Guest guest Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 For complete story: http://doctoryourself.com/antivitamin.html Ten Ways to Spot Anti-Vitamin Biases in a Scientific Study 1. Where’s the beef? How much of the original study is quoted in the media? Are you just getting factoids, or are data provided? Has the journalist writing about the subject actually read the original paper? 2. What exactly was studied, and how? Was it an IN VITRO (test-tube) study or an IN VIVO (animal) study? Was there a CLINICAL STUDY on people, or is its application to real life a matter of conjecture? 3. Follow the Money. Who paid for the study? Cash from food processors, pharmaceutical giants, and other deep pockets decides what gets studied, and how. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for researchers to present findings that embarrass their financial backers. Published research will often indicate sources of funding, possibly at the end of the paper in an acknowledgements paragraph. If not, correspondence addesses of principle authors are invariably provided. Write and ask. 4. Check the dosages. Any vitamin C study using less than 2,000 mg a day is a waste of time. Any vitamin E study employing less than 400 International Units (I.U.) is a waste of time. Any study using less than 1,000 mg niacin a day is a waste of time. All low-dose studies are set up to fail. Low doses of vitamins do not cure major diseases. Large doses cure diseases. 5. Check the form of supplement used. Was the vitamin used in the study natural or synthetic? Any carotene study using the synthetic form of beta-carotene only is a waste of time. Any vitamin E study using the synthetic DL-alpha form is a waste of time. 6. Use the Pauling Principle: read the entire study and interpret the data for yourself. Do not rely on the summary and/or conclusions of the study authors. As Linus Pauling pointed out repeatedly, many researchers miss, or dismiss, the statistical significance of their own work. Such behavior may be human error, or it may be politically motivated. Beware of editorializing. 7. Beware of Pauling-bashers. If a media article is critical about twice Nobel prize-winning Linus Pauling, you can be confident it has been spin-doctored. 8. Watch for these throw-away slams against supplements: “You get all the vitamins you need form your daily diet.” “Vitamins are dangerous if you take too many of them.” “Excess vitamins are wasted.” “More research is needed before supplements can be recommended.” “There is no scientific support for large vitamin doses.” 9. Watch for pontifical public recommendations at the end of the article such as: "Vitamins can do some good things, but can do some bad things as well." “You are better off not popping vitamin pills.” “Just eat a balanced diet.” “If you take vitamins, take no more than the US RDA.” 10. Use the media backwards. The more headlines about a particular study, the more politically charged the subject and the less likely that the reporting, or the original study, is positive towards vitamins. Negative news sells newspapers, and magazines, and gets lots of viewers. Positive drug studies do get headlines, of course. Positive vitamin studies do not. Is this a conspiracy? You mean with shady people all sitting around a shaded table in a darkened back room? Of course not. It is nevertheless an enormous public health problem with enormous consequences. Consider what might be called Saul’s Law of the Media: “Press and television coverage of a vitamin study is inversely proportionate to the study’s clinical usefulness.” In other words, the more media hoopla, the worse the research. Truly valuable research does not scare people; it helps people get well. There are over 3,000 scientific references at Doctor Yourself.com for people who share in this goal. Reprinted from the book FIRE YOUR DOCTOR, copyright 2001 and prior years by Andrew Saul, Number 8 Van Buren Street, Holley, New York 14470 USA Telephone (716) 638-5357 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 Even while it's important to recognize a built-in bias against vitamins & supplements within the medical community and pharmaceutical companies, this should not preclude us from realizing that there needs to be oversight of the vitamin industry. How does the consumer know for sure that the dosages on the label are the amounts actually included in the capsule, tablet, powder, etc? I've seen the results of random testing of vitamins and supplements manufactured by a variety of companies which clearly indicate that some unscrupulous businessmen are cheating their consumers by includng less of the active ingredients than is printed on the labels. How can this type of unscrupulous behavior be monitored, and where is the science which can verify the claims made by some manufacturers for thier products? When you consider all of the vitamin companies which now have a presence on the internet, how does one sort out the bad apples? At present, I feel that my only option is to purchase my supplements from well-known, and long-established manufacturerss such as Solgar, TwinLab, Nartol, Nature's Plus etc. However, most of the public is not even aware of this issue, and there needs to be a way to protect the consumers' interests within this multi-billion dollar industry. 121 <121 wrote: For complete story: http://doctoryourself.com/antivitamin.html Ten Ways to Spot Anti-Vitamin Biases in a Scientific Study 1. Where’s the beef? How much of the original study is quoted in the media? Are you just getting factoids, or are data provided? Has the journalist writing about the subject actually read the original paper? 2. What exactly was studied, and how? Was it an IN VITRO (test-tube) study or an IN VIVO (animal) study? Was there a CLINICAL STUDY on people, or is its application to real life a matter of conjecture? 3. Follow the Money. Who paid for the study? Cash from food processors, pharmaceutical giants, and other deep pockets decides what gets studied, and how. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for researchers to present findings that embarrass their financial backers. Published research will often indicate sources of funding, possibly at the end of the paper in an acknowledgements paragraph. If not, correspondence addesses of principle authors are invariably provided. Write and ask. 4. Check the dosages. Any vitamin C study using less than 2,000 mg a day is a waste of time. Any vitamin E study employing less than 400 International Units (I.U.) is a waste of time. Any study using less than 1,000 mg niacin a day is a waste of time. All low-dose studies are set up to fail. Low doses of vitamins do not cure major diseases. Large doses cure diseases. 5. Check the form of supplement used. Was the vitamin used in the study natural or synthetic? Any carotene study using the synthetic form of beta-carotene only is a waste of time. Any vitamin E study using the synthetic DL-alpha form is a waste of time. 6. Use the Pauling Principle: read the entire study and interpret the data for yourself. Do not rely on the summary and/or conclusions of the study authors. As Linus Pauling pointed out repeatedly, many researchers miss, or dismiss, the statistical significance of their own work. Such behavior may be human error, or it may be politically motivated. Beware of editorializing. 7. Beware of Pauling-bashers. If a media article is critical about twice Nobel prize-winning Linus Pauling, you can be confident it has been spin-doctored. 8. Watch for these throw-away slams against supplements: “You get all the vitamins you need form your daily diet.” “Vitamins are dangerous if you take too many of them.” “Excess vitamins are wasted.” “More research is needed before supplements can be recommended.” “There is no scientific support for large vitamin doses.” 