force of law. What ever plus or minus might be said of the
other two sources applies by definition to the first; but
consuming them by informed choice is not one of the
considerations available for the others. It is still "just
believe me" and that is the reality and the bottom line.
Consumers are the lab rats for supplements, when and only
when the fda can find someway independent of the supplement
makers that there is some danger, usually some number of
public deaths etc., can it act. The only thing it can do
easily is to moniter the marketing and see if medical claims
are being made,ex. sea silver, and tell them to stop. Sea
silver, minus medical claims, is back on the market. Here is
what a potential user of it doesn't know, if label and
contents match, if it is safe, if it does anything at all
but emptyy pockets more quickly, if it does anything any
better then any other multivitamin/mineral pill that is otc.
All this ignorance exists by force of law, not so the same
kind of multivit/min pill at the corner drug store. The
specific supplement you mention killed some people, it did
so from ignorance on their part as a direct result of being
uninformed consumers/users of it without benefit of all the
research that is said to exist and the upper limits and
situations in which it should not be used was a part of that
uninformed reality that was enforced by law.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

nonsense, the label is the least of the problem. Surveys
show the match between many labels and actual content make
them worthless for any purpose.

Make what worthless? Labels? Possibly. But despite
many deaths from OTC products, they aren't removed
from the market.

Quoted message said:

The area of least informed choice is safety and
effectivness.

This can be said of MANY drugs. Indeed, I'd warrant there
are more extant data on ephedra's safety and efficacy for
specific conditions than many OTC products.

Quoted message said:

By law the sellers are exempt from reporting dangerous
side effects and can make any claim as to what it is
alledged to do, so long as they say it is just a food
supplement. None of that adds up to informed choice coming
anywhere near to otc products. In labels, safety, and
effectifness otc producs must be up to standards;
supplements are nowhere near that in theory nor practice
and informed comsumer choice isn't even in the ballpark.
It's still "just believe me son, this here mircle in a
bottle will do it all for you, just beleve me".

This is a misinterpretation of DSHEA. There are STILL many
regulatory means that can be utilized. Further, the LACK of
ability to use supplements for medical indications is a
serious deficiency that needs to be redressed. FDA needs to
have a more rapid means for evaluating and approving such
claims. E.g., the 40-plus-year lag between data and
approval of the folic acid for neural tube defects
prevention claim.

Should ANY industry be trusted in terms of what they say?
SKEPTICISM should be the RULE!! But this is just as true
of the bloated pharma industry that has significantly
distorted clinical trials research and publishing with its
overwhelming investment in universities, hospitals and
researchers, causing a deterioration in credibility of
many published results. Indeed, MOST OTC and drugs are
used for things other than what they were approved. Risks
are MUCH higher.

George M. Carter

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 10:54:19 GMT, GMCarter <[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

nonsense, the label is the least of the problem. Surveys
show the match between many labels and actual content make
them worthless for any purpose.

Make what worthless? Labels? Possibly. But despite
many deaths from OTC products, they aren't removed
from the market.

All products carry risks. OTC knows the risks.
Alternative have no idea what is even in the product.
Many here in Oz were totally bereft of the substances
claimed. Some had way more.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The area of least informed choice is safety and
effectivness.

This can be said of MANY drugs. Indeed, I'd warrant there
are more extant data on ephedra's safety and efficacy for
specific conditions than many OTC products.

Compare like with like, please. Which brand of ephedra?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

By law the sellers are exempt from reporting dangerous
side effects and can make any claim as to what it is
alledged to do, so long as they say it is just a food
supplement. None of that adds up to informed choice coming
anywhere near to otc products. In labels, safety, and
effectifness otc producs must be up to standards;
supplements are nowhere near that in theory nor practice
and informed comsumer choice isn't even in the ballpark.
It's still "just believe me son, this here mircle in a
bottle will do it all for you, just beleve me".

