What is going on in the US???!!!WTF

Iron Warrior

Iron Warrior

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
God damn stupid John McCain and equally as stupid Orrin Hatch used this very argument to start the whole ball rolling on banning PH's and spending my tax dollars enforcing MLB rules for hells sake. It makes me sick.
Further proof that we're ruled by a bunch of incompetent and spineless fags who will sell their soul to satan for votes. They do everything in the name of the children and all their arguments start with "what about the children ?" That's a big keyword that they're about to spew some massive amounts of BS at the people. They ought to stop trying to save us from ourselves. I hope McCain never even gets to be the Vice President.
 
fatsuperman

fatsuperman

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
I've seen these dire posts for years! I've heard that same stuff for decades in print!

It won't happen, the mainstream supplement companies have a strong lobbying arm.
 
slow-mun

slow-mun

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
God damn stupid John McCain and equally as stupid Orrin Hatch used this very argument to start the whole ball rolling on banning PH's and spending my tax dollars enforcing MLB rules for hells sake. It makes me sick.
This is more accurate.

The year 2004 was marked by two major FDA actions concerning dietary supplements. The first occurred on Feb. 6, 2004 when FDA published a final rule prohibiting the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids (ephedra). The second was initiated on March 11, 2004 when HHS (Health and Human Services department, FDA is part of HHS) Secretary Tommy G. Thompson announced a crackdown on companies that manufacture, market and distribute products containing androstenedione, or, "andro," which acts like a steroid once it is metabolized by the body and therefore may pose similar kinds of health risks as steroids.

Secretary Thompson encouraged Congress to pass legislation sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch and Joe Biden in the Senate and Reps. James Sensenbrenner, John Sweeney and John Conyers, Jr. in the House that would classify andro-containing products as a controlled substance. Such legislation would enable the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to regulate these types of products as anabolic steroids under the Controlled Substances Act.
McCain kind of just rode the wave. I'm not necessarily clearing him in all of this. I just don't want my hate for Joe Biden to go unnoticed.
 
neoborn

neoborn

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I can't really say either way :) I don't work at the FDA, so I can't tell why what is done. Attempting to assign motivations to somewhere else is just idle mental games. I can't tell why my wife or kids do some of the things they do either. When I start to say "they must have done it because _____ " all I am doing is mirroring my own feelings onto them, what I would do in their situation. The FDA isn't one person either, so its motivations are even harder to guess.

But I am more comfortable with my supplements having more ingredient testing and documentation than having less.
Actions speak louder than words Easy, just watch what they do and have done. You should be able to come to some conclusion there. The fence is uncomfortable.

They speak and act as a group, you judge the group by what they do or don't do.

Here's information you're not supposed to know about the FDA. It was uncovered through a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request that uncovered a 2002 Human and Health Services survey asking FDA scientists questions about the agency. Their answers reveal an astonishing lack of confidence at the Fraud and Drug Administration, not to mention the bullying of scientists by FDA bureaucrats to get drugs approved even though they were dangerous. Let's take a closer look at the results of this survey.

The survey involved 846 FDA scientists with a near-50% participation rate. Of those who responded, 66% said they lacked confidence in the agency's ability to "adequately monitor the safety of prescription drugs once they are on the market." That's two-thirds of the scientists. This is interesting because Dr. David Graham, who is the most outspoken FDA scientist, had been singled out by the FDA as being a loose cannon, a sort of rogue scientist whose views were not widely accepted. But, as we see from the study, the vast majority of scientists within the agency heartily agree with Dr. David Graham.

Similarly, only 12% of the scientists surveyed were completely confident that the FDA labeling decisions adequately address safety concerns. That's only one out of 10 scientists. Similarly, only 13% of the scientists were confident that the FDA's final decisions adequately assess the safety of a drug. Why might this be the case? Nearly 60% of the scientists said they don't believe the FDA has enough time to conduct in depth science-based reviews of new drugs, and 48% said the FDA does not do enough to monitor and improve its drug assessment process. So what's really going on behind closed doors, it seems, is that FDA bureaucrats are rubber-stamping the approvals of dangerous drugs, silencing their own scientists and then failing to adequately monitor those drugs once they're released to the market. And this isn't something that outside critics are saying, it's something that even the FDA's own scientists are saying! But the picture gets even worse.

Nearly 1 in 5 scientists, 18%, said that they have "been pressured to approve or recommend approval" for drugs that they thought weren't proven safe. This means the FDA bureaucrats have been leaning on scientists to approve dangerous drugs. And that's why we are seeing scandals in the marketplace like COX-2 inhibitors, antidepressant drugs, statin drugs and all sorts of other drugs that are now known to cause dangerous -- even deadly -- side effects, and yet have been promoted and defended by the FDA for years. And when those drugs are found to be a chemical catastrophe, killing literally hundreds of thousands of American citizens, the FDA just holds a rigged hearing where so-called "neutral" panel members (who actually have strong financial ties to drug companies) quickly vote the dangerous drugs back onto the marketplace. It's all a charade.

