Re: Is There A "Diabetes Diet"?

[Janet]

[email protected] wrote:

> What is the functional purpose in making this distinction.
>
> Randy

It depends: is your goal to safeguard your health, or to score points
against cyber opponents on the internet? <G>

In your case, I would venture to guess the former.

In reality, I think the only difference is that one has to go through an
elaborate and expensive federal approval process that attempts to validate
the claims made for the drug, and the other does not. (But as we have seen,
occasionally even drugs that manage to get approval turn out to have
unacceptable risks or have little or no benefit for much of the population
for whom they are prescribed.)

The other difference is the likelihood that the drug will actually contain
the labelled dose is probably higher. Some supplement manufacturers perform
to a much lower standard than others.

[Susan]

x-no-archive: yes

On 2/3/2011 6:28 PM, Janet wrote:

> The other difference is the likelihood that the drug will actually contain
> the labelled dose is probably higher. Some supplement manufacturers perform
> to a much lower standard than others.
>
>
Unfortunately, there's little assurance of receiving the labeled dose
from a lot of the currently available generic drugs either.

Susan

[[email protected]]

Susan Wrote:
> For me, the distinction often comes down to two substances that each
> provide similar desirable outcomes, but with the supplement form
> (pantethine, alpha lipoic acid, silymarin) having a very well documented
> superior risk/benefit ratio.

You say "having a well documented superior risk/benefit ratio".
Compared to what drugs and what conditions.

I'm familiar with all the "supplements" you mentioned and know that,
on balance, the data is mixed at best. When evaluatiing you must
include all studies with a ranking of the strenght of the studies. My
impression of your approach is grab on the any written material that
supports your view without consideration of its validiity and a total
denial/ignorance of the total balance of material available.

As an example, here's a review of silymarin (which I think might be
usefull) but most likely won't live up to your exaggerated claims.

Randy


Milk thistle for the treatment of liver disease: a systematic review
and meta-analysis.
Jacobs BP, Dennehy C, Ramirez G, Sapp J, Lawrence VA.

Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco 94143,
USA. [email protected]

Abstract
PURPOSE: Milk thistle, an herbal compound, is the dietary supplement
taken most frequently by patients with chronic liver disease. We
performed a systematic review of the literature to determine the
efficacy and safety of this herb for the treatment of liver disease.

METHODS: We searched English and non-English reports through July 1999
using thirteen databases and reference lists, and contacting
manufacturers and technical experts. Reviewers independently screened
all reports to identify randomized placebo-controlled trials that
evaluated milk thistle for the treatment of liver disease. Outcomes of
primary interest included mortality, histological findings on liver
biopsy specimens, serum aminotransferase and albumin levels, and
prothrombin times.

RESULTS: Fourteen trials met inclusion criteria. Four trials reported
outcomes for mortality among 433 participants. The overall summary
odds ratio for mortality in the milk thistle group compared with
placebo was 0.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5 to 1.5; P = 0.6).
Three trials assessed histology on liver biopsy; study quality was
inversely associated with the likelihood of histological benefit for
milk thistle compared with placebo. There were no differences in serum
alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, or albumin
levels, or prothrombin times, among participants assigned to milk
thistle compared with those assigned to placebo. The only
statistically significant difference was a greater reduction in
alanine aminotransferase levels among patients with chronic liver
disease assigned to milk thistle (-9 IU/L, 95% CI: -18 to -1 IU/L; P =
0.05), but this reduction was of negligible clinical importance and no
longer statistically significant after limiting analyses to studies of
longer duration or of higher quality. The frequency of adverse effects
was low and, in clinical trials, indistinguishable from placebo.