This is a misinterpretation of DSHEA. There are STILL many
regulatory means that can be utilized. Further, the LACK of
ability to use supplements for medical indications is a
serious deficiency that needs to be redressed. FDA needs to
have a more rapid means for evaluating and approving such
claims. E.g., the 40-plus-year lag between data and
approval of the folic acid for neural tube defects
prevention claim.

Folic acid is a food constituent (nutrient). Ephedra is not.

Quoted message said:

Should ANY industry be trusted in terms of what they say?
SKEPTICISM should be the RULE!! But this is just as true
of the bloated pharma industry that has significantly
distorted clinical trials research and publishing with its
overwhelming investment in universities, hospitals and
researchers, causing a deterioration in credibility of
many published results. Indeed, MOST OTC and drugs are
used for things other than what they were approved. Risks
are MUCH higher.

But the pharmacology is known, and the contents are assayed.
Herbals are not!

More hand waving by Mark De Toad below. My comments on it
follow. The problem is that it is too independent of the
supplement industry and too dependent to the pharm industry.
Go to the Doc and get a prescription and you are a cash cow
for the pharm industry. Thanks in part to the FDA and
Congress as well as thank to the "revolving door" between
FDA and the pharm industry and their campagin contributions
to elected officials. If it were more dependent on the
supplement industry it would check the potency of the
vitamins and herbal extracts to keep the market place level
for all players. As it is it permits the bad apples to go on
as an excuse for more regs to be used to suppress the
competition to their buddies in big pharm.

So I waved my hands also...........
............William A. Noyes

<[email hidden]> wrote in message -"]news:[email hidden]-
net.com...

Quoted message said:

Of the three categories of drugs, supplement, otc, and
perscription, the first provides the least; nay almost no;
information for purposes of informed choice and is so by
force of law. What ever plus or minus might be said of the
other two sources applies by definition to the first; but
consuming them by informed choice is not one of the
considerations available for the others. It is still "just
believe me" and that is the reality and the bottom line.
Consumers are the lab rats for supplements, when and only
when the fda can find someway independent of the
supplement makers that there is some danger, usually some
number of public deaths etc., can it act. The only thing
it can do easily is to moniter the marketing and see if
medical claims are being made,ex. sea silver, and tell
them to stop. Sea silver, minus medical claims, is back on
the market. Here is what a potential user of it doesn't
know, if label and contents match, if it is safe, if it
does anything at all but emptyy pockets more quickly, if
it does anything any better then any other
multivitamin/mineral pill that is otc. All this ignorance
exists by force of law, not so the same kind of
multivit/min pill at the corner drug store. The specific
supplement you mention killed some people, it did so from
ignorance on their part as a direct result of being
uninformed consumers/users of it without benefit of all
the research that is said to exist and the upper limits
and situations in which it should not be used was a part
of that uninformed reality that was enforced by law.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

nonsense, the label is the least of the problem. Surveys
show the match between many labels and actual content
make them worthless for any purpose.

Make what worthless? Labels? Possibly. But despite many
deaths from OTC products, they aren't removed from the
market.

Quoted message said:

The area of least informed choice is safety and
effectivness.

This can be said of MANY drugs. Indeed, I'd warrant there
are more extant data on ephedra's safety and efficacy for
specific conditions than many OTC products.

Quoted message said:

By law the sellers are exempt from reporting dangerous
side effects and can make any claim as to what it is
alledged to do, so long as they say

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is just a food supplement. None of that adds up to
informed choice

coming

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anywhere near to otc products. In labels, safety, and
effectifness otc producs must be up to standards;
supplements are nowhere near that in theory nor practice
and informed comsumer choice isn't even in the ballpark.
It's still "just believe me son, this here mircle in a
bottle will do it all for you, just beleve me".

This is a misinterpretation of DSHEA. There are STILL
many regulatory means that can be utilized. Further, the
LACK of ability to use supplements for medical
indications is a serious deficiency that needs to be
redressed. FDA needs to have a more rapid means for
evaluating and approving such claims. E.g., the 40-plus-
year lag between data and approval of the folic acid for
neural tube defects prevention claim.