What all this shows is that the FDA has gone out of its way to protect the financial interests of drug companies. It has gone out of its way to silence its own scientists who are critical of the agency's drug safety review process. It has gone out of its way to bury evidence proving that these drugs are dangerous and yet at the same time discredit nutritional supplements, herbal medicine, vitamins and other natural strategies for preventing chronic disease and boosting health. In fact, the whole environment at the Fraud and Drug Administration is that of oppression... and suppression of scientific evidence. 21% of the scientists surveyed felt that the work environment at the FDA offered little or no room for dissent. Half of those surveyed said that scientific dissent was allowed only "to some extent." And a whopping 83% of the scientists surveyed felt the agency does not have adequate procedures in place to address scientific disagreements to a great extent.

Well, of course they don't! Because when the agency works to censor scientists, shut them up and discredit them when they go public, that is certainly not an environment that's conducive to scientists telling the truth about dangerous drugs. If you worked at the FDA, would you? How long would you zip your lips just to keep your job? (Apparently, Dr. David Graham got tired of the game and decided to blow the whistle.)

What's the upshot of this survey finding? It's yet more evidence backing up my long-standing condemnations of the FDA as a mob-like drug racket agency that distorts the truth, lies to the public, defends dangerous prescription drugs, works to promote the financial interests of pharmaceutical companies and essentially ends up killing hundreds of thousands of Americans each year because of its unwillingness to perform its regulatory mission. This survey also reveals that it is not entirely accurate to speak of the FDA as one single-minded organization. In fact, there is a great rift at the FDA -- it is the scientists versus the FDA bureaucrats. The highly paid bureaucrats who have ties to the pharmaceutical industry and who have the political power to override the voices of the scientists are currently in charge. That's why when Dr. David Graham testified before the Senate and finally went public with the truth about the dangers of these prescription drugs, he was congratulated by his peers.

Meanwhile, other bureaucrats at the FDA threatened to discredit him; they even contacted a whistleblower group that was offering protection for Dr. David Graham and sought to discredit his reputation with that group. Now they're threatening to transfer Dr. Graham to another job role so that he can no longer conduct his work on drug safety.

Are these the actions of an organization that's protecting the public health? Absolutely not! Only a truly insane person could look at this situation and say the FDA is doing its job. More accurately, the FDA is behaving like a criminal organization, and that's why I've called for a criminal investigation of the top decision makers at this agency. Through their negligence and deceit they have cost the lives of countless Americans. They have plotted to promote dangerous drugs while discrediting disease prevention alternatives such as nutritional supplements. They have attempted to destroy alternative health doctors and pioneering researchers who are finding genuine cures and treatments for chronic diseases.

This is a 1920s style Chicago mob mentality, and it's the agency that's running our drug safety program here in the United States. There have been people calling for change for decades: people like Dr. Sidney Wolfe of Public Citizen, Dr. Julian Whitaker, and now even the FDA's own scientists are going public with their information. Yet most of the politicians and bureaucrats running our country still don't have the courage to stand up and tell the truth, because that would mean losing the next election as drug company money disappears from their reelection campaign funds. Drug companies have a financial stranglehold on the political process in this country, and they know it.

Even the press is biting its tongue on telling the truth about the FDA. Why aren't mainstream journalists willing to use accurate words to describe the criminality of this behavior? We don't have to be politically correct in our word choice about the FDA when there are peoples' lives at stake. These are criminal behaviors and the people responsible for these behaviors deserve to be prosecuted as criminals just like any other group that causes the death of hundreds of thousands of people. If they were terrorists, we'd be bombing them into oblivion. But since it's the FDA, we somehow let it slide. In fact, FDA-approved drugs have killed hundreds of times as many Americans as all terrorist acts combined. Consider that sobering statistic for a moment... If you thought Saddam Hussein was dangerous, just take a glance at the Death By Medicine research report showing 750,000+ Americans killed annually by conventional medicine and FDA-approved drugs.

It is clearly time to reform the FDA. We should fire the bureaucrats and put scientists like Dr. David Graham in charge. These are people who are honest, courageous, willing to tell the truth and well-schooled in studying drug safety. Now they may not agree with everything I'm saying about the dangers of prescription drugs -- many of these scientists would say there are some drugs that are perfectly safe. But that's okay. We don't have to agree on everything, but we do have to stop the current madness in the top ranks of the FDA. I'd be happy as a camper just to see the FDA return to its original job of protecting the public. We could easily save over 100 lives a day if the FDA were forced to do its job again.

You can help make a difference. What kind of action can you take? You can write your Congressperson or Senator and let them know your feelings about the FDA. Let them know you're tired of being a guinea pig, you're tired of the deception and you want honesty restored to the Fraud and Drug Administration so that future generations can actually have safe foods and drugs rather than a collection of over-hyped products that quite literally kill people by the thousands.

Today we have a nation paying billions of dollars in health care and prescription drugs and getting absolutely nothing in return for it other than skyrocketing rates of every chronic disease you can name. That's why it's called a drug racket. It's the biggest con ever perpetrated on the American people, and the FDA is the mob boss running the racket. The U.S. government eventually brought down Al Capone, but can it achieve the same law enforcement victory at the FDA? Perhaps the Department of Justice will get more involved as the body count rises here in the United States.

Personally, I'm just curious to watch how long the American people will put up with this game. As an observer, I find all this a fascinating experiment in how easy it is for health authorities to program the people to believe practically anything, including: "these drugs that are killing you are actually good for you."