CONCLUSION: Treatment with milk thistle appears to be safe and well
tolerated. We found no reduction in mortality, in improvements in
histology at liver biopsy, or in biochemical markers of liver function
among patients with chronic liver disease. Data are too limited to
exclude a substantial benefit or harm of milk thistle on mortality,
and also to support recommending this herbal compound for the
treatment of liver disease.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 3, 5:28*pm, "Janet" <boxh...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
> ra...@val.com wrote:
> > What is the functional purpose in making *this distinction.
>
> > Randy
>
> It depends: is your goal to safeguard your health, or to score points
> against cyber opponents on the internet? <G>
>
> In your case, I would venture to guess the former.
Janet Wrote:
> In reality, I think the only difference is that one has to go through an
> elaborate and expensive federal approval process that attempts to validate
> the claims made for the drug, and the other does not. (But as we have seen,
> occasionally even drugs that manage to get approval turn out to have
> unacceptable risks or have little or no benefit for much of the population
> for whom they are prescribed.)
> The other difference is the likelihood that the drug will actually contain
> the labelled dose is probably higher. Some supplement manufacturers perform
> to a much lower standard than others.

Those are not unreasonable concerns and most of those issues are
popular topics of discussion here on ASD.
But - I seriously doubt that those are the issues that Ellen had in
mind. If they were she did an unexceptional poor job at stating what
she was getting at.

If this was her concern then the answer lies in how the FDA(in the US)
classifies drug vs supplement. Question answered, end of discussion.
Clearly not the case.

Regards
Randy

[Wes Groleau]

On 02-03-2011 18:28, Janet wrote:
> In reality, I think the only difference is that one has to go through an
> elaborate and expensive federal approval process that attempts to validate
> the claims made for the drug, and the other does not. (But as we have seen,

Now, that doesn't make any sense to me. It's circular.

"Why doesn't this one have to be reviewed?"
"Because it's a supplement, not a drug."
"What's the difference?"
"A supplement doesn't have to be reviewed."

--
Wes Groleau

“Isn't embarrassing to quote something you didn't read
and then attack what it didn't say?�
— WWG (where else but Usenet)

[Ellen K.]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Ellen Wrote:
> Others, including myself, are currently discussing whether it is possible
> to
> draw a clear distinction between "medication" and "supplements", and if
> so,
> how. Obviously we find that more interesting.
>

Huh??
For what operational purpose does it matter if I call the pill I
swallow a supplement or medicine?

Will it act differently?

If I call ALA a medicine or supplement will it have different effect
physiologically?

What is the functional purpose in making this distinction.

Randy

=========================

It didn't occur to me to think about the distinction until the issue was
raised here. I agree with you that there may be no functional purpose in
making the distinction, however I find it an interesting thought exercise.

[[email protected]]

> It didn't occur to me to think about the distinction until the issue was
> raised here. *I agree with you that there may be no functional purpose in
> making the distinction, however I find it an interesting thought exercise..

Ah, I see a "difference without an distinction". Alway a great
starting point for a productive conversation (not).

And that's the crux for the disagreement. Expending thought enegy on
something that has no functional purpose, no value under the pretense
that your trying to make (an erroneous) point is aggravating. Your
spending time on arbitary definitions that adds nothing to any
discussion or expands understanding of anything.

If you would have admitted the above ( (that your talking about
nothing) at the beginningof this discussion, instead of pretending
there was some value to it, all this back and forth nonsense could
have been prevented. I've been tricked into these sorts of battles
with you in the past Ellen and it leaves me angry and feeling foolish.
Angry because I wasted effort to have a discusson with someone that
had no interest in a consistent logical discourse. Feeling foolish
because I persisted. What makes it worse it that we both have the
unfortuneate habit of wanting to have the last word.

For the record - You don't do this all the time, you very often post
that even I find interesting.

I'll refrain from wishing that you have a great weekend.

Randy

[Chris Malcolm]

[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> Susan Wrote:

>> For me, the distinction often comes down to two substances that each
>> provide similar desirable outcomes, but with the supplement form
>> (pantethine, alpha lipoic acid, silymarin) having a very well documented
>> superior risk/benefit ratio.

> You say "having a well documented superior risk/benefit ratio".
> Compared to what drugs and what conditions.

> I'm familiar with all the "supplements" you mentioned and know that,
> on balance, the data is mixed at best. When evaluatiing you must
> include all studies with a ranking of the strenght of the studies. My
> impression of your approach is grab on the any written material that
> supports your view without consideration of its validiity and a total
> denial/ignorance of the total balance of material available.