Should ANY industry be trusted in terms of what they say?
SKEPTICISM should be the RULE!! But this is just as true
of the bloated pharma industry that has significantly
distorted clinical trials research and publishing with
its overwhelming investment in universities, hospitals
and researchers, causing a deterioration in credibility
of many published results. Indeed, MOST OTC and drugs are
used for things other than what they were approved. Risks
are MUCH higher.

George M. Carter

"Moosh🙂" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 10:54:19 GMT, GMCarter
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

nonsense, the label is the least of the problem. Surveys
show the match between many labels and actual content
make them worthless for any purpose.

Make what worthless? Labels? Possibly. But despite many
deaths from OTC products, they aren't removed from the
market.

All products carry risks. OTC knows the risks. Alternative
have no idea what is even in the product. Many here in Oz
were totally bereft of the substances claimed. Some had
way more.

That is an over-statement. The USDA or FDA could charge
fraud if they bothered to look at the levels of ingredients.
They don't check and never will. The USFDA or it national
equivalent are under the influence of big pharm. The recent
Medicare drug bill passed by congress and signed by the old
wrinkled fart in the White House has perks more for the drug
industry than for the retired population. Poeple in the know
describe the drug industry "lobby" as the 1000 pound gorilla
among the many "lobbies". The morons at AARP went along with
this bill.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The area of least informed choice is safety and
effectivness.

This can be said of MANY drugs. Indeed, I'd warrant there
are more extant data on ephedra's safety and efficacy for
specific conditions than many OTC products.

Compare like with like, please. Which brand of ephedra?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

By law the sellers are exempt from reporting dangerous
side effects and can make any claim as to what it is
alledged to do, so long as they say

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is just a food supplement. None of that adds up to
informed choice

coming

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anywhere near to otc products. In labels, safety, and
effectifness otc producs must be up to standards;
supplements are nowhere near that in theory nor practice
and informed comsumer choice isn't even in the ballpark.
It's still "just believe me son, this here mircle in a
bottle will do it all for you, just beleve me".

This is a misinterpretation of DSHEA. There are STILL
many regulatory means that can be utilized. Further, the
LACK of ability to use supplements for medical
indications is a serious deficiency that needs to be
redressed. FDA needs to have a more rapid means for
evaluating and approving such claims. E.g., the 40-plus-
year lag between data and approval of the folic acid for
neural tube defects prevention claim.

Folic acid is a food constituent (nutrient). Ephedra is
not.

True but you missed Carter's point on the perverse nature of
the FDA regulation due to it bad motives.

While not a big fan of ephedra, the poisoning were all
caused by people taking over-doses of the herbal drug. Some
of the fatalities were poeple committing suicide with the
herbal drug.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Should ANY industry be trusted in terms of what they say?
SKEPTICISM should be the RULE!! But this is just as true
of the bloated pharma industry that has significantly
distorted clinical trials research and publishing with
its overwhelming investment in universities, hospitals
and researchers, causing a deterioration in credibility
of many published results. Indeed, MOST OTC and drugs are
used for things other than what they were approved. Risks
are MUCH higher.

But the pharmacology is known, and the contents are
assayed. Herbals are not!

Not a all herbals are herbals. Some are just the
concentrated active ingredient and can be quite
standardized. The problem is their is no strong systematic
funding mechanism for research in the public domain
chemicals/drugs/vitamins/nutrients/ here (or downunder).
When "free enterprise" does it, they want a license to over-
charge for decades.

The system is corrupt all over the world............
............................................William A. Noyes

Moosh:) said:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 10:54:19 GMT, GMCarter
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

nonsense, the label is the least of the problem. Surveys
show the match between many labels and actual content
make them worthless for any purpose.

Make what worthless? Labels? Possibly. But despite
many deaths from OTC products, they aren't removed
from the market.

All products carry risks. OTC knows the risks. Alternative
have no idea what is even in the product. Many here in Oz
were totally bereft of the substances claimed. Some had
way more.