It's just like watching rats in a maze, and the FDA just moved the cheese again.
When pharmacists tell the truth (comic)

http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/261/Collins,_Elisabeth.pdf

Pat Sullivan Blog: "Fight for your Health: Exposing the FDA's betrayal of America"
 

AM07

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
What it comes down to is big pharma wanting to completely control the drug and supplement market.

Who do you think is one of the biggest taxpayers to the government? BIG PHARMA.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Actions speak louder than words Easy, just watch what they do and have done. You should be able to come to some conclusion there. The fence is uncomfortable.

They speak and act as a group, you judge the group by what they do or don't do.



When pharmacists tell the truth (comic)

http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/261/Collins,_Elisabeth.pdf

Pat Sullivan Blog: "Fight for your Health: Exposing the FDA's betrayal of America"
I'm still confused by your point. You were previously saying that the FDA should stay out of certifying that products are safe, but here are complaining that they are getting approval when the scientists aren't comfortable there has been enough testing? I mean which is it, should they be staying out of it or forcing rigorous testing and not allowing products to be sold without 100% proof? seems (like to me appears often withj conspiracy theorists) that you can demonize them either way, and use any activity of theirs to support the conspiracy theory.

I probably could find some similar way to "prove" that the nobel prize committee is involved in a conspiracy to destroy all brown people on the planet.
 
Brian5225

Brian5225

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
The point is the corruption found in the FDA. A simple search finds all kinds of information. And it's not necessarily a conspiracy theory, it's evidence to a corrupt government agency. If corruption is conspiracy, then we're surrounded.
 
Brian5225

Brian5225

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
I've been doing a lot of research and so far most all of any support for the FDA that I have found has been funded by either the FDA itself, other government run pharmaceutical or medical companies. But on the other hand there is a myriad of articles showing evidence of corruption and either pushing reform or abolishment.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Conspiracy
an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
I think we are surrounded. i can't think of a business that isn't filled with corruption of one form or another.
 
T-Bone

T-Bone

Banned
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
CVS Pharmacy one of the largest licensed drug retailers has had many instances where they have sold fake drugs. This is usually kept quiet but it has occured and has been going on for the last 7 or so years.

The simple point is that you are not as safe as you think you are when you purchase products that are suppose to be distributed under the FDA's "watchful" eye.

And you are even less safe when you purchase a supplement which is completely unregulated!.
 
Brian5225

Brian5225

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Not necessarily. Think about how many drugs have been passed by the FDA and have killed many many people. Even reports showing the FDA disregarded scientific evidence to the problems with the drugs. I'd say we're not the safest especiallywith the FDA in power.
 

AM07

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Like I mentioned earlier, the FDA is a bureaucracy, plain and simple. Thousands upon thousands of people have died while waiting for medicines that were "in testing" according to the FDA. Let a private company take over testing and regulations, and things will run MUCH more smoothly.
 
suncloud

suncloud

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
the FDA has NO IDEA what they are doing. this year, a congressman (i forget which) is trying to ban DHEA, even though no deaths have ever been reported from use. He wants big pharma to have the rights to manufacture it. YAY. I want to know how its possibly safer to have big pharma make this product. Viagra and Cialis kill about 4-6 people a year, but they're not banned. why should we trust the FDA to do anything right at this point? i mean, the did give us ephedra too. maybe they should concentrate on things that matter, like updating the dietary requirements of vitamins and food, now that we have to contend with hormones in our meat.
the reason i'm complaining is simple. we have lost iron in our diet. why? how did iron start coming out of our diet? its because we no longer use cast iron skillets when we cook, like we did in the 50's. why don't they see how much vitamins you need to combat the lack of nutrients we're getting from hormone altered meat, or DDT (that was banned in the USA) being used in china and india to treat their tea farms. yay green tea..... i wish they'd test stuff that mattered instead of going on a rampage targeting small businesses.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Let a private company take over testing and regulations, and things will run MUCH more smoothly.
What sort of magic would make one organization run by people any less self centered and corrupt than another?
 

AM07

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
What sort of magic would make one organization run by people any less self centered and corrupt than another?
Because a private company has a REPUTATION to uphold. For example, if a company provides a great product, people are going to buy it, thus contributing to our economy and helping that company out by driving profits, thus that company may come out with more products that we can use, i.e. RPN, AN, PAL, ON, PrimaForce, etc.

Now, if this same company releases products that hurt people or don't produce any results, people are going to start straying away from them, thus reducing profits, leading to the company not being able to make new products, resulting in the firing of employees just to make a slight profit, and the end result happens to be the closing of that company, i.e. tons of supplement companies throughout the years.

With government, they can't be sued successfully for the most part. They are immune to many laws that the private sector have to abide by. Mny employees in the government are incompetent. If you don't produce in the private sector, you're done. This results in more efficiency. In the government, you don't produce and they want to fire you, they have to go through a lot of hoops in order to justify the firing, a lot of PC bull**** basically, thus making the government less efficient.

This is why I don't ****ing understand how anyone can want to turn over huge issues like health care over to the government.

I know some really good people that work in the government, in fact, family members and relatives. But they worked really hard to get to where they are in life. Not everyone that works in the government is lazy, I've worked for the feds before and I don't consider myself lazy. Ok, maybe sometimes :)
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Because a private company has a REPUTATION to uphold. For example, if a company provides a great product, people are going to buy it, thus contributing to our economy and helping that company out by driving profits, thus that company may come out with more products that we can use, i.e. RPN, AN, PAL, ON, PrimaForce, etc.

