If you enjoy your freedom to use supplements ....

Fred Mann said:

then sign this petition to oppose CAFTA which will (unconstitutionally)
place the supplement industry under international oversight and regulation.
This will be voted on Tuesday or Wednesday, so take action immediately!!!
http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=32

This kind of self-serving [censored] comes around ever few months. It's
always couched in terms of curtailing freedom of consumers when it's
really about finally getting some regulation on the peddlers of crappy
nostrums and untested drugs that can do serious harm.

The supplement industry needs a good dose of science and testing.

Pastorio

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Fred Mann said:

then sign this petition to oppose CAFTA which will (unconstitutionally)
place the supplement industry under international oversight and

regulation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This will be voted on Tuesday or Wednesday, so take action

immediately!!!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=32

This kind of self-serving [censored] comes around ever few months. It's
always couched in terms of curtailing freedom of consumers when it's
really about finally getting some regulation on the peddlers of crappy
nostrums and untested drugs that can do serious harm.

The supplement industry needs a good dose of science and testing.

Pastorio

It's really a shame to see this level of ignorance ... from a "skeptic", no
less.
First of all, remember that your beloved regulators, with a "good dose of
science and testing", approved the deadly drug, Vioxx. More importantly, the
FDA intentionally COVERED UP this "oversight" (see testimony of FDA
whistleblower David Graham). The FDA, like all regulatory bodies, is bought
and paid for by the respective industries they regulate.
Secondly, CAFTA, with its support for Codex Alimentarius, is clearly
unconstitutional. To quote Representative Ron Paul:

The Constitution clearly grants
Congress alone the authority to regulate
international trade. The plain text of Article I,
Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither
Congress nor the President can give this authority
away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the
First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point,
based on the plain meaning of the Constitution,
cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who
votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an
international body in direct violation of the
Constitution.

Please wake up and sign this petition:
http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=32 . There may be as little as a
one vote margin on this thing.

"Fred Mann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Fred Mann said:

then sign this petition to oppose CAFTA which will

(unconstitutionally)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

place the supplement industry under international oversight and

regulation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This will be voted on Tuesday or Wednesday, so take action

immediately!!!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=32

This kind of self-serving [censored] comes around ever few months. It's
always couched in terms of curtailing freedom of consumers when it's
really about finally getting some regulation on the peddlers of crappy
nostrums and untested drugs that can do serious harm.

The supplement industry needs a good dose of science and testing.

Pastorio

It's really a shame to see this level of ignorance ... from a "skeptic",

no

Quoted message said:

less.
First of all, remember that your beloved regulators, with a "good dose of
science and testing", approved the deadly drug, Vioxx. More importantly,

the

Quoted message said:

FDA intentionally COVERED UP this "oversight" (see testimony of FDA
whistleblower David Graham). The FDA, like all regulatory bodies, is

bought

Quoted message said:

and paid for by the respective industries they regulate.
Secondly, CAFTA, with its support for Codex Alimentarius, is clearly
unconstitutional. To quote Representative Ron Paul:

The Constitution clearly grants
Congress alone the authority to regulate
international trade. The plain text of Article I,
Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither
Congress nor the President can give this authority
away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the
First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point,
based on the plain meaning of the Constitution,
cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who
votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an
international body in direct violation of the
Constitution.

Please wake up and sign this petition:
http://action.dumbsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=32 . There may be as little as a
one vote margin on this thing.

Wow, someone of your obscene ignorance only come along once in...
Oh wait, TC and Ghode are both in this newsgroup as well.
Nevermind, you are in good company.

--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'😉, but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

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

Quoted message said:

"Fred Mann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Fred Mann wrote:

> then sign this petition to oppose CAFTA which will

(unconstitutionally)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> place the supplement industry under international oversight and

regulation.

Quoted message said:

> This will be voted on Tuesday or Wednesday, so take action

immediately!!!