> As an example, here's a review of silymarin (which I think might be
> usefull) but most likely won't live up to your exaggerated claims.

> Randy

> Milk thistle for the treatment of liver disease: a systematic review
> and meta-analysis.
> Jacobs BP, Dennehy C, Ramirez G, Sapp J, Lawrence VA.

Liver disease?

IIRC Susan's claims about silymarin were that it usefully lowered her
BGs via an insulin sensitising effect which she found some support for
in the research literature.

--
Chris Malcolm

[Chris Malcolm]

[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ellen Wrote:
>> Others, including myself, are currently discussing whether it is possible to
>> draw a clear distinction between "medication" and "supplements", and if so,
>> how. *Obviously we find that more interesting.

> Huh??
> For what operational purpose does it matter if I call the pill I
> swallow a supplement or medicine?

> Will it act differently?

> If I call ALA a medicine or supplement will it have different effect
> physiologically?

> What is the functional purpose in making this distinction.

You're quite right that a rose by any other name will smell as sweet,
but you're missing the point. It doesn't matter what you or I choose
to call it. What matters is what the regulatory authorities choose to
call it and why. Because as has often been pointed out the intended
distinction made by the regulatory authorities that the possible side
effects of drugs are dangerous enough that you should only be
prescribed by a physician, whereas a supplement is safe enough to be
sold directly to the public with no more than warnings on the packet.

The fact that they sometimes get this wrong, and that there are
disputatious and controversial grey areas between the two means that
this is not a hard and fast genral rule with on exceptions, but merely
a generally useful guideline. In other words, if you know nothing
about a medicine, if it's called a supplement by the authorities it's
very likely to be safer than a drug.

--
Chris Malcolm

[Janet]

Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 02-03-2011 18:28, Janet wrote:
>> In reality, I think the only difference is that one has to go
>> through an elaborate and expensive federal approval process that
>> attempts to validate the claims made for the drug, and the other
>> does not. (But as we have seen,
>
> Now, that doesn't make any sense to me. It's circular.
>
> "Why doesn't this one have to be reviewed?"
> "Because it's a supplement, not a drug."
> "What's the difference?"
> "A supplement doesn't have to be reviewed."

True, but that is pretty much the distinction, in practice. Perhaps this
comes about because "supplements" are typically naturally-occurring
substances that could not be patented. (Maybe the process of refining them
could be, I don't know.) Recently there was a discussion about something
called, IIRC, Omacor, which was, again IIRC, a "drug" version of some
vitamin. The drug company had funded a study of Omacor, while apparently no
one had funded a study of the vitamin (or whatever it was). Economics are
behind everything. Drug companies spend a fortune developing drugs (that
sometimes have little or no benefit over taking aspirin) then a further
fortune advertising them on TV. If the substance can't be patented for some
period of time, it isn't worth it to them to jump through the regulatory
hoops that essentially make it possible for them to make claims in their
ads. You can't make claims for supplements that haven't gone through the FDA
process.

[[email protected]]

Chris Wrote;
> IIRC Susan's claims about silymarin were that it usefully lowered her
> BGs via an insulin sensitising effect which she found some support for
> in the research literature.

That's not what she said in the post I responded to:

Here's what Susan wrote:
"(pantethine, alpha lipoic acid, silymarin) having a very well
documented
superior risk/benefit ratio. In fact, often the supplements
accomplish
the desired effect while also improving organ health that's
threatened
by rx drugs for the same effect. "

If you've got data the shows Silymarin has a well documented superior
risk/benefit (over perscription drugs) improves organ health I'd like
to see.

Randy

[Susan]

x-no-archive: yes

On 2/4/2011 7:12 AM, Chris Malcolm wrote:

> Liver disease?

It, along with ALA, is often rx'ed by some docs to lower elevated liver
enzymes.

>
> IIRC Susan's claims about silymarin were that it usefully lowered her
> BGs via an insulin sensitising effect which she found some support for
> in the research literature.
>

I've never called it an insulin sensitizer, but on the occasions I've
taken it with meals, it's had a very pronounced glucose lowering effect.