So do you mean private companies like the pharmacuetical companies that are running the FDA as puppets are the perfect candidate to take over the role entirely? These same pharma companies that some of the people here are claiming are killing patients by the thousands and twisting regulations, bribing the FDA officials are private companies with reputations to uphold. So again, i'm not sure how one group of people replacing another group of people somehow guarantees some different result.

I agree with you on the health care, that concept of universal health care in the US is totally chilling to me. From what I have seen over time, most of the people who say "I can't afford health insurance" somehow manage to afford beer, cigarettes, HBO, licensed nfl merchandise, world of warcraft accounts, etc.
 

AM07

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
So do you mean private companies like the pharmacuetical companies that are running the FDA as puppets are the perfect candidate to take over the role entirely? These same pharma companies that some of the people here are claiming are killing patients by the thousands and twisting regulations, bribing the FDA officials are private companies with reputations to uphold. So again, i'm not sure how one group of people replacing another group of people somehow guarantees some different result.

I agree with you on the health care, that concept of universal health care in the US is totally chilling to me. From what I have seen over time, most of the people who say "I can't afford health insurance" somehow manage to afford beer, cigarettes, HBO, licensed nfl merchandise, world of warcraft accounts, etc.

I believe there should be an independent company that tests all supplements that come out on to the market to determine if what's on the label is correct. But then there's the problem of some of the supplement companies bribing this company.

There is no 100% solution to this problem, or any other problem in the world. You just have to go with the best of them. I believe the best way to regulate the supplement industry would be to have all supps tested by the company, and then independently tested by another company to make sure the company isn't bull****ting.

For all we know, the ingredients in all of these supp companies that sell **** on here and other sites may be bogus, and may not have the right amounts as stated on the labels.
 
T-Bone

T-Bone

Banned
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I believe there should be an independent company that tests all supplements that come out on to the market to determine if what's on the label is correct. But then there's the problem of some of the supplement companies bribing this company.

There is no 100% solution to this problem, or any other problem in the world. You just have to go with the best of them. I believe the best way to regulate the supplement industry would be to have all supps tested by the company, and then independently tested by another company to make sure the company isn't bull****ting.

For all we know, the ingredients in all of these supp companies that sell **** on here and other sites may be bogus, and may not have the right amounts as stated on the labels.

This site is pretty good. I just found it, I think you have to pay to be a member and get info though,



http://www.consumerlab.com/
 
suncloud

suncloud

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Like I mentioned earlier, the FDA is a bureaucracy, plain and simple. Thousands upon thousands of people have died while waiting for medicines that were "in testing" according to the FDA. Let a private company take over testing and regulations, and things will run MUCH more smoothly.
hope they don't pick the scientists at MUSLETECH!
i agree though. pretty much anything is better than the schmucks running the FDA. gee. i wonder if they get paid by big pharma. does anyone find is suspicious that 3 studies have come out this year with testosterone curing type 2 diabetes, yet the government wants to ban it. big pharma can suck my left one imho.
 
jmh80

jmh80

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Dunno why all the huge posts in this thread rambling on.

Seems cut and dry to me.
2 things:
1) You get supplements cheaper with really no idea what is in them, or the purity. Easy to manufacture when no quality control system has to be in place.

2) You get supps that you know what is in them and the purity which costs more to manufacture - hence they are more expensive. (Using 6-sigma QC methods, for instance.)

(The more you tighten a tolerance on a specification on a product - the more expensive it is to manufacture.)
 
suncloud

suncloud

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
true, but it takes lots of small players out of business, and with stricter controls at the beginning, say goodbye to PH's. the FDA already issues a cease and desist to PH's that were great in their day; but if they test BEFORE its released, we'll never get anything that works. thats my thoughts.
 
drewh10987

drewh10987

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
true, but it takes lots of small players out of business, and with stricter controls at the beginning, say goodbye to PH's. the FDA already issues a cease and desist to PH's that were great in their day; but if they test BEFORE its released, we'll never get anything that works. thats my thoughts.
Agreed. Good post.

It's not that I'm worried about taking potentially safer supplements. It's the fact that a lot of the companies I enjoy using products from are likely to be forced out of business, especially those companies that produce PH's.
 
jarhead

jarhead

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Another thing to consider is that the number of injuries or deaths resulting from tainted supplements is NOTHING compared to what has resulted from products under the fda's watch. Granted the industry has been poorly regulated and largely watches itself, but I fail to see the justification for this proposed action by the fda, especially when their motive cannot be safety. Where are the bodies to justify the need for potentially killing an industry?
 