Quoted message said:

> http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=32

This kind of self-serving [censored] comes around ever few months. It's
always couched in terms of curtailing freedom of consumers when it's
really about finally getting some regulation on the peddlers of crappy
nostrums and untested drugs that can do serious harm.

The supplement industry needs a good dose of science and testing.

Pastorio

It's really a shame to see this level of ignorance ... from a "skeptic",

no

Quoted message said:

less.
First of all, remember that your beloved regulators, with a "good dose

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

science and testing", approved the deadly drug, Vioxx. More importantly,

the

Quoted message said:

FDA intentionally COVERED UP this "oversight" (see testimony of FDA
whistleblower David Graham). The FDA, like all regulatory bodies, is

bought

Quoted message said:

and paid for by the respective industries they regulate.
Secondly, CAFTA, with its support for Codex Alimentarius, is clearly
unconstitutional. To quote Representative Ron Paul:

The Constitution clearly grants
Congress alone the authority to regulate
international trade. The plain text of Article I,
Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither
Congress nor the President can give this authority
away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the
First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point,
based on the plain meaning of the Constitution,
cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who
votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an
international body in direct violation of the
Constitution.

Please wake up and sign this petition:
http://action.dumbsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=32 . There may be as little as

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

one vote margin on this thing.

Wow, someone of your obscene ignorance only come along once in...
Oh wait, TC and Ghode are both in this newsgroup as well.
Nevermind, you are in good company.

Please point out SPECIFICALLY which point illustrates my "obscene
ignorance". Is it the fact that the FDA approved the deadly drug Vioxx, or
the fact that CAFTA violates the US Constitution?

Fred Mann said:

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Fred Mann said:

then sign this petition to oppose CAFTA which will (unconstitutionally)
place the supplement industry under international oversight and regulation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This will be voted on Tuesday or Wednesday, so take action immediately!!!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=32

This kind of self-serving [censored] comes around ever few months. It's
always couched in terms of curtailing freedom of consumers when it's
really about finally getting some regulation on the peddlers of crappy
nostrums and untested drugs that can do serious harm.

The supplement industry needs a good dose of science and testing.

Pastorio

It's really a shame to see this level of ignorance ... from a "skeptic", no
less.

I note you offer no substance, just insult. Oh, well. So it goes for
fanatics.

Quoted message said:

First of all, remember that your beloved regulators, with a "good dose of
science and testing", approved the deadly drug, Vioxx. More importantly, the
FDA intentionally COVERED UP this "oversight" (see testimony of FDA
whistleblower David Graham). The FDA, like all regulatory bodies, is bought
and paid for by the respective industries they regulate.

<LOL> This proves that the government works like, well, government. And
I note you don't offer in reference all the other drugs that aren't
problems like Vioxx. Hundreds of thousands of other drugs. You forgot to
mention thalidomide for the 60's. The percentage of error is
astonishingly low. If you made as few mistakes, there'd be a "Church of
Fatuous Fred" on every corner.

But this in no way negates the fact that food supplements can be just as
dangerous, or did you miss the Fen-Phen/ephedra deal? Do you not know
that St. John's Wort will raise your blood pressure even though it
doesn't say that on the bottles it comes in?

Here's a balanced view:
<http://kidshealth.org/teen/food_fitness/nutrition/diet_supplements.html>

And, from another site:
The federal government doesn't have to approve food supplements before
they're sold. The people who make them are responsible for making sure
their product is safe and effective. That's why you want to check the
information they give out before you use the product.

Here are some additional tips from the American Dietetic Association:

* Beware of false claims. Supplements that claim to help you stay
young, grow back hair, lose weight, or cure cancer could be false. If it
sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

* Watch for double standards. Even though herbs are often sold for
having the same effect as certain drugs, they aren't controlled the same
way. Find out about the herbs you want to use. Are there side effects?
Could taking large doses be dangerous? How long have the herbs been used
for treating your condition(s)? Have medical studies been published on
their effectiveness?