Susan

[[email protected]]

On Feb 4, 6:23*am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> ra...@val.com <ra...@val.com> wrote:
> > Ellen Wrote:
> >> Others, including myself, are currently discussing whether it is possible to
> >> draw a clear distinction between "medication" and "supplements", and if so,
> >> how. *Obviously we find that more interesting.
> > Huh??
> > For what operational purpose does it matter if I call the pill I
> > swallow a supplement or medicine?
> > Will it act differently?
> > If I call ALA a medicine or supplement will it have different effect
> > physiologically?
> > What is the functional purpose in making *this distinction.
>
> You're quite right that a rose by any other name will smell as sweet,
> but you're missing the point. It doesn't matter what you or I choose
> to call it. What matters is what the regulatory authorities choose to
> call it and why. Because as has often been pointed out the intended
> distinction made by the regulatory authorities that the possible side
> effects of drugs are dangerous enough that you should only be
> prescribed by a physician, whereas a supplement is safe enough to be
> sold directly to the public with no more than warnings on the packet.
>
> The fact that they sometimes get this wrong, and that there are
> disputatious and controversial grey areas between the two means that
> this is not a hard and fast genral rule with on exceptions, but merely
> a generally useful guideline. In other words, if you know nothing
> about a medicine, if it's called a supplement by the authorities it's
> very likely to be safer than a drug.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm

But that's not how the conversation was contructed.
And then we need specifics - which drugs, which supplements, what side
effects, what benefits.

Keeping the discussion generalized in very inefficient.

Randy

[Ellen K.]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> It didn't occur to me to think about the distinction until the issue was
> raised here. I agree with you that there may be no functional purpose in
> making the distinction, however I find it an interesting thought exercise.

Ah, I see a "difference without an distinction". Alway a great
starting point for a productive conversation (not).

And that's the crux for the disagreement. Expending thought enegy on
something that has no functional purpose, no value under the pretense
that your trying to make (an erroneous) point is aggravating. Your
spending time on arbitary definitions that adds nothing to any
discussion or expands understanding of anything.

If you would have admitted the above ( (that your talking about
nothing) at the beginningof this discussion, instead of pretending
there was some value to it, all this back and forth nonsense could
have been prevented. I've been tricked into these sorts of battles
with you in the past Ellen and it leaves me angry and feeling foolish.
Angry because I wasted effort to have a discusson with someone that
had no interest in a consistent logical discourse. Feeling foolish
because I persisted. What makes it worse it that we both have the
unfortuneate habit of wanting to have the last word.

For the record - You don't do this all the time, you very often post
that even I find interesting.

I'll refrain from wishing that you have a great weekend.

Randy

===========================

You get to decide what you want to discuss, others get to decide what they
want to discuss.

[Ellen K.]

"Chris Malcolm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
>
> You're quite right that a rose by any other name will smell as sweet,
> but you're missing the point. It doesn't matter what you or I choose
> to call it. What matters is what the regulatory authorities choose to
> call it and why. Because as has often been pointed out the intended
> distinction made by the regulatory authorities that the possible side
> effects of drugs are dangerous enough that you should only be
> prescribed by a physician, whereas a supplement is safe enough to be
> sold directly to the public with no more than warnings on the packet.
>
> The fact that they sometimes get this wrong, and that there are
> disputatious and controversial grey areas between the two means that
> this is not a hard and fast genral rule with on exceptions, but merely
> a generally useful guideline. In other words, if you know nothing
> about a medicine, if it's called a supplement by the authorities it's
> very likely to be safer than a drug.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm
>

[Chris Malcolm]

[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> Chris Wrote;
>> IIRC Susan's claims about silymarin were that it usefully lowered her
>> BGs via an insulin sensitising effect which she found some support for
>> in the research literature.

> That's not what she said in the post I responded to:

> Here's what Susan wrote:
> "(pantethine, alpha lipoic acid, silymarin) having a very well
> documented
> superior risk/benefit ratio. In fact, often the supplements
> accomplish
> the desired effect while also improving organ health that's
> threatened
> by rx drugs for the same effect. "

> If you've got data the shows Silymarin has a well documented superior
> risk/benefit (over perscription drugs) improves organ health I'd like
> to see.