"Alternative" have no idea of what? Now here you are
conflating issues.

1) Identity, potency and purity of ANY product should be
assured. This is just normal marketing common sense.
Selling anything LESS (or more in the case of extra
cockroach eyelashes, etc.) is FRAUD. Now, there should be
governmental regulaltory means to oversee this, just as
there is (ostensibly) for meat, food, OTC products,
drugs, etc. (As far as I know, DSHEA does not preclude
this here in the US; I do not know the situation with
Australian law).

2) Labels are ALWAYS being changed/updated. And if a
SERIOUS risk is involved, it is very simple to add a
line like DO NOT EXCEED RECOMMENDED DOSE. May result in
[side effects list].

I think MOST supplement users are aware of risks. Data show
that most are relatively well-educated and a bit better off.
So we need to assure that if use widens into other
demographics (as it is and should where benefit exists),
labels are clear.

This is superior to simply removing products from the market
which is just boneheaded stupidity. Espeically when drugs
like nicotine and alcohol remain available!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The area of least informed choice is safety and
effectivness.

This can be said of MANY drugs. Indeed, I'd warrant there
are more extant data on ephedra's safety and efficacy for
specific conditions than many OTC products.

Compare like with like, please. Which brand of ephedra?

I'm speaking of the literature regarding ephedra's use. See,
e.g., Huang's Pharmacology of Chinese Herbs, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL:1999.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

By law the sellers are exempt from reporting dangerous
side effects and can make any claim as to what it is
alledged to do, so long as they say it is just a food
supplement. None of that adds up to informed choice
coming anywhere near to otc products. In labels, safety,
and effectifness otc producs must be up to standards;
supplements are nowhere near that in theory nor practice
and informed comsumer choice isn't even in the ballpark.
It's still "just believe me son, this here mircle in a
bottle will do it all for you, just beleve me".

This is a misinterpretation of DSHEA. There are STILL many
regulatory means that can be utilized. Further, the LACK
of ability to use supplements for medical indications is a
serious deficiency that needs to be redressed. FDA needs
to have a more rapid means for evaluating and approving
such claims. E.g., the 40-plus-year lag between data and
approval of the folic acid for neural tube defects
prevention claim.

Folic acid is a food constituent (nutrient). Ephedra is
not.

True. So?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Should ANY industry be trusted in terms of what they say?
SKEPTICISM should be the RULE!! But this is just as true
of the bloated pharma industry that has significantly
distorted clinical trials research and publishing with its
overwhelming investment in universities, hospitals and
researchers, causing a deterioration in credibility of
many published results. Indeed, MOST OTC and drugs are
used for things other than what they were approved. Risks
are MUCH higher.

But the pharmacology is known, and the contents are
assayed. Herbals are not!

This is not true. It depends on the botanical medicine in
terms of whether there is a constituent(s) to which the
botanical is standardized. Milk thistle, for example, is
standardized to silymarin, a collection of flavanolignans.
Ephedra, (Ephedra sinica a/k/a ma huang) is standardized to
standard alkaloids such as l-ephedrine or d-pseudoephedrine.
It is used as an antiasthmatic in the Chinese medical
tradition -- and curiously, this active constituent is still
widely available in drug products. It also has been used to
induce perspiration and as an antiallergy agent.

As to the HONESTY of supplement manufacturers--some are
pretty good. See www.consumerlabs.com for examples. Others
suck. We DO need consumer protection against the fraudulent
companies, I agree!

But WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT PEANUTS! OR SHELLFISH!! OH MY
GOD!!! Where's the HPLC assay on peanuts? PEOPLE HAVE DIED
EATING PEANUTS!!

Yet you BLITHELY permit the continued sale of PEANUTS!! NO
WARNING LABELS!!! DEAR GOD!!! Won't somebody think about the
CHILDREN!!!

Sorry. I couldn't resist....