somewhatgifted

somewhatgifted

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
List of causes
Group
[1] Cause Percent
of
deaths Deaths per 100,000 per year
Percent / All / Male / Female
– All causes 100.00 916.1 954.7 877.1
A Cardiovascular diseases 29.34 268.8 259.3 278.4
B Infectious and parasitic diseases 19.12 175.2 185.1 165.1
A.1 Ischemic heart disease 12.64 115.8 121.4 110.1
C Malignant neoplasms (cancers) 12.49 114.4 126.9 101.7
A.2 Cerebrovascular disease (Stroke) 9.66 88.5 81.4 95.6
B.1 Respiratory infections 6.95 63.7 63.5 63.8
B.1.1 Lower respiratory tract infections 6.81 62.4 62.2 62.6
D Respiratory diseases 6.49 59.5 61.1 57.9
E Unintentional injuries 6.23 57.0 73.7 40.2
B.2 HIV/AIDS 4.87 44.6 46.2 43.0
D.1 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 4.82 44.1 45.1 43.1
– Perinatal conditions 4.32 39.6 43.7 35.4
F Digestive diseases 3.45 31.6 34.9 28.2
B.3 Diarrheal diseases 3.15 28.9 30.0 27.8
G Intentional injuries (suicide, murder, war, etc.) 2.84 26.0 37.0 14.9
B.4 Tuberculosis 2.75 25.2 32.9 17.3
B.5 Malaria 2.23 20.4 19.4 21.5
C.1 Lung cancers 2.18 20.0 28.4 11.4
E.1 Road traffic accidents 2.09 19.1 27.8 10.4
B.6 Childhood diseases 1.97 18.1 18.0 18.2
H Neuropsychiatric disorders 1.95 17.9 18.4 17.3
– Diabetes mellitus 1.73 15.9 14.1 17.7
A.3 Hypertensive heart disease 1.60 14.6 13.4 15.9
G.1 Suicide 1.53 14.0 17.4 10.6
C.2 Stomach cancer 1.49 13.7 16.7 10.5
I Diseases of the genitourinary system 1.49 13.6 14.1 13.1
F.1 Cirrhosis of the liver 1.38 12.6 16.1 9.1
I.1 Nephritis/nephropathy 1.19 10.9 11.0 10.7
C.3 Colorectal cancer 1.09 10.0 10.3 9.7
C.4 Liver cancer 1.08 9.9 13.6 6.2
B.6.1 Measles 1.07 9.8 9.8 9.9
G.2 Violence 0.98 9.0 14.2 3.7
– Maternal conditions 0.89 8.2 0.0 16.5
– Congenital abnormalities 0.86 7.9 8.1 7.7
J Nutritional deficiencies 0.85 7.8 6.9 8.7
C.5 Breast cancer 0.84 7.7 0.1 15.3
C.6 Esophageal cancer 0.78 7.2 9.1 5.2
A.4 Inflammatory heart disease 0.71 6.5 6.7 6.2
H.1 Alzheimer's disease and other dementias 0.70 6.4 4.7 8.1
E.2 Falls 0.69 6.3 7.5 5.0
E.3 Drowning 0.67 6.1 8.4 3.9
E.4 Poisoning 0.61 5.6 7.2 4.0
C.7 Lymphomas, multiple myeloma 0.59 5.4 5.4 5.4
A.5 Rheumatic heart disease 0.57 5.3 4.4 6.1
C.8 Oral cancers and oropharynx cancers 0.56 5.1 7.1 3.1
E.5 Fires 0.55 5.0 3.8 6.2
B.6.2 Pertussis 0.52 4.7 4.7 4.8
C.9 Prostate cancer 0.47 4.3 8.6 0.0
C.10 Leukemia 0.46 4.2 4.7 3.8
F.2 Peptic ulcer disease 0.46 4.2 5.0 3.5
J.1 Protein-energy malnutrition 0.46 4.2 4.2 4.2
– Endocrine/nutritional disorders 0.43 3.9 3.4 4.4
D.2 Asthma 0.42 3.9 3.9 3.8
C.11 Cervical cancer 0.42 3.8 0.0 7.7
C.12 Pancreatic cancer 0.41 3.7 3.9 3.5
B.6.3 Tetanus 0.38 3.4 3.4 3.5
B.7 Sexually transmitted diseases excluding HIV 0.32 2.9 2.9 2.9
C.13 Bladder cancer 0.31 2.9 4.0 1.7
B.8 Meningitis 0.30 2.8 2.9 2.7
G.3 War 0.30 2.8 5.0 0.5
B.7.1 Syphilis 0.28 2.5 2.7 2.3
– Neoplasms other than malignant 0.26 2.4 2.4 2.4
J.2 Iron deficiency anemia 0.24 2.2 1.5 2.9
C.14 Ovarian cancer 0.24 2.2 0.0 4.4
B.9 Tropical diseases 0.23 2.1 2.5 1.6
H.2 Epilepsy 0.22 2.0 2.2 1.8
– Musculoskeletal diseases 0.19 1.7 1.2 2.2
B.10 Hepatitis B 0.18 1.7 2.3 1.0
H.3 Parkinson's disease 0.17 1.6 1.6 1.6
H.4 Alcohol use disorders 0.16 1.5 2.5 0.4
H.5 Drug use disorders 0.15 1.4 2.2 0.5
B.1.2 Upper respiratory infections 0.13 1.2 1.2 1.2
C.15 Uterine cancer 0.12 1.1 0.0 2.3
– Skin diseases 0.12 1.1 0.8 1.4
C.16 Melanoma and other skin cancers 0.12 1.1 1.1 1.0
B.11 Hepatitis C 0.09 0.9 1.1 0.6
B.9.1 Leishmaniasis 0.09 0.8 1.0 0.7
B.9.2 Trypanosomiasis 0.08 0.8 1.0 0.5
I.2 Benign prostatic hyperplasia 0.06 0.5 1.0 0.0
Source: World Health Organization, 2004.