* High doses of some supplements might be harmful. There are
guidelines for the amounts of vitamins and minerals you should take to
stay healthy, but not for herbs. Some herbs could be harmful in large
amounts. So could very large doses of vitamins and minerals.

* Natural doesn't mean safe. Just because a supplement is natural
or comes from a plant doesn't mean it's safe. Many times, herbal
products don't include warnings about harmful side effects.
<http://www.aarp.org/health/staying_healthy/eating/Articles/a2003-03-07-supplements.html>

Quoted message said:

Secondly, CAFTA, with its support for Codex Alimentarius, is clearly
unconstitutional. To quote Representative Ron Paul:

Right. So NAFTA is unconstitutional. Membership in the World Bank is
unconstitutional. And all the tariffs established by the various
agencies (without congressional approval) that oversee them are
unconstitutional. It's truly amazing how much unconstitutional stuff is
going on and it never gets to the Supreme Court. Curious, no...?

Quoted message said:

The Constitution clearly grants
Congress alone the authority to regulate
international trade. The plain text of Article I,
Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither
Congress nor the President can give this authority
away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the
First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point,
based on the plain meaning of the Constitution,
cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who
votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an
international body in direct violation of the
Constitution.

The bastids...

Pastorio

Fred Mann wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Please point out SPECIFICALLY which point illustrates my "obscene
ignorance". Is it the fact that the FDA approved the deadly drug Vioxx, or
the fact that CAFTA violates the US Constitution?

well, BOTH to start, but it doesn't end there - I find it hard to
believe that someone as ignorant and stupid as you and your colleagues
can use a keyboard.

Quoted message said:

--
"...in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a
hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present"
Glen Cook

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Fred Mann said:

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Fred Mann wrote:

>then sign this petition to oppose CAFTA which will (unconstitutionally)
>place the supplement industry under international oversight and

regulation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>This will be voted on Tuesday or Wednesday, so take action

immediately!!!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=32

This kind of self-serving [censored] comes around ever few months. It's
always couched in terms of curtailing freedom of consumers when it's
really about finally getting some regulation on the peddlers of crappy
nostrums and untested drugs that can do serious harm.

The supplement industry needs a good dose of science and testing.

Pastorio

It's really a shame to see this level of ignorance ... from a "skeptic",

no

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

less.

I note you offer no substance, just insult. Oh, well. So it goes for
fanatics.

I believe you threw the first stone with the "self-serving [censored]" remark.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

First of all, remember that your beloved regulators, with a "good dose

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

science and testing", approved the deadly drug, Vioxx. More importantly,

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

FDA intentionally COVERED UP this "oversight" (see testimony of FDA
whistleblower David Graham). The FDA, like all regulatory bodies, is

bought

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and paid for by the respective industries they regulate.

<LOL> This proves that the government works like, well, government.

So that makes it okay? It's okay that government covers up a study that
shows that Vioxx is deadly? Remember, this info comes from an FDA
whistleblower, and the studies and the timeline are there to prove it.

And

Quoted message said:

I note you don't offer in reference all the other drugs that aren't
problems like Vioxx. Hundreds of thousands of other drugs. You forgot to
mention thalidomide for the 60's. The percentage of error is
astonishingly low. If you made as few mistakes, there'd be a "Church of
Fatuous Fred" on every corner.

Of course I did not forget about Thalidomide. The list is too long to cover.
Many approved drugs have side effects that are worse than the cure. The link
between approved vaccines containing high doses of mercury and autism is
compelling, if not airtight.
Also, you shoud consider the alternative explanation for the FDA's "success"
: i.e. that drugs are largely safe (a debatable statement) DESPITE the FDA.
This is because no one wants to sell a product that harms their customers.