George M. Carter

Quoted message said:

Of the three categories of drugs, supplement, otc, and
perscription, the first provides the least; nay almost no;
information for purposes of informed choice and is so by
force of law.

Cite the exact law and portion of law where it says
this?? Nonsense.

By force of LAW, the DSHEA (to which I presume you refer)
has the inhibitory effect on supplement purveyors that they
must NOT discuss any medical treatment use of dietary
supplements. It does NOT prohibit anywhere I know the
declaration of any potential side effects or problems.

What it DOES require is that the FDA bear the burden of
responsibility for showing a supplement is so dangerous it
must be removed from the market. This is the way it OUGHT to
be since they intensively abused their position in the years
prior to the passage of DSHEA. This was a blow to consumers.

Look, I speak not as a purveyor or seller--I'm not. I am a
consumer. I use supplements to manage my Hepatitis C
infection and they're working quite nicely. I am not against
pharmaceutical drugs at all--except that the companies these
days are completely out of control with regard to the prices
they charge: an obscenity that has destroyed healthcare
access in the United States.

I'm interested in what works. And there is NOTHING in DSHEA
that precludes or prohibits consumer safety issues. Indeed,
it took FDA YEARS while they sat on perfectly good Good
Manufacturing Practices rulemaking. Now, there may be some
problems with the GMP for some smaller companies to adhere
to; some perfectly good companies may go out of business in
adhering to the GMP; this I think can be managed, modified,
perhaps. I don't know. But I'd rather overall have the GMP
there...the problem being I don't see it has any particular
regulatory TEETH to assure that GMP is adhered to.

I'd RATHER have my tax dollars go to that than poorly
thought out wars based on lies and incompetence that only
cause greater hatred and destruction in the world.

George M. Carter

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 22:41:11 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

"Moosh🙂" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 10:54:19 GMT, GMCarter
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

On 06 Apr 2004 13:52:39 GMT, [email hidden] wrote:

>
>nonsense, the label is the least of the problem.
>Surveys show the match between many labels and actual
>content make them worthless for any purpose.

Make what worthless? Labels? Possibly. But despite many
deaths from OTC products, they aren't removed from the
market.

All products carry risks. OTC knows the risks.
Alternative have no idea what is even in the product.
Many here in Oz were totally bereft of the substances
claimed. Some had way more.

That is an over-statement. The USDA or FDA could charge
fraud if they bothered to look at the levels of
ingredients.

Our equivalent DID look and Oh what a mess. A large
manufacturer was closed down permanently. Pan
Pharmaceuticals.

Quoted message said:

They don't check and never will.

They will if the folks get into trouble and make a stir just
before an election, but coz your system is so prone to
lobbying, perhaps not.

Quoted message said:

The USFDA or it national equivalent are under the influence
of big pharm. The recent Medicare drug bill passed by
congress and signed by the old wrinkled fart in the White
House has perks more for the drug industry than for the
retired population. Poeple in the know describe the drug
industry "lobby" as the 1000 pound gorilla among the many
"lobbies". The morons at AARP went along with this bill.

Yep, sad state of affairs. Would Ralph Nader be worth
voting for?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>The area of least informed choice is safety and
>effectivness.

This can be said of MANY drugs. Indeed, I'd warrant
there are more extant data on ephedra's safety and
efficacy for specific conditions than many OTC products.

Compare like with like, please. Which brand of ephedra?

Quoted message said:

>By law the sellers are exempt from reporting dangerous
>side effects and can make any claim as to what it is
>alledged to do, so long as they say

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>is just a food supplement. None of that adds up to
>informed choice

coming

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>anywhere near to otc products. In labels, safety, and
>effectifness otc producs must be up to standards;
>supplements are nowhere near that in theory nor
>practice and informed comsumer choice isn't even in
>the ballpark. It's still "just believe me son, this
>here mircle in a bottle will do it all for you, just
>beleve me".