I can think of a few reasons why the FDA has "bigger fish to fry". It not so much about the validity of the claim and the need to regulate the supplement producing industry, rather, a very low priority issue that the people are poorly missrepresented by wasting time, money and resources to pursue above more pressing human concerns.
 

AM07

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Where are the bodies to justify the need for potentially killing an industry?
There aren't any bodies. It's just another example of big pharma wanting to get a piece of the pie because there's a huge market out there for it, and they ain't making any money from it.
 
nosnmiveins

nosnmiveins

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
the one thing i actually remember from high school was said by my junior history teacher...."EVERYTHING in our country revolves around $$$"

government just wants a piece....yeah well all i have to say to the FDA is :FUfinger:
 
ProAnabolics

ProAnabolics

Member
Awards
0
it's not about safer products, the fda wants more money, and that's their excuse and justification for it, **** the fda. everythings about money, sure things would be tested and "safer" but what's to test about creatine, protein, or No2 by now anyway, it's just another way to jack the price up cuz it had to be "tested."

that's some real bull****, and if that ever did happen, I'll be on the first flight to another country. right after i **** in a box and send it 1st day air to the fda's office with a note asking if it's approved for flushing.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Another thing to consider is that the number of injuries or deaths resulting from tainted supplements is NOTHING compared to what has resulted from products under the fda's watch.
How can you be sure? without there being a system in place to monitor and log it? Particularly if you DONT count the companies who already comply with this FDA ruling, and aren't negatively affected by it then compare it volume wise with pharmaceuticals sold.


Where are the bodies to justify the need for potentially killing an industry?
Its so strange in some ways (now that I am older) to see people ascribe motivations to companies/government groups. I felt the same way when I was younger, but as I got older I realized that its individual people and not groups that have motivations, and that I can never be sure what any individual person's motivation is unless they tell me. i guess a piece is having kids of my own (and trying to figure out why the hell they do the things they do). Another part is working in hugely complex software systems. I know its so easy from the outside to see a bug and say "it must be being caused by x" but in complex systems its rarely that simple.


Where are the bodies to justify the need for potentially killing an industry?
Where is there anything about killing an industry? They just are saying that "mom and pops" probably won't be able to comply in a cost effective way. So the very small companies may not be able to comply and offer the products cheaply. This just means bigger companies (like most of the sponsor companies on AM) are fine, and the really big ones like NOW, Puritans Pride, etc are also fine. Nothing to do with killing an industry.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
it's not about safer products, the fda wants more money, and that's their excuse and justification for it, **** the fda. everythings about money, sure things would be tested and "safer" but what's to test about creatine, protein, or No2 by now anyway, it's just another way to jack the price up cuz it had to be "tested."

that's some real bull****, and if that ever did happen, I'll be on the first flight to another country. right after i **** in a box and send it 1st day air to the fda's office with a note asking if it's approved for flushing.
The FDA isn't getting any money out of this, and they aren't testing anything. Its about requiring that the manufacturers test their raw materials, and have detailed logging and documentation of all steps of production, as well as for returns + customer complaints. And that the manufacturing facilities comply with certain other regulations. No money goes to the FDA for any of it.
 
strategicmove

strategicmove

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
...This just means bigger companies (like most of the sponsor companies on AM) are fine, ...
At their current sizes, probably. Still, most of these so-called "bigger companies" that are sponsors at AM also started rather small as a two-man show, or something similarly small...
 
jarhead

jarhead

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
]How can you be sure? without there being a system in place to monitor and log it? Particularly if you DONT count the companies who already comply with this FDA ruling, and aren't negatively affected by it then compare it volume wise with pharmaceuticals sold.
Uh, actually there is a system to monitor the causes of people's injuries and deaths. And no supplement co's are complying with a ruling that is not in effect yet. The injuries and deaths from fda approved products are well documented, which was my point.



Its so strange in some ways (now that I am older) to see people ascribe motivations to companies/government groups. I felt the same way when I was younger, but as I got older I realized that its individual people and not groups that have motivations, and that I can never be sure what any individual person's motivation is unless they tell me. i guess a piece is having kids of my own (and trying to figure out why the hell they do the things they do). Another part is working in hugely complex software systems. I know its so easy from the outside to see a bug and say "it must be being caused by x" but in complex systems its rarely that simple.
Age has nothing to do with it, you're only a couple of years older than me. I also have kids. I am not assuming or ascribing anything to the fda. For christ sake, at times they had been caught having committee members employed by pharmaceutical co's and have had over 50% of their operations funded by the pharm co's. It is WELL documented that the fda has acted with the pharm co's best interest in mind at times and americans have paid for it, some with their lives. This is not some "conspiracy theory". The fda has proven that their motive is not the the health and welfare of the american people.