But if you read what you quoted above more carefully you'll see that
no such claim was made. The claim was that a list of supps including
silymarin had a well documented superior risk/benefit ratio. Since
risk/benefit ratios are very specific to specific purposes you can't
conclude that the specific use of silymarin she had in mind was
benefit to diseased livers. In fact her most frequent citation of
silymarin's effects in asd have been that she had found by personal
experiment that in her specific condition of the time that it
helpfully lowered her BGs.

With respect to organ health improvement she claimed that it was
*often* found that they also improved the organ health which the rx
drugs threaten. "Often" means that not all of them do that. Therefore
silymarin could fail to do that without contradicting her claim.

--
Chris Malcolm

[[email protected]]

On Feb 4, 12:57*pm, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> ra...@val.com <ra...@val.com> wrote:
> > Chris Wrote;
> >> IIRC Susan's claims about silymarin were that it usefully lowered her
> >> BGs via an insulin sensitising effect which she found some support for
> >> in the research literature.
> > That's not what she said in the post I responded to:
> > Here's what Susan wrote:
> > "(pantethine, alpha lipoic acid, silymarin) having a very well
> > documented
> > superior risk/benefit ratio. *In fact, often the supplements
> > accomplish
> > the desired effect while also improving organ health that's
> > threatened
> > by rx drugs for the same effect. "
> > If you've got data the shows Silymarin has a well documented superior
> > risk/benefit (over perscription drugs) improves organ health I'd like
> > to see.
>
> But if you read what you quoted above more carefully you'll see that
> no such claim was made. The claim was that a list of supps including
> silymarin had a well documented superior risk/benefit ratio. Since
> risk/benefit ratios are very specific to specific purposes you can't
> conclude that the specific use of silymarin she had in mind was
> benefit to diseased livers. In fact her most frequent citation of
> silymarin's effects in asd have been that she had found by personal
> experiment that in her specific condition of the time that it
> helpfully lowered her BGs.
>
> With respect to organ health improvement she claimed that it was
> *often* found that they also improved the organ health which the rx
> drugs threaten. "Often" means that not all of them do that. Therefore
> silymarin could fail to do that without contradicting her claim.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Chris Wrote:
" But if you read what you quoted above more carefully you'll see that
no such claim was made. The claim was that a list of supps including
silymarin had a well documented superior risk/benefit ratio. Since
risk/benefit ratios are very specific to specific purposes you can't
conclude that the specific use of silymarin she had in mind was
benefit to diseased livers."

Ok then until someone provides evidence that silymarin has a
Superior risk/benefit ratio (I assume compared to drugs/other
supplements) then it's an overblown claim. Also someone needs to
specify what condition this claim is made for since you say it's not
necessarily for liver disease.

If what Susan meant was "in my own personal experience" and she left
this out then this is very sloopy and misleading.

Randy

[Ellen K.]

I hereby fine you $0.02 for excessive logic.

"Chris Malcolm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Chris Wrote;
>>> IIRC Susan's claims about silymarin were that it usefully lowered her
>>> BGs via an insulin sensitising effect which she found some support for
>>> in the research literature.
>
>> That's not what she said in the post I responded to:
>
>> Here's what Susan wrote:
>> "(pantethine, alpha lipoic acid, silymarin) having a very well
>> documented
>> superior risk/benefit ratio. In fact, often the supplements
>> accomplish
>> the desired effect while also improving organ health that's
>> threatened
>> by rx drugs for the same effect. "
>
>> If you've got data the shows Silymarin has a well documented superior
>> risk/benefit (over perscription drugs) improves organ health I'd like
>> to see.
>
> But if you read what you quoted above more carefully you'll see that
> no such claim was made. The claim was that a list of supps including
> silymarin had a well documented superior risk/benefit ratio. Since
> risk/benefit ratios are very specific to specific purposes you can't
> conclude that the specific use of silymarin she had in mind was
> benefit to diseased livers. In fact her most frequent citation of
> silymarin's effects in asd have been that she had found by personal
> experiment that in her specific condition of the time that it
> helpfully lowered her BGs.
>
> With respect to organ health improvement she claimed that it was
> *often* found that they also improved the organ health which the rx
> drugs threaten. "Often" means that not all of them do that. Therefore
> silymarin could fail to do that without contradicting her claim.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm
>
>

