RE: FDA Regulation of Supplements

[Guest guest]

Good Morning! When I posted the other morning about the issue of supplement regulation, I knew that for some this would be a real hot button. Many folks have written back to me and their passion for their positions is apparent. From the responses I have received, people are split about 50/50 on the issue. My position on this issue, as I stated, has been formed by my own personal experiences. I do not happen to believe that regulation equals safety. I am not, as one respondent suggested, a lobbyist - - - - - for anything. I'm just a 59-year-old English teacher with MM who also has a bad case of PN as a result of the misuse of a regulated drug - thalidomide. I basically feel about supplements like I feel about seat belts. Law or no law, people are either going to use them or they aren't. The law in and of itself will not make anyone safer. Once a driver becomes educated and decides to use a seat belt out of personal conviction - that's when the safety factor goes up. The law, to me, doesn't get the credit for that. The person does. Also, I think people have a constitutional right to be stupid and uninformed if that's what they wish to be. I would hope that people would have a personal responsibility to themselves to become informed about anything . . . particularly things they put into their bodies. The advent of the internet, to me, has taken away the ignorance argument. I wasn't ignorant about the possible consequences of thalidomide - I just trusted my doctor too much. My fault, and I'll take responsibility for it. How many approved drugs have made the patient worse? My wife took Avonex injections for four years for her MS, and you wouldn't believe the deterioration of her condition until that regimen was terminated. Avonex is a controlled, approved drug at about $250/shot. It's big pharma at its government-regulated best. We made the decision to use it. Another bad choice, and we'll take the responsibility for it. Some of you cited as your reason for favoring regulation concerns over the possible interaction of supplements with other medications you are taking. In that case, ask your doctor about it. We don't need government regulation in order to ask questions of our doctor. I get a bit itchy when folks talk to me about the safety provided by FDA control. The FDA has a history of abuse that would make your hair hurt. The fact is, prescription drugs kill over 100,000 Americans per year, and maim many times more. But the FDA pulls very few of the offending drugs from the marketplace. Did you ever listen to just some of the possible side effects listed in those TV commercials for prescription drugs? Could the condition itself be much worse? On the other hand, how many people per year die because of nutritional supplementation? Maybe 10 to 20 - almost all from the abuse of ephedra. Yes, the consumer needs to be protected from ephedra and some of these new glamour steroid-like supplements that are being developed to enhance physical performance. And yes, parts of the supplement industry need cleaning up. But current laws already give the FDA the authority to deal with violators, if they wish. To give this agency broader powers is, in my opinion, an invitation to disaster. The FDA says it wants to protect the public, but I do not see this bill as any more protection for me than I am currently afforded. Why should I not have supplements like CoQ10, selenium, grape seed extract, or royal jelly available to me without them having to go through costly clinical trials that will put many of their manufacturers out of business? I think I know why, because the bottom line is that it's not just about safety. Do a little FDA research and "follow the money" to see where all this is headed. Hence, my two guiding beliefs: Governmental control does not equal consumer safety. Governmental control does equal mo' money. These two together is not a good thing. All that having been said, I suspect that my ramblings above have yielded zero converts. Not to matter, since that's not what it was intended to do. Maybe it was a feeble attempt to justify my posting in the first place. What I love most about these boards is that a bunch of folks - miles removed from one another - reach out electronically across the miles to touch one another, to help one another, to advise one another, and to minister to one another. I got some fairly harsh responses to my first post, but I was not offended because I respect the passion and the differences of opinion. Lord knows I understand the other side of this argument, and I honestly respect those views. Why? Because on these boards folks almost always know how to disagree, agreeably. You gotta love that! That's what keeps me coming back. Have a great day! -Al

[Guest guest]

Good Morning, Al:

Absolutely great post. Definitely gets to the point.

If the FDA is so concerned about our health and safety, why is aspartame still on the market with its 92 side effects including death? THINK about that for a while you non-believers!!!!

Noland

----- Original Message -----

From: Allan Eisel

MYELOMA@...