This is a misinterpretation of DSHEA. There are STILL
many regulatory means that can be utilized. Further, the
LACK of ability to use supplements for medical
indications is a serious deficiency that needs to be
redressed. FDA needs to have a more rapid means for
evaluating and approving such claims. E.g., the 40-plus-
year lag between data and approval of the folic acid for
neural tube defects prevention claim.

Folic acid is a food constituent (nutrient). Ephedra
is not.

True but you missed Carter's point on the perverse nature
of the FDA regulation due to it bad motives.

While not a big fan of ephedra, the poisoning were all
caused by people taking over-doses of the herbal drug. Some
of the fatalities were poeple committing suicide with the
herbal drug.

Yep always happens. An idiot in a hospital here left the
gene pool by sneaking a vial of insulin and a syringe an
then locking himself in the dunny and thinking he would have
a high. When they bashed the door down he was brown bread.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Should ANY industry be trusted in terms of what they
say? SKEPTICISM should be the RULE!! But this is just as
true of the bloated pharma industry that has
significantly distorted clinical trials research and
publishing with its overwhelming investment in
universities, hospitals and researchers, causing a
deterioration in credibility of many published results.
Indeed, MOST OTC and drugs are used for things other
than what they were approved. Risks are MUCH higher.

But the pharmacology is known, and the contents are
assayed. Herbals are not!

Not a all herbals are herbals. Some are just the
concentrated active ingredient and can be quite
standardized.

Can be, but they were all over the place when they analysed
them here. Some caps even in the same batch went from zero
to way over the stated active ingredient. Some even had
dangerous amounts of the drug that was being packed
previously on the same packing line.

Quoted message said:

The problem is their is no strong systematic funding
mechanism for research in the public domain
chemicals/drugs/vitamins/nutrients/ here (or downunder).

We have a very stong govt funded research system. And we are
not anywhere near influenced by lobbyists as you are. Then
just about everyone here votes (we have to attend the poll
by law) Makes a hell of a difference.

Quoted message said:

When "free enterprise" does it, they want a license to over-
charge for decades.

Quoted message said:

The system is corrupt all over the world............
............................................William A.
Noyes

Agree, but there are some systems not as corrup as others.
Makes for inefficiencies all those checks and balances, but
it's the best system we have. Mixed economy with strong govt
regulation.

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:25:24 GMT, GMCarter <[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Moosh:) said:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 10:54:19 GMT, GMCarter
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

On 06 Apr 2004 13:52:39 GMT, [email hidden] wrote:

>
>nonsense, the label is the least of the problem. Surveys
>show the match between many labels and actual content
>make them worthless for any purpose.

Make what worthless? Labels? Possibly. But despite many
deaths from OTC products, they aren't removed from the
market.

All products carry risks. OTC knows the risks. Alternative
have no idea what is even in the product. Many here in Oz
were totally bereft of the substances claimed. Some had
way more.

"Alternative" have no idea of what?

What's in the product, like I said. A recent check here
showed just this.

Quoted message said:

Now here you are conflating issues.

1) Identity, potency and purity of ANY product should be
assured.

And with the herbals manufactured and available here and
overseas there most certainly weren't.

Quoted message said:

This is just normal marketing common sense.

So why don't herbals do it?

Quoted message said:

Selling anything LESS (or more in the case of extra
cockroach eyelashes, etc.) is FRAUD.

And it happens every minute of every day of every year all
around the world.

Quoted message said:

Now, there should be governmental regulaltory means to
oversee this,

There is in Australia. Apparently not much in USA.

Quoted message said:

just as there is (ostensibly) for meat, food, OTC
products, drugs, etc. (As far as I know, DSHEA does not
preclude this here in the US; I do not know the situation
with Australian law).

From what folks say here, smn, it is very different.

Quoted message said:

2) Labels are ALWAYS being changed/updated. And if a
SERIOUS risk is involved, it is very simple to add a
line like DO NOT EXCEED RECOMMENDED DOSE. May result in
[side effects list].

But when a single batch of altie herbals can contain from
zero to way over the claimed amount of active ingredient (as
shown by govt assay) what is the point?