[Bob]

On Feb 3, 3:28*pm, "Janet" <boxh...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
> ra...@val.com wrote:
> > What is the functional purpose in making *this distinction.
>
> > Randy
>
> It depends: is your goal to safeguard your health, or to score points
> against cyber opponents on the internet? <G>
>
> In your case, I would venture to guess the former.
>
> In reality, I think the only difference is that one has to go through an
> elaborate and expensive federal approval process

It never ceases to amaze how many gringos assume the world ends east
of Portland, Maine and west of Portland, Oregon.

that attempts to validate
> the claims made for the drug, and the other does not. (But as we have seen,
> occasionally even drugs that manage to get approval turn out to have
> unacceptable risks or have little or no benefit for much of the population
> for whom they are prescribed.)
>
> The other difference is the likelihood that the drug will actually contain
> the labelled dose is probably higher. Some supplement manufacturers perform
> to a much lower standard than others.

That's not an"other difference": it's a direct result of the
"elaborate and expensive federal approval process".

Bob

[Bob]

On Feb 3, 4:31*pm, Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 2/3/2011 6:28 PM, Janet wrote:
>
> > The other difference is the likelihood that the drug will actually contain
> > the labelled dose is probably higher. Some supplement manufacturers perform
> > to a much lower standard than others.
>
> Unfortunately, there's little assurance of receiving the labeled dose
> from a lot of the currently available generic drugs either.
>

The accuracy of the dose depends heavily on the size of your paranoia.

Bob
PS: Did you know there are algorithms that pick up and store only
messages with "x-no-archive: yes" in their header?



> Susan

[Wes Groleau]

On 02-04-2011 09:57, Janet wrote:
> ads. You can't make claims for supplements that haven't gone through the FDA
> process.

Yes, you can. Almost every bottle on the racks makes all sorts of
claims. But get out your magnifying glass and somewhere on the
back you'll find "These claims have not been verified by the FDA"

--
Wes Groleau

“There ain't nothin' in this world that's worth being a snot over.�
— Larry Wall

[Wes Groleau]

On 02-04-2011 07:23, Chris Malcolm wrote:
> a generally useful guideline. In other words, if you know nothing
> about a medicine, if it's called a supplement by the authorities it's
> very likely to be safer than a drug.

But far better to find out something about it, instead of basing
health decisions on "this usually means that...."

I remember once lamenting the practice of automatically prescribing
blood pressure medicines to African-Americans on the basis that
a higher percentage of them than whites have hypertension.
(As opposed to "on the basis of tests showing the particular
individual actually needs it")

--
Wes Groleau

Race Doesn’t Matter
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=876

[Kurt]

On Feb 5, 12:37*pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 02-04-2011 07:23, Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
> > a generally useful guideline. In other words, if you know nothing
> > about a medicine, if it's called a supplement by the authorities it's
> > very likely to be safer than a drug.
>
> But far better to find out something about it, instead of basing
> health decisions on "this usually means that...."
>
> I remember once lamenting the practice of automatically prescribing
> blood pressure medicines to African-Americans on the basis that
> a higher percentage of them than whites have hypertension.
> (As opposed to "on the basis of tests showing the particular
> individual actually needs it")

Please provide a cite where it was the practice of automatically
prescribing blood pressure medicnes to African-Americans. Better to
provide a real cite than to make a claim like that based on "remember
once lamenting."