Cc: low dose naltrexone

Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 8:31 AM

Subject: [low dose naltrexone] RE: FDA Regulation of Supplements

Good Morning!When I posted the other morning about the issue of supplement regulation, I knew that for some this would be a real hot button. Many folks have written back to me and their passion for their positions is apparent. From the responses I have received, people are split about 50/50 on the issue. My position on this issue, as I stated, has been formed by my own personal experiences. I do not happen to believe that regulation equals safety. I am not, as one respondent suggested, a lobbyist - - - - - for anything. I'm just a 59-year-old English teacher with MM who also has a bad case of PN as a result of the misuse of a regulated drug - thalidomide. I basically feel about supplements like I feel about seat belts. Law or no law, people are either going to use them or they aren't. The law in and of itself will not make anyone safer. Once a dr iver becomes educated and decides to use a seat belt out of personal conviction - that's when the safety factor goes up. The law, to me, doesn't get the credit for that. The person does.Also, I think people have a constitutional right to be stupid and uninformed if that's what they wish to be. I would hope that people would have a personal responsibility to themselves to become informed about anything . . . particularly things they put into their bodies. The advent of the internet, to me, has taken away the ignorance argument. I wasn't ignorant about the possible consequences of thalidomide - I just trusted my doctor too much. My fault, and I'll take responsibility for it. How many approved drugs have made the patient worse? My wife took Avonex injections for four years for her MS, and you wouldn't believe the deterioration of her condition until that regimen was terminated. Avonex is a controlled, approved drug at about $250/shot. It's big pharma at its government-r egulated best. We made the decision to use it. Another bad choice, and we'll take the responsibility for it. Some of you cited as your reason for favoring regulation concerns over the possible interaction of supplements with other medications you are taking. In that case, ask your doctor about it. We don't need government regulation in order to ask questions of our doctor.I get a bit itchy when folks talk to me about the safety provided by FDA control. The FDA has a history of abuse that would make your hair hurt. The fact is, prescription drugs kill over 100,000 Americans per year, and maim many times more. But the FDA pulls very few of the offending drugs from the marketplace. Did you ever listen to just some of the possible side effects listed in those TV commercials for prescription drugs? Could the condition itself be much worse? On the other hand, how many people per year die because of nutritional supplementation? Maybe 10 to 20 - almost all from the abuse of e phedra. Yes, the consumer needs to be protected from ephedra and some of these new glamour steroid-like supplements that are being developed to enhance physical performance. And yes, parts of the supplement industry need cleaning up. But current laws already give the FDA the authority to deal with violators, if they wish. To give this agency broader powers is, in my opinion, an invitation to disaster. The FDA says it wants to protect the public, but I do not see this bill as any more protection for me than I am currently afforded. Why should I not have supplements like CoQ10, selenium, grape seed extract, or royal jelly available to me without them having to go through costly clinical trials that will put many of their manufacturers out of business? I think I know why, because the bottom line is that it's not just about safety. Do a little FDA research and "follow the money" to see where all this is headed. Hence, my two guiding beliefs: Governmental control does not equal con sumer safety. Governmental control does equal mo' money. These two together is not a good thing.All that having been said, I suspect that my ramblings above have yielded zero converts. Not to matter, since that's not what it was intended to do. Maybe it was a feeble attempt to justify my posting in the first place. What I love most about these boards is that a bunch of folks - miles removed from one another - reach out electronically across the miles to touch one another, to help one another, to advise one another, and to minister to one another. I got some fairly harsh responses to my first post, but I was not offended because I respect the passion and the differences of opinion. Lord knows I understand the other side of this argument, and I honestly respect those views. Why? Because on these boards folks almost always know how to disagree, agreeably. You gotta love that! That's what keeps me coming back. Have a great day!-Al

[Guest guest]

jb, I'll do it for you. Have a great weekend! -AlFrom: [mailto: Barrettej@...]faddle54444@...Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 09:11:36 ESTSubject: Re: [low dose naltrexone] RE: FDA Regulation of SupplementsAl, I missed your first post. i don't read this every day. but i caught the re on this and just had to read it. i teach a course on complementary and alternative medicine law and i am currently developing a new course on legislation which includes the fda and ftc. and, your are correct. i can cite numerous cases where their intervention has deprived many individuals of needed drugs, many of whom were terminal. there is currently several bills pending n congress that would limit the fda under those circumstances. but, not to worry, the fda will never get control over the nutrition industry. sen hatch and others will never allow it. there does need to be some quality controls however. a vitamin or any nutrient may have much less of the ingredient than you think. i wish i knew how to post to the entire group because i would support your view from the legal aspect. i can cite case after case.may you always be well and happy. jb

[Guest guest]

> Good Morning! When I posted the other morning about the issue of

supplement regulation, I knew that for some this would be a real hot

button. Many folks have written back to me and their passion for

their positions is apparent. From the responses I have received,

people are split about 50/50 on the issue. My position on this

issue, as I stated, has been formed by my own personal experiences.