Quoted message said:

I think MOST supplement users are aware of risks.

Apparently not. I hope they are not relying on the label.

Quoted message said:

Data show that most are relatively well-educated and a bit
better off.

In what country? Depends what they are comparing with.

Quoted message said:

So we need to assure that if use widens into other
demographics (as it is and should where benefit exists),
labels are clear.

This is superior to simply removing products from the
market which is just boneheaded stupidity. Espeically when
drugs like nicotine and alcohol remain available!

Even though the downsides are very well known.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>The area of least informed choice is safety and
>effectivness.

This can be said of MANY drugs. Indeed, I'd warrant there
are more extant data on ephedra's safety and efficacy for
specific conditions than many OTC products.

Compare like with like, please. Which brand of ephedra?

I'm speaking of the literature regarding ephedra's use.
See, e.g., Huang's Pharmacology of Chinese Herbs, CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL:1999.

No thanks 🙂

How much ephedrine is in the product?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>By law the sellers are exempt from reporting dangerous
>side effects and can make any claim as to what it is
>alledged to do, so long as they say it is just a food
>supplement. None of that adds up to informed choice
>coming anywhere near to otc products. In labels, safety,
>and effectifness otc producs must be up to standards;
>supplements are nowhere near that in theory nor practice
>and informed comsumer choice isn't even in the ballpark.
>It's still "just believe me son, this here mircle in a
>bottle will do it all for you, just beleve me".

This is a misinterpretation of DSHEA. There are STILL
many regulatory means that can be utilized. Further, the
LACK of ability to use supplements for medical
indications is a serious deficiency that needs to be
redressed. FDA needs to have a more rapid means for
evaluating and approving such claims. E.g., the 40-plus-
year lag between data and approval of the folic acid for
neural tube defects prevention claim.

Folic acid is a food constituent (nutrient). Ephedra is
not.

True. So?

Folic acid comes with a varied wholefood diet. Forget
ephedra, unless you have a disease state.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Should ANY industry be trusted in terms of what they say?
SKEPTICISM should be the RULE!! But this is just as true
of the bloated pharma industry that has significantly
distorted clinical trials research and publishing with
its overwhelming investment in universities, hospitals
and researchers, causing a deterioration in credibility
of many published results. Indeed, MOST OTC and drugs are
used for things other than what they were approved. Risks
are MUCH higher.

But the pharmacology is known, and the contents are
assayed. Herbals are not!

This is not true. It depends on the botanical medicine in
terms of whether there is a constituent(s) to which the
botanical is standardized. Milk thistle, for example, is
standardized to silymarin, a collection of flavanolignans.
Ephedra, (Ephedra sinica a/k/a ma huang) is standardized to
standard alkaloids such as l-ephedrine or d-
pseudoephedrine. It is used as an antiasthmatic in the
Chinese medical tradition -- and curiously, this active
constituent is still widely available in drug products. It
also has been used to induce perspiration and as an
antiallergy agent.

It is variable from zero to excess in recent Australian
checks on what is available here.

Quoted message said:

As to the HONESTY of supplement manufacturers--some are
pretty good. See www.consumerlabs.com for examples. Others
suck. We DO need consumer protection against the fraudulent
companies, I agree!

Yep, and our recent surveys show we are being conned
to the max.

Quoted message said:

But WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT PEANUTS! OR SHELLFISH!! OH MY
GOD!!! Where's the HPLC assay on peanuts? PEOPLE HAVE DIED
EATING PEANUTS!!

And putting on their sox, according to UK statistics.

Quoted message said:

Yet you BLITHELY permit the continued sale of PEANUTS!! NO
WARNING LABELS!!! DEAR GOD!!! Won't somebody think about
the CHILDREN!!!

What children? The warning about foods that don't normally
contain peanuts is zealous here. Not in US?

Quoted message said:

Sorry. I couldn't resist....

Feel free, George, I love lack of resistance 🙂