9. Watch for pontifical public recommendations at the end of the article such as: "Vitamins can do some good things, but can do some bad things as well." “You are better off not popping vitamin pills.” “Just eat a balanced diet.” “If you take vitamins, take no more than the US RDA.” 10. Use the media backwards. The more headlines about a particular study, the more politically charged the subject and the less likely that the reporting, or the original study, is positive towards vitamins. Negative news sells newspapers, and magazines, and gets lots of viewers. Positive drug studies do get headlines, of course. Positive vitamin studies do not. Is this a conspiracy? You mean with shady people all sitting around a shaded table in a darkened back room? Of course not. It is nevertheless an enormous public health problem with enormous consequences. Consider what might be called Saul’s Law of the Media: “Press and television coverage of a vitamin study is inversely proportionate to the study’s clinical usefulness.” In other words, the more media hoopla, the worse the research. Truly valuable research does not scare people; it helps people get well. There are over 3,000 scientific references at Doctor Yourself.com for people who share in this goal. Reprinted from the book FIRE YOUR DOCTOR, copyright 2001 and prior years by Andrew Saul, Number 8 Van Buren Street, Holley, New York 14470 USA Telephone (716) 638-5357 «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 Hope that you are not saying that we need a governmental institution to regulate the issues that you've mentioned. That would be merely more of the same of what we have. There could be independent labs that give the say so. There are organizations that, non-governmental as far as I know, that will certify that herbs, and vegetables (still in the herb family) are organic, or even that meat is organic. That would be a minimum standard. The same thing could develop, and probably is being developed although I don't know of it, to assure that a customer is getting what it is said that he is buying. The customer wants his goldenseal to be the root and not the leaf, and things like that. Companies themselves do spectroscopic analysis, among other things, of batches of herbs as they come in to assure themselves that they are the herb that they are buying. But, on the other hand, it is still common to buy Chinese herbs that are not what they say they are, or because of the fact that an individual is a small customer, or even new, he doesn't get the same standard herb as another already favored customer does. If ordering whole parts of herbs (bulk herbs) one must know from experience what he is buying or be able to have somebody else check it out for him. And, when a company gets a reputation of ripping people off, it needs to be at least passed around that they did so. That way the good companies will be utilized while the bad ones will lose their business. Ed On May 29, 2005, at 2:30 PM, Charles Lytle wrote: > Even while it's important to recognize a built-in bias against > vitamins & supplements within the medical community and pharmaceutical > companies, this should not preclude us from realizing that there needs > to be oversight of the vitamin industry. > > How does the consumer know for sure that the dosages on the label are > the amounts actually included in the capsule, tablet, powder, etc? > > I've seen the results of random testing of vitamins and supplements > manufactured by a variety of companies which clearly indicate that > some unscrupulous businessmen are cheating their consumers by includng > less of the active ingredients than is printed on the labels. > > How can this type of unscrupulous behavior be monitored, and where is > the science which can verify the claims made by some manufacturers for > thier products? > > When you consider all of the vitamin companies which now have a > presence on the internet, how does one sort out the bad apples? At > present, I feel that my only option is to purchase my supplements from > well-known, and long-established manufacturerss such as Solgar, > TwinLab, Nartol, Nature's Plus etc. However, most of the public is > not even aware of this issue, and there needs to be a way to protect > the consumers' interests within this multi-billion dollar industry. > > 121 <121 wrote: > For complete story: http://doctoryourself.com/antivitamin.html > > Ten Ways to Spot Anti-Vitamin Biases in a Scientific Study > > 1. Where’s the beef? How much of the original study is quoted in the > media? Are you just getting factoids, or are data provided? Has the > journalist writing about the subject actually read the original > paper? > > > 2. What exactly was studied, and how? Was it an IN VITRO (test-tube) > study or an IN VIVO (animal) study? Was there a CLINICAL STUDY on > people, or is its application to real life a matter of conjecture? > > > 3. Follow the Money. Who paid for the study? Cash from food > processors, pharmaceutical giants, and other deep pockets decides what > gets studied, and how. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for > researchers to present findings that embarrass their financial > backers. Published research will often indicate sources of funding, > possibly at the end of the paper in an acknowledgements paragraph. If > not, correspondence addesses of principle authors are invariably > provided. Write and ask. > > > 4. Check the dosages. Any vitamin C study using less than 2,000 mg a > day is a waste of time. Any vitamin E study employing less than 400 > International Units (I.U.) is a waste of time. Any study using less > than 1,000 mg niacin a day is a waste of time. All low-dose studies > are set up to fail. Low doses of vitamins do not cure major diseases. > Large doses cure diseases. > > > 5. Check the form of supplement used. Was the vitamin used in the > study natural or synthetic? Any carotene study using the synthetic > form of beta-carotene only is a waste of time. Any vitamin E study > using the synthetic DL-alpha form is a waste of time. > > > 6. Use the Pauling Principle: read the entire study and interpret the > data for yourself. Do not rely on the summary and/or conclusions of > the study authors. As Linus Pauling pointed out repeatedly, many > researchers miss, or dismiss, the statistical significance of their > own work. Such behavior may be human error, or it may be politically > motivated. Beware of editorializing. > > > 7. Beware of Pauling-bashers. If a media article is critical about > twice Nobel prize-winning Linus Pauling, you can be confident it has > been spin-doctored. > > > 8. Watch for these throw-away slams against supplements: > > “You get all the vitamins you need form your daily diet.” > “Vitamins are dangerous if you take too many of them.” > “Excess vitamins are wasted.” > “More research is needed before supplements can be recommended.” > “There is no scientific support for large vitamin doses.” > > > 9. Watch for pontifical public recommendations at the end of the > article such as: > > " Vitamins can do some good things, but can do some bad things as well. " > “You are better off not popping vitamin pills.” > “Just eat a balanced diet.” > “If you take vitamins, take no more than the US RDA.” > > > 10. Use the media backwards. The more headlines about a particular > study, the more politically charged the subject and the less likely > that the reporting, or the original study, is positive towards > vitamins. Negative news sells newspapers, and magazines, and gets > lots of viewers. Positive drug studies do get headlines, of course. > Positive vitamin studies do not. Is this a conspiracy? You mean with > shady people all sitting around a shaded table in a darkened back > room? Of course not. It is nevertheless an enormous public health > problem with enormous consequences. Consider what might be called > Saul’s Law of the Media: “Press and television coverage of a vitamin > study is inversely proportionate to the study’s clinical usefulness.” > In other words, the more media hoopla, the worse the research. Truly > valuable research does not scare people; it helps people get well. > There are over 3,000 scientific references at Doctor Yourself.com for > people who share in this goal. > > > Reprinted from the book FIRE YOUR DOCTOR, copyright 2001 and prior > years by Andrew Saul, Number 8 Van Buren Street, Holley, New York > 14470 USA Telephone (716) 638-5357 > > > > «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§« > ¤»¥«¤» > > § - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! § > > Subscribe:......... - > To :.... - > > Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be > news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult > with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of > treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses. > **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, > any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use > without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest > in receiving the included information for non-profit research and > educational purposes only. > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml > > > > > ! > > «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§« > ¤»¥«¤» > > § - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! § > > Subscribe:......... - > To :.... - > > Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be > news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult > with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of > treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses. > **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, > any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use > without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest > in receiving the included information for non-profit research and > educational purposes only. > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 The herbal market, which seems to be the focus of your comments, is only a small segment ot the vitamin and supplement industry. I am addressing the