I do not happen to believe that regulation equals safety. I am not,

as one respondent suggested, a lobbyist - - - - - for anything. I'm

just a 59-year-old English teacher with MM who also has a bad case of

PN as a result of the misuse of a regulated drug - thalidomide. I

basically feel about supplements like I feel about seat belts. Law

or no law, people are either going to use them or they aren't. The

law in and of itself will not make anyone safer. Once a driver

becomes educated and decides to use a seat belt out of personal

conviction - that's when the safety factor goes up. The law, to me,

doesn't get the credit for that. The person does. Also, I think

people have a constitutional right to be stupid and uninformed if

that's what they wish to be. I would hope that people would have a

personal responsibility to themselves to become informed about

anything . . . particularly things they put into their bodies. The

advent of the internet, to me, has taken away the ignorance

argument. I wasn't ignorant about the possible consequences of

thalidomide - I just trusted my doctor too much. My fault, and I'll

take responsibility for it. How many approved drugs have made the

patient worse? My wife took Avonex injections for four years for her

MS, and you wouldn't believe the deterioration of her condition until

that regimen was terminated. Avonex is a controlled, approved drug

at about $250/shot. It's big pharma at its government-regulated

best. We made the decision to use it. Another bad choice, and we'll

take the responsibility for it. Some of you cited as your reason for

favoring regulation concerns over the possible interaction of

supplements with other medications you are taking. In that case, ask

your doctor about it. We don't need government regulation in order

to ask questions of our doctor. I get a bit itchy when folks talk to

me about the safety provided by FDA control. The FDA has a history

of abuse that would make your hair hurt. The fact is, prescription

drugs kill over 100,000 Americans per year, and maim many times

more. But the FDA pulls very few of the offending drugs from the

marketplace. Did you ever listen to just some of the possible side

effects listed in those TV commercials for prescription drugs? Could

the condition itself be much worse? On the other hand, how many

people per year die because of nutritional supplementation? Maybe 10

to 20 - almost all from the abuse of ephedra. Yes, the consumer

needs to be protected from ephedra and some of these new glamour

steroid-like supplements that are being developed to enhance physical

performance. And yes, parts of the supplement industry need cleaning

up. But current laws already give the FDA the authority to deal with

violators, if they wish. To give this agency broader powers is, in

my opinion, an invitation to disaster. The FDA says it wants to

protect the public, but I do not see this bill as any more protection

for me than I am currently afforded. Why should I not have

supplements like CoQ10, selenium, grape seed extract, or royal jelly

available to me without them having to go through costly clinical

trials that will put many of their manufacturers out of business? I

think I know why, because the bottom line is that it's not just about

safety. Do a little FDA research and " follow the money " to see where

all this is headed. Hence, my two guiding beliefs: Governmental

control does not equal consumer safety. Governmental control does

equal mo' money. These two together is not a good thing. All that

having been said, I suspect that my ramblings above have yielded zero

converts. Not to matter, since that's not what it was intended to

do. Maybe it was a feeble attempt to justify my posting in the first

place. What I love most about these boards is that a bunch of folks -

miles removed from one another - reach out electronically across the

miles to touch one another, to help one another, to advise one

another, and to minister to one another. I got some fairly harsh

responses to my first post, but I was not offended because I respect

the passion and the differences of opinion. Lord knows I understand

the other side of this argument, and I honestly respect those views.

Why? Because on these boards folks almost always know how to

disagree, agreeably. You gotta love that! That's what keeps me

coming back. Have a great day! -Al

>

>

Hi Al,

Thanks for this post.......DITTO@!!!!!!!!

The idea that the FDA is protecting consumers and/or patients is a

dangerous misconception. It is one of many contributing factors that

has caused a complete breakdown in the delivery of health and

wellness to Americans. The one thing that is sure to make it worse is

MORE regulations. I would take issue with the number of deaths caused

by supplements but this is not the place for that discussion. All the

best to you.

Rick _______________________________________________