Quoted message said:

But this in no way negates the fact that food supplements can be just as
dangerous, or did you miss the Fen-Phen/ephedra deal? Do you not know
that St. John's Wort will raise your blood pressure even though it
doesn't say that on the bottles it comes in?

Your statement appears to be factually incorrect. Here are the results from
the study conducted by the Journal of Clinical Pharmacological Therapy:
Influence of St John's wort on catecholamine turnover and cardiovascular
regulation in humans.
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2004 Nov;76(5):480-9.
St John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) is a popular over-the-counter
antidepressant. Its antidepressive effect has been attributed in part to
inhibition of monoamine transporters and monoamine oxidase, on the basis of
in vitro studies. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized,
placebo-controlled, crossover study, 16 healthy subjects (11 men and 5
women; mean age, 31 +/- 5 years) ingested either St John's wort (300 mg
three times daily) or placebo for 7 days. Imipramine treatment (50 mg three
times daily) in 7 subjects served as a positive control. After treatment,
physiologic and biochemical tests included cardiovascular reflex testing,
graded head-up tilt testing, and plasma catecholamine determinations.
RESULTS: St John's wort had no effect on blood pressure, heart rate, heart
rate variability, or blood pressure variability, regardless of the test
condition. St John's wort had no effect on plasma concentrations of
norepinephrine and its main metabolite, dihydroxyphenylglycol, whereas
plasma dihydroxyphenylacetic acid (DOPAC; the main metabolite of dopamine)
concentrations increased in every subject. In contrast, imipramine increased
resting blood pressure and heart rate and elicited a marked orthostatic
tachycardia. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings challenge the concept that St John's
wort elicits a major change in norepinephrine uptake or monoamine oxidase
activity in vivo. The consistent increase in plasma DOPAC concentrations
might suggest a novel mode of action or an inhibitory effect on dopamine
beta-hydroxylase that should be followed up. We propose that a combination
of physiologic and biochemical profiling may help better define the mode of
action and potential side effects of herbal remedies.

So, that's probably why there is no such warning on the labels. However, the
labels DO containg warnings, as my argument predicts. See links to labels:
http://www.swansonvitamins.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&langId=-1&catalogId=10051&productId=12784&SourceCode=INTL085

http://www.swansonvitamins.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&langId=-1&catalogId=10051&productId=11799&SourceCode=INTL085

Quoted message said:

Here's a balanced view:
<http://kidshealth.org/teen/food_fitness/nutrition/diet_supplements.html>

And, from another site:
The federal government doesn't have to approve food supplements before
they're sold. The people who make them are responsible for making sure
their product is safe and effective. That's why you want to check the
information they give out before you use the product.

Here are some additional tips from the American Dietetic Association:

* Beware of false claims. Supplements that claim to help you stay
young, grow back hair, lose weight, or cure cancer could be false. If it
sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

* Watch for double standards. Even though herbs are often sold for
having the same effect as certain drugs, they aren't controlled the same
way. Find out about the herbs you want to use. Are there side effects?
Could taking large doses be dangerous? How long have the herbs been used
for treating your condition(s)? Have medical studies been published on
their effectiveness?

* High doses of some supplements might be harmful. There are
guidelines for the amounts of vitamins and minerals you should take to
stay healthy, but not for herbs. Some herbs could be harmful in large
amounts. So could very large doses of vitamins and minerals.

* Natural doesn't mean safe. Just because a supplement is natural
or comes from a plant doesn't mean it's safe. Many times, herbal
products don't include warnings about harmful side effects.

<http://www.aarp.org/health/staying_healthy/eating/Articles/a2003-03-07-supp
lements.html>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Secondly, CAFTA, with its support for Codex Alimentarius, is clearly
unconstitutional. To quote Representative Ron Paul:

Right. So NAFTA is unconstitutional. Membership in the World Bank is
unconstitutional. And all the tariffs established by the various
agencies (without congressional approval) that oversee them are
unconstitutional. It's truly amazing how much unconstitutional stuff is
going on and it never gets to the Supreme Court. Curious, no...?