fact that throughout what has become a massive business, there is no quality control, and no certification that the manufacturers are maintaining standards of production, and perfoming due diligence. As a consumer, I am very concerned about the quality, and quantity of the product I am ingesting, particularly if I am using a product because of health issues. Some of the large manufacturers should establish and support a regulatory institution which tests and certifies the quality of the products. The consumer should at the very minimum have the benefit of knowing which companies' products have been examined and verified for quality and quantity. This issue needs to be addressed, because there has been a proliferation of companies on the internet which sell supplements.Ed Siceloff <siceloff wrote: Hope that you are not saying that we need a governmental institution to regulate the issues that you've mentioned. That would be merely more of the same of what we have. There could be independent labs that give the say so. There are organizations that, non-governmental as far as I know, that will certify that herbs, and vegetables (still in the herb family) are organic, or even that meat is organic. That would be a minimum standard. The same thing could develop, and probably is being developed although I don't know of it, to assure that a customer is getting what it is said that he is buying. The customer wants his goldenseal to be the root and not the leaf, and things like that. Companies themselves do spectroscopic analysis, among other things, of batches of herbs as they come in to assure themselves that they are the herb that they are buying. But, on the other hand, it is still common to buy Chinese herbs that are not what they say they are, or because of the fact that an individual is a small customer, or even new, he doesn't get the same standard herb as another already favored customer does. If ordering whole parts of herbs (bulk herbs) one must know from experience what he is buying or be able to have somebody else check it out for him.And, when a company gets a reputation of ripping people off, it needs to be at least passed around that they did so. That way the good companies will be utilized while the bad ones will lose their business.EdOn May 29, 2005, at 2:30 PM, Charles Lytle wrote:> Even while it's important to recognize a built-in bias against > vitamins & supplements within the medical community and pharmaceutical > companies, this should not preclude us from realizing that there needs > to be oversight of the vitamin industry.> > How does the consumer know for sure that the dosages on the label are > the amounts actually included in the capsule, tablet, powder, etc?> > I've seen the results of random testing of vitamins and supplements > manufactured by a variety of companies which clearly indicate that > some unscrupulous businessmen are cheating their consumers by includng > less of the active ingredients than is printed on the labels.> > How can this type of unscrupulous behavior be monitored, and where is > the science which can verify the claims made by some manufacturers for > thier products?> > When you consider all of the vitamin companies which now have a > presence on the internet, how does one sort out the bad apples? At > present, I feel that my only option is to purchase my supplements from > well-known, and long-established manufacturerss such as Solgar, > TwinLab, Nartol, Nature's Plus etc. However, most of the public is > not even aware of this issue, and there needs to be a way to protect > the consumers' interests within this multi-billion dollar industry.>> 121 <121 wrote:> For complete story: http://doctoryourself.com/antivitamin.html > > Ten Ways to Spot Anti-Vitamin Biases in a Scientific Study>> 1. Where’s the beef? How much of the original study is quoted in the > media? Are you just getting factoids, or are data provided? Has the > journalist writing about the subject actually read the original > paper? > >> 2. What exactly was studied, and how? Was it an IN VITRO (test-tube) > study or an IN VIVO (animal) study? Was there a CLINICAL STUDY on > people, or is its application to real life a matter of conjecture?> >> 3. Follow the Money. Who paid for the study? Cash from food > processors, pharmaceutical giants, and other deep pockets decides what > gets studied, and how. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for > researchers to present findings that embarrass their financial > backers. Published research will often indicate sources of funding, > possibly at the end of the paper in an acknowledgements paragraph. If > not, correspondence addesses of principle authors are invariably > provided. Write and ask.> >> 4. Check the dosages. Any vitamin C study using less than 2,000 mg a > day is a waste of time. Any vitamin E study employing less than 400 > International Units (I.U.) is a waste of time. Any study using less > than 1,000 mg niacin a day is a waste of time. All low-dose studies > are set up to fail. Low doses of vitamins do not cure major diseases. > Large doses cure diseases.> >> 5. Check the form of supplement used. Was the vitamin used in the > study natural or synthetic? Any carotene study using the synthetic > form of beta-carotene only is a waste of time. Any vitamin E study > using the synthetic DL-alpha form is a waste of time.> >> 6. Use the Pauling Principle: read the entire study and interpret the > data for yourself. Do not rely on the summary and/or conclusions of > the study authors. As Linus Pauling pointed out repeatedly, many > researchers miss, or dismiss, the statistical significance of their > own work. Such behavior may be human error, or it may be politically > motivated. Beware of editorializing.> >> 7. Beware of Pauling-bashers. If a media article is critical about > twice Nobel prize-winning Linus Pauling, you can be confident it has > been spin-doctored.> >> 8. Watch for these throw-away slams against supplements:>> “You get all the vitamins you need form your daily diet.”> “Vitamins are dangerous if you take too many of them.”> “Excess vitamins are wasted.”> “More research is needed before supplements can be recommended.”> “There is no scientific support for large vitamin doses.”> >> 9. Watch for pontifical public recommendations at the end of the > article such as: >> "Vitamins can do some good things, but can do some bad things as well."> “You are better off not popping vitamin pills.”> “Just eat a balanced diet.”> “If you take vitamins, take no more than the US RDA.”> >> 10. Use the media backwards. The more headlines about a particular > study, the more politically charged the subject and the less likely > that the reporting, or the original study, is positive towards > vitamins. Negative news sells newspapers, and magazines, and gets > lots of viewers. Positive drug studies do get headlines, of course. > Positive vitamin studies do not. Is this a conspiracy? You mean with > shady people all sitting around a shaded table in a darkened back > room? Of course not. It is nevertheless an enormous public health > problem with enormous consequences. Consider what might be called > Saul’s Law of the Media: “Press and television coverage of a vitamin > study is inversely proportionate to the study’s clinical usefulness.” > In other words, the more media hoopla, the worse the research. Truly > valuable research does not scare people; it helps people get well. > There are over 3,000 scientific references at Doctor Yourself.com for > people who share in this goal.> >> Reprinted from the book FIRE YOUR DOCTOR, copyright 2001 and prior > years by Andrew Saul, Number 8 Van Buren Street, Holley, New York > 14470 USA Telephone (716) 638-5357> >>> «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§« > ¤»¥«¤»>> § - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §> > Subscribe:......... - > To :.... - >> Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be > news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult > with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of > treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.> **COPYRIGHT NOTICE**> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,> any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use > without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest > in receiving the included information for non-profit research and > educational purposes only. > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml >>>> > !>> «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§« > ¤»¥«¤»>> § - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §> > Subscribe:......... - > To :.... - >> Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be > news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult > with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of > treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.