Where is there anything about killing an industry? They just are saying that "mom and pops" probably won't be able to comply in a cost effective way. So the very small companies may not be able to comply and offer the products cheaply. This just means bigger companies (like most of the sponsor companies on AM) are fine, and the really big ones like NOW, Puritans Pride, etc are also fine. Nothing to do with killing an industry.
[/QUOTE] "Mom and pop's" is a misleading phrase. We are talking about small companies PRODUCING the supplements, not a mom and pop retail store. How can you view wiping out smaller companies leaving a few big ones to share the market good? And there is no way to tell how high up the food chain this will go. At one point drug co's were paying upwards of 500,000 grand to get products approved. Not saying this will apply at all, just an example of how they run things. 80% of their resources are geared toward drug approval-5% for safety.There is also no burden of proof on the fda. They ALREADY have been censoring what co's can claim about their products for years. That is why even products that have proven healthful effects, complete with evidence, cannot claim so. They live under the rule that if something can cure disease it is labeled a drug. They won't let makers of a cherry extract say that it has anti-inflammatory properties regardless of the evidence, yet they approved a drug that killed over 20000 people. Where does the motive lie in that?
 
jarhead

jarhead

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
The FDA isn't getting any money out of this, and they aren't testing anything. Its about requiring that the manufacturers test their raw materials, and have detailed logging and documentation of all steps of production, as well as for returns + customer complaints. And that the manufacturing facilities comply with certain other regulations. No money goes to the FDA for any of it.
Wrong. There will be user fees paid by the supplement co's just as there are by drug companies. Their stamp of approval has it's cost. There already were guidelines for manufacturing. There also already is a system in place to report adverse effects or problems with a supplement. The fda's Medwatch program MedWatch Home Page. This covers, food, drugs as well as dietary supplements. This is not new. This new legislation is not warranted or needed as written.
 
Iron Warrior

Iron Warrior

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
EasyEJL: You certainly have good points but you should also remember that companies which started out as small have made some of the more innovative products in the industry. Avant Labs, Ergopharm, Applied Nutraceuticals, etc. weren't huge companies and their only shot at being competitive was to make great products. If you shut down these smaller companies then we're taking away from the industry. Most of the big companies don't have a huge need for bringing innovative products to the arena.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
EasyEJL: You certainly have good points but you should also remember that companies which started out as small have made some of the more innovative products in the industry. Avant Labs, Ergopharm, Applied Nutraceuticals, etc. weren't huge companies and their only shot at being competitive was to make great products. If you shut down these smaller companies then we're taking away from the industry. Most of the big companies don't have a huge need for bringing innovative products to the arena.
I do agree that is a potential cost of this. However I do feel there is a real need that there is a way to enforce and prove that what is on the label in terms of ingredients of something I am ingesting is actually what is in there, and only what is in there. Currently there isn't any way that is enforced, and the supplement companies can be as shady as they want to be. With them being small, there is no recourse. Do you think any of the small starter companies would manage to pay out millions in lawsuit money if they just had 4-5 deaths? No, because they don't have it, and would just close up and reopen under a new name.
 
jarhead

jarhead

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I do agree that is a potential cost of this. However I do feel there is a real need that there is a way to enforce and prove that what is on the label in terms of ingredients of something I am ingesting is actually what is in there, and only what is in there. Currently there isn't any way that is enforced, and the supplement companies can be as shady as they want to be. With them being small, there is no recourse. Do you think any of the small starter companies would manage to pay out millions in lawsuit money if they just had 4-5 deaths? No, because they don't have it, and would just close up and reopen under a new name.
So you'd eliminate all small companies to prevent one from being shady? And I still have yet to hear where this has been happening to warrant this type of regulation. I mean surely there must be thousands upon thousands of people injured by products from unscrupulous companies.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
So you'd eliminate all small companies to prevent one from being shady? And I still have yet to hear where this has been happening to warrant this type of regulation. I mean surely there must be thousands upon thousands of people injured by products from unscrupulous companies.
I'd prefer that if I am ingesting something that could contain things that could accidentally kill me that only companies large enough that my wife could win a high dollar lawsuit and collect from them be the only companies manufacturing such things, yes.

Would you want to take a vitamin b12 from some organic company to find it had arsenic in it because of a cleaner they used on their equipment to leave your wife and children without you and the company be so tiny they just close up shop?
 
ProAnabolics

ProAnabolics

Member
Awards
0
The FDA isn't getting any money out of this, and they aren't testing anything. Its about requiring that the manufacturers test their raw materials, and have detailed logging and documentation of all steps of production, as well as for returns + customer complaints. And that the manufacturing facilities comply with certain other regulations. No money goes to the FDA for any of it.
ha, i was very angry when i posted. you raise some good points. but by adding these tests to raw materials it sounds like it would at the very least, increase the price on everything at least by a few bucks, to cover for the costs of the tests. Without testing, all the prices have been on a steady incline. I work at a health store, and documenting all the returns would be a pain in the ass. most of the time the people just don't like the taste or think it gives them an upset stomach. If it was shown to keep the prices the same, I would support something that wanted more regulations. that probably means more effective supplements.
 
jarhead

jarhead

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I'd prefer that if I am ingesting something that could contain things that could accidentally kill me that only companies large enough that my wife could win a high dollar lawsuit and collect from them be the only companies manufacturing such things, yes.