Yes, yes, and yes! Here is the relevant clause:
"The Congress shall have power ... to regulate Commerce with foreign
Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" (elipses
used to remove clauses 1 and 2).
Note that this power is clearly granted to Congress - not Europe. But I
guess I'm a conspiracy theorist for pointing that out.
The fact that the Supreme Court does not uphold the Constitution is nothing
new. For a much more stunning example of this, please research the Federal
Reserve Act of 1913. I don't have time to document all of the
unconstitutional laws upheld by the Supreme Court.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Constitution clearly grants
Congress alone the authority to regulate
international trade. The plain text of Article I,
Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither
Congress nor the President can give this authority
away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the
First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point,
based on the plain meaning of the Constitution,
cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who
votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an
international body in direct violation of the
Constitution.

The bastids...

Pastorio

"ted rosenberg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Fred Mann wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Please point out SPECIFICALLY which point illustrates my "obscene
ignorance". Is it the fact that the FDA approved the deadly drug Vioxx,

or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the fact that CAFTA violates the US Constitution?

well, BOTH to start, but it doesn't end there - I find it hard to
believe that someone as ignorant and stupid as you and your colleagues
can use a keyboard.

... care to make the argument for either case? I added more detail to my
initial post in another post above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

--
"...in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a
hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the

present"

Quoted message said:

Glen Cook

Fred Mann wrote:
<ignorant drivel snipped>

Of COURSE the the idiot child brings up Thalidomide

He is FAR to ignorant to know that it was NEVER approved by the FDA,
and too stupid to do basic research

He also ignores the that that Vioxx (his example) is
1) MUCH safer than many of the herbal [censored] on the market, like Ephedra
or Bitter Orange
2) Much more effective than the herbal [censored] his buddies sell
and
3) Was pulled by the FDA because, unlike hie fraudulent supplements he
pushes, they follow up on drugs after they go on sale.

The FDA is far from perfect, but it is much better than the the Snake
Oil scammers who push poisons

--
"...in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a
hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present"
Glen Cook

"ted rosenberg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Fred Mann wrote:
<ignorant drivel snipped>

Of COURSE the the idiot child brings up Thalidomide

He is FAR to ignorant to know that it was NEVER approved by the FDA,
and too stupid to do basic research

He also ignores the that that Vioxx (his example) is
1) MUCH safer than many of the herbal [censored] on the market, like Ephedra
or Bitter Orange
2) Much more effective than the herbal [censored] his buddies sell
and
3) Was pulled by the FDA because, unlike hie fraudulent supplements he
pushes, they follow up on drugs after they go on sale.

The FDA is far from perfect, but it is much better than the the Snake
Oil scammers who push poisons

First of all, your "ally" Bob said "don't forget about thalidomide". I never
said it was approved by the FDA -- learn to read more carefully. (Actually,
the FDA did approve thalidomide for other applications in 1998). My point
was that the list of FDA problems is too long to catalog.
Your statement: "(Vioxx is) MUCH safer than many of the herbal [censored] on the
market, like Ephedra ..." is factually incorrect.
Ephedra is linked to 155 deaths -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7504443 .
Vioxx is linked to roughly 40,000!!! --
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20050125%2FCOX25%2FHealth%2FIdx&ord=1121222202695&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true
Last time I checked 40,000 was more than 155.
Your next statement contains an off the wall assumption that I sell
supplements and illustrates your thought process, or lack thereof.
Your third statement is ALSO factually incorrect (surprising!). The FDA did
not pull Vioxx -- Merck did.
That makes you 0 for 4.
I also note that you didn't address the fact that CAFTA is another clear
violation of the constitution.

Well, for anyone else who may reading this :
If you think that big government is bad and you value the constitution and
the freedom to use supplements, please visit www.downsizedc.org and sign the
petition.