> **COPYRIGHT NOTICE**> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,> any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use > without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest > in receiving the included information for non-profit research and > educational purposes only. > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml >>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 I don't care how much the government gets involved with the "regulation" of supplements; if by regulation, is meant that the quality and integrity of supplement companies is maintained and assured. I certainly want to know if the quantities of a supplement as listed on the container, corresponds to the reality of what I get when I buy it. I also would expect the government to fund extensive, ongoing studies to determine efficacy and safety. I would want expiration dates as well, to assure freshness. What seems to worry many supplements purchasers, is not regulation, but interference with our right to supplements, efforts to promote the interests of pharmaceutical companies which often are competitive with food-based supplements, or are threatened by a radically different approach to illness prevention and therapy. This has nothing to do with regulation. Regulation is our freind. The worst vitamin companies don't want any regulation, because they're as bad as the worst pharmaceutical companies, and just want to rip off the public. What we need is responsible regulation, by responsible government agencies. In fact, I insist on it, but have no expectation of getting it. I want regulatory agencies that listen to the findings of responsible testing labs and professionals. I want regulatory agencies that look at "all" the objective testing available on supplements, not just the testing that puts supplements in an unfavorable light, and permits the government to appear to be able to justify suppressing and curtailing our free access to supplements. I want a government that looks beyond testing, to traditions that have been with us for hundreds or even thousands of years, particularly if there is no realiable evidence that the substances under scrutiny, when used by humans for therapy, or in their diets, have no clear and demonstrable health-destroying side effects. I expect government to take so called responsible anecdotal reports from supplements users into account, in forming official views of natural supplements, herbs, etc. Finally, with the exception of "clear" evidence (not trumped up or biased reports intended to confuse and deceive the public) that any of the various substances available from vitamin and herb companies are harmful to health, I expect government to simply mind its own business. We're allowed to smoke cigarettes without government interference and to drink booze, we certainly should be free to take vitamins. JP - Ed Siceloff Sunday, May 29, 2005 11:54 AM Re: Vitamin Bashers Exposed Hope that you are not saying that we need a governmental institution to regulate the issues that you've mentioned. That would be merely more of the same of what we have. There could be independent labs that give the say so. There are organizations that, non-governmental as far as I know, that will certify that herbs, and vegetables (still in the herb family) are organic, or even that meat is organic. That would be a minimum standard. The same thing could develop, and probably is being developed although I don't know of it, to assure that a customer is getting what it is said that he is buying. The customer wants his goldenseal to be the root and not the leaf, and things like that. Companies themselves do spectroscopic analysis, among other things, of batches of herbs as they come in to assure themselves that they are the herb that they are buying. But, on the other hand, it is still common to buy Chinese herbs that are not what they say they are, or because of the fact that an individual is a small customer, or even new, he doesn't get the same standard herb as another already favored customer does. If ordering whole parts of herbs (bulk herbs) one must know from experience what he is buying or be able to have somebody else check it out for him. And, when a company gets a reputation of ripping people off, it needs to be at least passed around that they did so. That way the good companies will be utilized while the bad ones will lose their business.EdOn May 29, 2005, at 2:30 PM, Charles Lytle wrote: Even while it's important to recognize a built-in bias against vitamins & supplements within the medical community and pharmaceutical companies, this should not preclude us from realizing that there needs to be oversight of the vitamin industry. How does the consumer know for sure that the dosages on the label are the amounts actually included in the capsule, tablet, powder, etc? I've seen the results of random testing of vitamins and supplements manufactured by a variety of companies which clearly indicate that some unscrupulous businessmen are cheating their consumers by includng less of the active ingredients than is printed on the labels. How can this type of unscrupulous behavior be monitored, and where is the science which can verify the claims made by some manufacturers for thier products? When you consider all of the vitamin companies which now have a presence on the internet, how does one sort out the bad apples? At present, I feel that my only option is to purchase my supplements from well-known, and long-established manufacturerss such as Solgar, TwinLab, Nartol, Nature's Plus etc. However, most of the public is not even aware of this issue, and there needs to be a way to protect the consumers' interests within this multi-billion dollar industry.121 <121 wrote:For complete story: http://doctoryourself.com/antivitamin.html Ten Ways to Spot Anti-Vitamin Biases in a Scientific Study 1. Where’s the beef? How much of the original study is quoted in the media? Are you just getting factoids, or are data provided? Has the journalist writing about the subject actually read the original paper? 2. What exactly was studied, and how? Was it an IN VITRO (test-tube) study or an IN VIVO (animal) study? Was there a CLINICAL STUDY on people, or is its application to real life a matter of conjecture? 3. Follow the Money. Who paid for the study? Cash from food processors, pharmaceutical giants, and other deep pockets decides what gets studied, and how. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for researchers to present findings that embarrass their financial backers. Published research will often indicate sources of funding, possibly at the end of the paper in an acknowledgements paragraph. If not, correspondence addesses of principle authors are invariably provided. Write and ask. 4. Check the dosages. Any vitamin C study using less than 2,000 mg a day is a waste of time. Any vitamin E study employing less than 400 International Units (I.U.) is a waste of time. Any study using less than 1,000 mg niacin a day is a waste of time. All low-dose studies are set up to fail. Low doses of vitamins do not cure major diseases. Large doses cure diseases. 5. Check the form of supplement used. Was the vitamin used in the study natural or synthetic? Any carotene study using the synthetic form of beta-carotene only is a waste of time. Any vitamin E study using the synthetic DL-alpha form is a waste of time. 6. Use the Pauling Principle: read the entire study and interpret the data for yourself. Do not rely on the summary and/or conclusions of the study authors. As Linus Pauling pointed out repeatedly, many researchers miss, or dismiss, the statistical significance of their own work. Such behavior may be human error, or it may be politically motivated. Beware of editorializing. 7. Beware of Pauling-bashers. If a media article is critical about twice Nobel prize-winning Linus Pauling, you can be confident it has been spin-doctored. 8. Watch for these throw-away slams against supplements: “You get all the vitamins you need form your daily diet.” “Vitamins are dangerous if you take too many of them.” “Excess vitamins are wasted.” “More research is needed before supplements can be recommended.” “There is no scientific support for large vitamin doses.” 