Would you want to take a vitamin b12 from some organic company to find it had arsenic in it because of a cleaner they used on their equipment to leave your wife and children without you and the company be so tiny they just close up shop?
I see what your saying and I could see your point if that example had a history of happening. Do food companies have the same standards that are being asked by this law? No, but we are eating them just the same. I agree with your idea that we should know what we're buying and taking 100%. I just don't feel this type of oversight by a body with the history(and ties to drug co's) of the fda is acceptable. I personally wouldn't feel safer with them simply from the examples they have given us of what they deem is "safe". Banning ephedra yet greenlighting fen-phen is a good example. They go where the money takes them. There already are standards in place by the DSHEA for reporting adverse effects and manufacturing standards. I agree with you that things could be better, but I just disagree that fda overight like this is the answer I guess. I just look at it as how many people have died at the hands of a loosely regulated supplement industry versus the deaths caused by a strict fda run drug industry.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I don't love the FDA or know anyone who works for them. but I am uncomfortable with the way the supplement industry is currently half regulated. Do you know how many different ways a company can put caffeine on a label? It wasn't that long ago that nutritional labels showing fat, carbs, protein, cholesterol etc were forced to be put on food packaging.

I do wish there was a way that wouldn't cost more, or make starting a new company costlier. But i'd rather be able to be confident in the ingredients in what I buy than be able to open my own personal supplement company.
 
jarhead

jarhead

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I don't love the FDA or know anyone who works for them. but I am uncomfortable with the way the supplement industry is currently half regulated. Do you know how many different ways a company can put caffeine on a label? It wasn't that long ago that nutritional labels showing fat, carbs, protein, cholesterol etc were forced to be put on food packaging.

I do wish there was a way that wouldn't cost more, or make starting a new company costlier. But i'd rather be able to be confident in the ingredients in what I buy than be able to open my own personal supplement company.
Again, I see your point. I just fear that the end result is going to be me purchasing pharmaceutical grade, fda approved flintstone vitamins for $60.00 bucks a bottle.

As far as the the labeling, I agree that they can be misleading. For caffeine as an example, I 've always seen it broken down into something like "standardized for 150mgs caffeine" or something. I don't know if this is regulated this way or just the products I've seen st the decision of the company though.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Again, I see your point. I just fear that the end result is going to be me purchasing pharmaceutical grade, fda approved flintstone vitamins for $60.00 bucks a bottle.

As far as the the labeling, I agree that they can be misleading. For caffeine as an example, I 've always seen it broken down into something like "standardized for 150mgs caffeine" or something. I don't know if this is regulated this way or just the products I've seen st the decision of the company though.
There are at least 10 acceptable names for caffeine.

I'm not sure what the best answer really is. I know the industry as it is quite scares me. DHEA sold as m1,4add , possibly trenbelone sold as another designer, and other things. Even just protein sold as 24g per serving with only 20 really in it, etc.
 
Dr Packenwood

Dr Packenwood

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
This is more accurate.



McCain kind of just rode the wave. I'm not necessarily clearing him in all of this. I just don't want my hate for Joe Biden to go unnoticed.
Good note there. When I researched it I found Hatch and McCains name on more an a couple of introduced bills.

But, in the name of fairness they can all go to hell.

Term limits in congress and the senate need to happen in a HYOOOOGE way. Like a C18 H22 O2 kind of way.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Good note there. When I researched it I found Hatch and McCains name on more an a couple of introduced bills.

But, in the name of fairness they can all go to hell.

Term limits in congress and the senate need to happen in a HYOOOOGE way. Like a C18 H22 O2 kind of way.
I'd love to see a 3 term limit, and terms be only 2 years in both house and senate. The problem with that is that it would make them be even MORE up for sale. if you are only going to be there 6 years, you may as well cash in as hard as you can.
 
jarhead

jarhead

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Good note there. When I researched it I found Hatch and McCains name on more an a couple of introduced bills.

But, in the name of fairness they can all go to hell.

Term limits in congress and the senate need to happen in a HYOOOOGE way. Like a C18 H22 O2 kind of way.

Look up hatch's involvement with the ephedra ban and metabolife. Hypocrisy at it's finest. Its absolutely disgusting. And all this is just the supplement industry. Imagine what goes on in other areas of more importance in our country.
 
Dr Packenwood

Dr Packenwood

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I'd love to see a 3 term limit, and terms be only 2 years in both house and senate. The problem with that is that it would make them be even MORE up for sale. if you are only going to be there 6 years, you may as well cash in as hard as you can.
I agree 100% on that. Congressmen, and Senators are the modern day Mafiosos in my opinion. If there were more of the larger supplement companies that could lobby, I bet we'd see a change quickly. Those $50 gift limits come in handy.

By the way, I bought this Rolex for $49.95 from a guy. Would you like it Congressman Knobgobbler?
Yes, here, since I have a wide stance while using the bathroom, I'll just reach under this bathroom stall and grab your shoe. When I do, put it on my wrist.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
when a person starts with "nothing i'm about to tell you is exaggerated" I assume that everything they say from that point forwards is exaggeration.
 

AM07

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
when a person starts with "nothing i'm about to tell you is exaggerated" I assume that everything they say from that point forwards is exaggeration.
Did you watch the whole video? You've heard of DSHEA, correct?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Anabolics 2
LMuscle Male Anti-Aging Medicine 27
Anabolics 11
howwedo107 Nutrition / Health 4
Cwaynemash Anabolics 23

Similar threads


Top