9. Watch for pontifical public recommendations at the end of the article such as: "Vitamins can do some good things, but can do some bad things as well." “You are better off not popping vitamin pills.” “Just eat a balanced diet.” “If you take vitamins, take no more than the US RDA.” 10. Use the media backwards. The more headlines about a particular study, the more politically charged the subject and the less likely that the reporting, or the original study, is positive towards vitamins. Negative news sells newspapers, and magazines, and gets lots of viewers. Positive drug studies do get headlines, of course. Positive vitamin studies do not. Is this a conspiracy? You mean with shady people all sitting around a shaded table in a darkened back room? Of course not. It is nevertheless an enormous public health problem with enormous consequences. Consider what might be called Saul’s Law of the Media: “Press and television coverage of a vitamin study is inversely proportionate to the study’s clinical usefulness.” In other words, the more media hoopla, the worse the research. Truly valuable research does not scare people; it helps people get well. There are over 3,000 scientific references at Doctor Yourself.com for people who share in this goal. Reprinted from the book FIRE YOUR DOCTOR, copyright 2001 and prior years by Andrew Saul, Number 8 Van Buren Street, Holley, New York 14470 USA Telephone (716) 638-5357 «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Do You ? ! «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2005 Report Share Posted May 30, 2005 When you desire to have government regulate, they always regulate for the corporate interests they represent. Thus you have the problem. The problem of no regulation of vitamins will be dealt with by giving the manufacture of vitamins over to pharmaceutical companies, and making only those valid. Which is probably the way it is already anyways. I've read several times that all the vitamins that are manufactured are truly manufactured by 7 different pharmaceutical companies located in various countries. Doesn't matter from whom you buy them, they come from the same group of 7. Of course, vitamins present in food supplements are not manufactured in that way. Governmental agencies seldom act in responsible manner. They are held responsible to the industry that they regulate, for the sake of the particular industry's profits. The agencies all operate for the benefits of the corporations officers who sit on the agency boards. Thus the agencies all operate in such a fashion that they protect the interests of the status quo of the various corporations in such a way that they eliminate competition for the status quo. Better corporations, with better vitamins, are thus made to expensive to operate. Better pharmaceuticals are thus eliminated. This function is better left to the market. It is costly, but ends up better. The companies with poor products are driven out of business rather than a status quo being protected. Your key word is " responsible. " I think you imagining things when you think of government being responsible to you. Ed On May 29, 2005, at 6:33 PM, John Polifronio wrote: > I don't care how much the government gets involved with the > " regulation " of supplements; if by regulation, is meant that the > quality and integrity of supplement companies is maintained and > assured. I certainly want to know if the quantities of a supplement > as listed on the container, corresponds to the reality of what I get > when I buy it. I also would expect the government to fund extensive, > ongoing studies to determine efficacy and safety. I would want > expiration dates as well, to assure freshness. What seems to worry > many supplements purchasers, is not regulation, but interference with > our right to supplements, efforts to promote the interests of > pharmaceutical companies which often are competitive with food-based > supplements, or are threatened by a radically different approach to > illness prevention and therapy. This has nothing to do with > regulation. Regulation is our freind. The worst vitamin companies > don't want any regulation, because they're as bad as the worst > pharmaceutical companies, and just want to rip off the public. > > What we need is responsible regulation, by responsible government > agencies. In fact, I insist on it, but have no expectation of getting > it. I want regulatory agencies that listen to the findings of > responsible testing labs and professionals. I want regulatory > agencies that look at " all " the objective testing available on > supplements, not just the testing that puts supplements in an > unfavorable light, and permits the government to appear to be able to > justify suppressing and curtailing our free access to supplements. I > want a government that looks beyond testing, to traditions that have > been with us for hundreds or even thousands of years, particularly if > there is no realiable evidence that the substances under scrutiny, > when used by humans for therapy, or in their diets, have no clear and > demonstrable health-destroying side effects. I expect government to > take so called responsible anecdotal reports from supplements users > into account, in forming official views of natural supplements, herbs, > etc. Finally, with the exception of " clear " evidence (not trumped up > or biased reports intended to confuse and deceive the public) that any > of the various substances available from vitamin and herb companies > are harmful to health, I expect government to simply mind its own > business. We're allowed to smoke cigarettes without government > interference and to drink booze, we certainly should be free to take > vitamins. > > JP > - > Ed Siceloff > > Sunday, May 29, 2005 11:54 AM > Re: Vitamin Bashers Exposed > > Hope that you are not saying that we need a governmental institution > to regulate the issues that you've mentioned. That would be merely > more of the same of what we have. There could be independent labs that > give the say so. There are organizations that, non-governmental as far > as I know, that will certify that herbs, and vegetables (still in the > herb family) are organic, or even that meat is organic. That would be > a minimum standard. The same thing could develop, and probably is > being developed although I don't know of it, to assure that a customer > is getting what it is said that he is buying. The customer wants his > goldenseal to be the root and not the leaf, and things like that. > Companies themselves do spectroscopic analysis, among other things, of > batches of herbs as they come in to assure themselves that they are > the herb that they are buying. But, on the other hand, it is still > common to buy Chinese herbs that are not what they say they are, or > because of the fact that an individual is a small customer, or even > new, he doesn't get the same standard herb as another already favored > customer does. If ordering whole parts of herbs (bulk herbs) one must > know from experience what he is buying or be able to have somebody > else check it out for him. > And, when a company gets a reputation of ripping people off, it needs > to be at least passed around that they did so. That way the good > companies will be utilized while the bad ones will lose their > business. > > Ed > > On May 29, 2005, at 2:30 PM, Charles Lytle wrote: > > > Even while it's important to recognize a built-in bias against > vitamins & supplements within the medical community and pharmaceutical > companies, this should not preclude us from realizing that there needs > to be oversight of the vitamin industry. > > How does the consumer know for sure that the dosages on the label are > the amounts actually included in the capsule, tablet, powder, etc? > > I've seen the results of random testing of vitamins and supplements > manufactured by a variety of companies which clearly indicate that > some unscrupulous businessmen are cheating their consumers by includng > less of the active ingredients than is printed on the labels. > > How can this type of unscrupulous behavior be monitored, and where is > the science which can verify the claims made by some manufacturers for > thier products? > > When you consider all of the vitamin companies which now have a > presence on the internet, how does one sort out the bad apples? At > present, I feel that my only option is to purchase my supplements from > well-known, and long-established manufacturerss such as Solgar, > TwinLab, Nartol, Nature's Plus etc. However, most of the public is > not even aware of this issue, and there needs to be a way to protect > the consumers' interests within this multi-billion dollar industry. > > 121 <121 wrote: > For complete story: http://doctoryourself.com/antivitamin.html > > Ten Ways to Spot Anti-Vitamin Biases in a Scientific Study > > 1. Where’s the beef? How much of the original study is quoted in the > media? Are you just getting factoids, or are data provided? Has the > journalist writing about the subject actually read the original > paper? > > > 2. What exactly was studied, and how? Was it an IN VITRO (test-tube) > study or an IN VIVO (animal) study? Was there a CLINICAL STUDY on > people, or is its application to real life a matter of conjecture? > > > 3. Follow the Money. Who paid for the study? Cash from food > processors, pharmaceutical giants, and other deep pockets decides what > gets studied, and how. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for > researchers to present findings that embarrass their financial > backers. Published research will often indicate sources of funding, > possibly at the end of the paper in an acknowledgements paragraph. If > not, correspondence addesses of principle authors are invariably > provided. Write and ask. > > > 4. Check the dosages. Any vitamin C study using less than 2,000 mg a > day is a waste of time. Any vitamin E study employing less than 400 > International Units (I.U.) is a waste of time. Any study using less > than 1,000 mg niacin a day is a waste of time. All low-dose studies > are set up to fail. Low doses of vitamins do not cure major diseases. > Large doses cure diseases. > > > 5. Check the form of supplement used. Was the vitamin used in the > study natural or synthetic? Any carotene study using the synthetic > form of beta-carotene only is a waste of time. Any vitamin E study > using the synthetic DL-alpha form is a waste of time. > > > 6. Use the Pauling Principle: read the entire study and interpret the > data for yourself. Do not rely on the summary and/or conclusions of > the study authors. As Linus Pauling pointed out repeatedly, many > researchers miss, or dismiss, the statistical significance of their > own work. Such behavior may be human error, or it may be politically > motivated. Beware of editorializing. > > > 7. Beware of Pauling-bashers. If a media article is critical about > twice Nobel prize-winning Linus Pauling, you can be confident it has > been spin-doctored. > > > 8. Watch for these throw-away slams against supplements: > > “You get all the vitamins you need form your daily diet.” > “Vitamins are dangerous if you take too many of them.” > “Excess vitamins are wasted.” > “More research is needed before supplements can be recommended.” > “There is no scientific support for large vitamin doses.” > > > 9. Watch for pontifical public recommendations at the end of the > article such as: > > " Vitamins can do some good things, but can do some bad things as > well. " > “You are better off not popping vitamin pills.” > “Just eat a balanced diet.” > “If you take vitamins, take no more than the US RDA.” > > > 10. Use the media backwards. The more headlines about a particular > study, the more politically charged the subject and the less likely > that the reporting, or the original study, is positive towards > vitamins. Negative news sells newspapers, and magazines, and gets > lots of viewers. Positive drug studies do get headlines, of course. > Positive vitamin studies do not. Is this a conspiracy? You mean with > shady people all sitting around a shaded table in a darkened back > room? Of course not. It is nevertheless an enormous public health > problem with enormous consequences. Consider what might be called > Saul’s Law of the Media: “Press and television coverage of a vitamin > study is inversely proportionate to the study’s clinical usefulness.” > In other words, the more media hoopla, the worse the research. Truly > valuable research does not scare people; it helps people get well. > There are over 3,000 scientific references at Doctor Yourself.com for > people who share in this goal. > > > Reprinted from the book FIRE YOUR DOCTOR, copyright 2001 and prior > years by Andrew Saul, Number 8 Van Buren Street, Holley, New York > 14470 USA Telephone (716) 638-5357 > > > > > «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§« > ¤»¥«¤» > > § - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! § > > Subscribe:......... - > To :.... - > > Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be > news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult > with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of > treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses. > **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, > any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use > without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest > in receiving the included information for non-profit research and > educational purposes only. > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml > > > > > ! > > > «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§« > ¤»¥«¤» > > § - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! § > > Subscribe:......... - > To :.... - > > Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be > news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult > with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of > treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses. > **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, > any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use > without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest > in receiving the included information for non-profit research and > educational purposes only. > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2005 Report Share Posted May 30, 2005 We need to keep a clear distinction between the adivisability and safety of taking nutritional supplements, and the larceny and thievery so many of us are tempted to engage in. People sell vitamin supplements, and people sell pharmaceuticals, and the tendency to rip off the public is no more likely to occur in one of these groups that it is in the other. Government, if it is government of all the people, and not government for the rich and powerful, will set up institutions that research and test supplements, with the same care they show in testing pharmaceuticals. We all know that nutritional supplements are vastly safer than pharmaceuticals, and should not be held to as stringent safety standards as are pharmaceutical drugs. But in those rare instances when nutritional supplements pose a real danger to health, there ought to be government standards that protect us from them. But in all other instances, and as long as government otherwise provides us with information relating to the potency and freshness of nutri-supplements, government should keep its nose out of our business. But we know it won't, because we know that, in spite of the great strides that "alternative" medicine has made in our country, pharmaceutical companies are still vastly more powerful, and can influence government to suppress our free access to alternative medicine and "vitamins;" and, not surprisingly, that's just what government is trying to do. JP - Charles Lytle Sunday, May 29, 2005 2:54 PM Re: Vitamin Bashers Exposed The herbal market, which seems to be the focus of your comments, is only a small segment ot the vitamin and supplement industry. I am addressing the fact that throughout what has become a massive business, there is no quality control, and no certification that the manufacturers are maintaining standards of production, and perfoming due diligence. As a consumer, I am very concerned about the quality, and quantity of the product I am ingesting, particularly if I am using a product because of health issues. Some of the large manufacturers should establish and support a regulatory institution which tests and certifies the quality of the products. The consumer should at the very minimum have the benefit of knowing which companies' products have been examined and verified for quality and quantity. This issue needs to be addressed, because there has been a proliferation of companies on the internet which sell supplements.Ed Siceloff <siceloff wrote: Hope that you are not saying that we need a governmental institution to regulate the issues that you've mentioned. That would be merely more of the same of what we have. There could be independent labs that give the say so. There are organizations that, non-governmental as far as I know, that will certify that herbs, and vegetables (still in the herb family) are organic, or even that meat is organic. That would be a minimum standard. The same thing could develop, and probably is being developed although I don't know of it, to assure that a customer is getting what it is said that he is buying. The customer wants his goldenseal to be the root and not the leaf, and things like that. Companies themselves do spectroscopic analysis, among other things, of batches of herbs as they come in to assure themselves that they are the herb that they are buying. But, on the other hand, it is still common to buy Chinese herbs that are not what they say they are, or because of the fact that an individual is a small customer, or even new, he doesn't get the same standard herb as another already favored customer does. If ordering whole parts of herbs (bulk herbs) one must know from experience what he is buying or be able to have somebody else check it out for him.And, when a company gets a reputation of ripping people off, it needs to be at least passed around that they did so. That way the good companies will be utilized while the bad ones will lose their business.EdOn May 29, 2005, at 2:30 PM, Charles Lytle wrote:> Even while it's important to recognize a built-in bias against > vitamins & supplements within the medical community and pharmaceutical > companies, this should not preclude us from realizing that there needs > to be oversight of the vitamin industry.> > How does the consumer know for sure that the dosages on the label are > the amounts actually included in the capsule, tablet, powder, etc?> > I've seen the results of random testing of vitamins and supplements > manufactured by a variety of companies which clearly indicate that > some unscrupulous businessmen are cheating their consumers by includng > less of the active ingredients than is printed on the labels.> > How can this type of unscrupulous behavior be monitored, and where is > the science which can verify the claims made by some manufacturers for > thier products?> > When you consider all of the vitamin companies which now have a > presence on the internet, how does one sort out the bad apples? At > present, I feel that my only option is to purchase my supplements from > well-known, and long-established manufacturerss such as Solgar, > TwinLab, Nartol, Nature's Plus etc. However, most of the public is > not even aware of this issue, and there needs to be a way to protect > the consumers' interests within this multi-billion dollar industry.>> 121 <121 wrote:> For complete story: http://doctoryourself.com/antivitamin.html > > Ten Ways to Spot Anti-Vitamin Biases in a Scientific Study>> 1. Where’s the beef? How much of the original study is quoted in the > media? Are you just getting factoids, or are data provided? Has the > journalist writing about the subject actually read the original > paper? > >> 2. What exactly was studied, and how? Was it an IN VITRO (test-tube) > study or an IN VIVO (animal) study? Was there a CLINICAL STUDY on > people, or is its application to real life a matter of conjecture?> >> 3. Follow the Money. Who paid for the study? Cash from food > processors, pharmaceutical giants, and other deep pockets decides what > gets studied, and how. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for > researchers to present findings that embarrass their financial > backers. Published research will often indicate sources of funding, > possibly at the end of the paper in an acknowledgements paragraph. If > not, correspondence addesses of principle authors are invariably > provided. Write and ask.> >> 4. Check the dosages. Any vitamin C study using less than 2,000 mg a > day is a waste of time. Any vitamin E study employing less than 400 > International Units (I.U.) is a waste of time. Any study using less > than 1,000 mg niacin a day is a waste of time. All low-dose studies > are set up to fail. Low doses of vitamins do not cure major diseases. > Large doses cure diseases.> >> 5. Check the form of supplement used. Was the vitamin used in the > study natural or synthetic? Any carotene study using the synthetic > form of beta-carotene only is a waste of time. Any vitamin E study > using the synthetic DL-alpha form is a waste of time.> >> 6. Use the Pauling Principle: read the entire study and interpret the > data for yourself. Do not rely on the summary and/or conclusions of > the study authors. As Linus Pauling pointed out repeatedly, many > researchers miss, or dismiss, the statistical significance of their > own work. Such behavior may be human error, or it may be politically > motivated. Beware of editorializing.> >> 7. Beware of Pauling-bashers. If a media article is critical about > twice Nobel prize-winning Linus Pauling, you can be confident it has > been spin-doctored.> >> 8. Watch for these throw-away slams against supplements:>> “You get all the vitamins you need form your daily diet.”> “Vitamins are dangerous if you take too many of them.”> “Excess vitamins are wasted.”> “More research is needed before supplements can be recommended.”> “There is no scientific support for large vitamin doses.”> >> 9. Watch for pontifical public recommendations at the end of the > article such as: >> "Vitamins can do some good things, but can do some bad things as well."> “You are better off not popping vitamin pills.”> “Just eat a balanced diet.”> “If you take vitamins, take no more than the US RDA.”> >> 10. Use the media backwards. The more headlines about a particular > study, the more politically charged the subject and the less likely > that the reporting, or the original study, is positive towards > vitamins. Negative news sells newspapers, and magazines, and gets > lots of viewers. Positive drug studies do get headlines, of course. > Positive vitamin studies do not. Is this a conspiracy? You mean with > shady people all sitting around a shaded table in a darkened back > room? Of course not. It is nevertheless an enormous public health > problem with enormous consequences. Consider what might be called > Saul’s Law of the Media: “Press and television coverage of a vitamin > study is inversely proportionate to the study’s clinical usefulness.” > In other words, the more media hoopla, the worse the research. Truly > valuable research does not scare people; it helps people get well. > There are over 3,000 scientific references at Doctor Yourself.com for > people who share in this goal.> >> Reprinted from the book FIRE YOUR DOCTOR, copyright 2001 and prior > years by Andrew Saul, Number 8 Van Buren Street, Holley, New York > 14470 USA Telephone (716) 638-5357> >>> «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§« > ¤»¥«¤»>> § - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §> > Subscribe:......... - > To :.... - >> Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be > news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult > with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of > treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.> **COPYRIGHT NOTICE**> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,> any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use > without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest > in receiving the included information for non-profit research and > educational purposes only. > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml >>>> > !>> «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§« > ¤»¥«¤»>> § - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §> > Subscribe:......... - > To :.... - >> Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be > news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult > with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of > treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.> **COPYRIGHT NOTICE**> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,> any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use > without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest > in receiving the included information for non-profit research and > educational purposes only. > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml >>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2005 Report Share Posted May 30, 2005 I'm afraid you've missed an important point; and that is that government is as responsible as we expect and require it to be. We're ultimately to blame for the tyrants, whores and fools that occupy our high government offices. JP - Ed Siceloff Monday, May 30, 2005 6:35 AM Re: Vitamin Bashers Exposed When you desire to have government regulate, they always regulate for the corporate interests they represent. Thus you have the problem. The problem of no regulation of vitamins will be dealt with by giving the manufacture of vitamins over to pharmaceutical companies, and making only those valid. Which is probably the way it is already anyways. I've read several times that all the vitamins that are manufactured are truly manufactured by 7 different pharmaceutical companies located in various countries. Doesn't matter from whom you buy them, they come from the same group of 7. Of course, vitamins present in food supplements are not manufactured in that way. Governmental agencies seldom act in responsible manner. They are held responsible to the industry that they regulate, for the sake of the particular industry's profits. The agencies all operate for the benefits of the corporations officers who sit on the agency boards. Thus the agencies all operate in such a fashion that they protect the interests of the status quo of the various corporations in such a way that they eliminate competition for the status quo. Better corporations, with better vitamins, are thus made to expensive to operate. Better pharmaceuticals are thus eliminated. This function is better left to the market. It is costly, but ends up better. The companies with poor products are driven out of business rather than a status quo being protected. Your key word is "responsible." I think you imagining things when you think of government being responsible to you.EdOn May 29, 2005, at 6:33 PM, John Polifronio wrote: I don't care how much the government gets involved with the "regulation" of supplements; if by regulation, is meant that the quality and integrity of supplement companies is maintained and assured. I certainly want to know if the quantities of a supplement as listed on the container, corresponds to the reality of what I get when I buy it. I also would expect the government to fund extensive, ongoing studies to determine efficacy and safety. I would want expiration dates as well, to assure freshness. What seems to worry many supplements purchasers, is not regulation, but interference with our right to supplements, efforts to promote the interests of pharmaceutical companies which often are competitive with food-based supplements, or are threatened by a radically different approach to illness prevention and therapy. This has nothing to do with regulation. Regulation is our freind. The worst vitamin companies don't want any regulation, because they're as bad as the worst pharmaceutical companies, and just want to rip off the public. What we need is responsible regulation, by responsible government agencies. In fact, I insist on it, but have no expectation of getting it. I want regulatory agencies that listen to the findings of responsible testing labs and professionals. I want regulatory agencies that look at "all" the objective testing available on supplements, not just the testing that puts supplements in an unfavorable light, and permits the government to appear to be able to justify suppressing and curtailing our free access to supplements. I want a government that looks beyond testing, to traditions that have been with us for hundreds or even thousands of years, particularly if there is no realiable evidence that the substances under scrutiny, when used by humans for therapy, or in their diets, have no clear and demonstrable health-destroying side effects. I expect government to take so called responsible anecdotal reports from supplements users into account, in forming official views of natural supplements, herbs, etc. Finally, with the exception of "clear" evidence (not trumped up or biased reports intended to confuse and deceive the public) that any of the various substances available from vitamin and herb companies are harmful to health, I expect government to simply mind its own business. We're allowed to smoke cigarettes without government interference and to drink booze, we certainly should be free to take vitamins. JP - Ed Siceloff Sunday, May 29, 2005 11:54 AM Re: Vitamin Bashers Exposed Hope that you are not saying that we need a governmental institution to regulate the issues that you've mentioned. That would be merely more of the same of what we have. There could be independent labs that give the say so. There are organizations that, non-governmental as far as I know, that will certify that herbs, and vegetables (still in the herb family) are organic, or even that meat is organic. That would be a minimum standard. The same thing could develop, and probably is being developed although I don't know of it, to assure that a customer is getting what it is said that he is buying. The customer wants his goldenseal to be the root and not the leaf, and things like that. Companies themselves do spectroscopic analysis, among other things, of batches of herbs as they come in to assure themselves that they are the herb that they are buying. But, on the other hand, it is still common to buy Chinese herbs that are not what they say they are, or because of the fact that an individual is a small customer, or even new, he doesn't get the same standard herb as another already favored customer does. If ordering whole parts of herbs (bulk herbs) one must know from experience what he is buying or be able to have somebody else check it out for him. And, when a company gets a reputation of ripping people off, it needs to be at least passed around that they did so. That way the good companies will be utilized while the bad ones will lose their business.EdOn May 29, 2005, at 2:30 PM, Charles Lytle wrote:Even while it's important to recognize a built-in bias against vitamins & supplements within the medical community and pharmaceutical companies, this should not preclude us from realizing that there needs to be oversight of the vitamin industry. How does the consumer know for sure that the dosages on the label are the amounts actually included in the capsule, tablet, powder, etc? I've seen the results of random testing of vitamins and supplements manufactured by a variety of companies which clearly indicate that some unscrupulous businessmen are cheating their consumers by includng less of the active ingredients than is printed on the labels. How can this type of unscrupulous behavior be monitored, and where is the science which can verify the claims made by some manufacturers for thier products? When you consider all of the vitamin companies which now have a presence on the internet, how does one sort out the bad apples? At present, I feel that my only option is to purchase my supplements from well-known, and long-established manufacturerss such as Solgar, TwinLab, Nartol, Nature's Plus etc. However, most of the public is not even aware of this issue, and there needs to be a way to protect the consumers' interests within this multi-billion dollar industry.121 <121 wrote:For complete story: http://doctoryourself.com/antivitamin.html Ten Ways to Spot Anti-Vitamin Biases in a Scientific Study 1. Where’s the beef? How much of the original study is quoted in the media? Are you just getting factoids, or are data provided? Has the journalist writing about the subject actually read the original paper? 2. What exactly was studied, and how? Was it an IN VITRO (test-tube) study or an IN VIVO (animal) study? Was there a CLINICAL STUDY on people, or is its application to real life a matter of conjecture? 3. Follow the Money. Who paid for the study? Cash from food processors, pharmaceutical giants, and other deep pockets decides what gets studied, and how. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for researchers to present findings that embarrass their financial backers. Published research will often indicate sources of funding, possibly at the end of the paper in an acknowledgements paragraph. If not, correspondence addesses of principle authors are invariably provided. Write and ask. 4. Check the dosages. Any vitamin C study using less than 2,000 mg a day is a waste of time. Any vitamin E study employing less than 400 International Units (I.U.) is a waste of time. Any study using less than 1,000 mg niacin a day is a waste of time. All low-dose studies are set up to fail. Low doses of vitamins do not cure major diseases. Large doses cure diseases. 5. Check the form of supplement used. Was the vitamin used in the study natural or synthetic? Any carotene study using the synthetic form of beta-carotene only is a waste of time. Any vitamin E study using the synthetic DL-alpha form is a waste of time. 6. Use the Pauling Principle: read the entire study and interpret the data for yourself. Do not rely on the summary and/or conclusions of the study authors. As Linus Pauling pointed out repeatedly, many researchers miss, or dismiss, the statistical significance of their own work. Such behavior may be human error, or it may be politically motivated. Beware of editorializing. 7. Beware of Pauling-bashers. If a media article is critical about twice Nobel prize-winning Linus Pauling, you can be confident it has been spin-doctored. 8. Watch for these throw-away slams against supplements: “You get all the vitamins you need form your daily diet.”“Vitamins are dangerous if you take too many of them.”“Excess vitamins are wasted.”“More research is needed before supplements can be recommended.”“There is no scientific support for large vitamin doses.” 9. Watch for pontifical public recommendations at the end of the article such as: "Vitamins can do some good things, but can do some bad things as well."“You are better off not popping vitamin pills.”“Just eat a balanced diet.”“If you take vitamins, take no more than the US RDA.” 10. Use the media backwards. The more headlines about a particular study, the more politically charged the subject and the less likely that the reporting, or the original study, is positive towards vitamins. Negative news sells newspapers, and magazines, and gets lots of viewers. Positive drug studies do get headlines, of course. Positive vitamin studies do not. Is this a conspiracy? You mean with shady people all sitting around a shaded table in a darkened back room? Of course not. It is nevertheless an enormous public health problem with enormous consequences. Consider what might be called Saul’s Law of the Media: “Press and television coverage of a vitamin study is inversely proportionate to the study’s clinical usefulness.” In other words, the more media hoopla, the worse the research. Truly valuable research does not scare people; it helps people get well. There are over 3,000 scientific references at Doctor Yourself.com for people who share in this goal. Reprinted from the book FIRE YOUR DOCTOR, copyright 2001 and prior years by Andrew Saul, Number 8 Van Buren Street, Holley, New York 14470 USA Telephone (716) 638-5357 «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Do You ? !«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.