Kurt

[Janet]

Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 02-04-2011 09:57, Janet wrote:
>> ads. You can't make claims for supplements that haven't gone through
>> the FDA process.
>
> Yes, you can. Almost every bottle on the racks makes all sorts of
> claims. But get out your magnifying glass and somewhere on the
> back you'll find "These claims have not been verified by the FDA"

Okay, well I guess what I meant was that they can't make *definite*
statements. THe "claims" are phrased very carefully, using highly qualified
language, frequently using the term "supports X" and "may" do this or that
instead of saying that it "treats" or "cures" or definitely does aomething.
And on my bottle of ALA, the "FDA does not..." language is the same size as
the "claim" language and directly below it.

[Wes Groleau]

On 02-05-2011 17:09, Janet wrote:
> Wes Groleau wrote:
>> On 02-04-2011 09:57, Janet wrote:
>>> ads. You can't make claims for supplements that haven't gone through
>>> the FDA process.
>>
>> Yes, you can. Almost every bottle on the racks makes all sorts of
>> claims. But get out your magnifying glass and somewhere on the
>> back you'll find "These claims have not been verified by the FDA"
>
> Okay, well I guess what I meant was that they can't make *definite*
> statements. THe "claims" are phrased very carefully, using highly qualified
> language, frequently using the term "supports X" and "may" do this or that
> instead of saying that it "treats" or "cures" or definitely does aomething.
> And on my bottle of ALA, the "FDA does not..." language is the same size as
> the "claim" language and directly below it.

OK, agreed. Except that some supplements do make unwarranted claims in
larger letters. But as you say, they usually try to word them to
deceive without being prosecutable.

--
Wes Groleau

Pat's Polemics
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

[Budd Cochran]

I think the guys that write those labels are "retrained" used car
salespersons. . . . . . . . . . .

--
C.L. "Budd" Cochran
Pray for the Obama administration: Psalm 109:8
http://truefree1776.blogdrive.com/



"Wes Groleau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:iil5kh$oft$[email protected]..
> On 02-05-2011 17:09, Janet wrote:
>> Wes Groleau wrote:
>>> On 02-04-2011 09:57, Janet wrote:
>>>> ads. You can't make claims for supplements that haven't gone through
>>>> the FDA process.
>>>
>>> Yes, you can. Almost every bottle on the racks makes all sorts of
>>> claims. But get out your magnifying glass and somewhere on the
>>> back you'll find "These claims have not been verified by the FDA"
>>
>> Okay, well I guess what I meant was that they can't make *definite*
>> statements. THe "claims" are phrased very carefully, using highly
>> qualified
>> language, frequently using the term "supports X" and "may" do this or
>> that
>> instead of saying that it "treats" or "cures" or definitely does
>> aomething.
>> And on my bottle of ALA, the "FDA does not..." language is the same size
>> as
>> the "claim" language and directly below it.
>
> OK, agreed. Except that some supplements do make unwarranted claims in
> larger letters. But as you say, they usually try to word them to deceive
> without being prosecutable.
>
> --
> Wes Groleau
>
> Pat's Polemics
> http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

[Budd Cochran]

"Kurt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Feb 5, 12:37 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 02-04-2011 07:23, Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
> > a generally useful guideline. In other words, if you know nothing
> > about a medicine, if it's called a supplement by the authorities it's
> > very likely to be safer than a drug.
>
> But far better to find out something about it, instead of basing
> health decisions on "this usually means that...."
>
> I remember once lamenting the practice of automatically prescribing
> blood pressure medicines to African-Americans on the basis that
> a higher percentage of them than whites have hypertension.
> (As opposed to "on the basis of tests showing the particular
> individual actually needs it")

Please provide a cite where it was the practice of automatically
prescribing blood pressure medicnes to African-Americans. Better to
provide a real cite than to make a claim like that based on "remember
once lamenting."

Kurt

Kurt,

I can give one from personal experience:

I worked with an African-American at a factory in IN some 40+ years ago.

One day, Charlie came in to work kinda shakey and feeling poorly. A trip to
the First Aid showed a B/P of 80 / 50.

His M.D. had started him on a B/P med simply because he was Black and over
40.

He stopped the meds, changed doctors and didn't need B/P meds for another 7
years.

--
C.L. "Budd" Cochran
Pray for the Obama administration: Psalm 109:8
http://truefree1776.blogdrive.com/

[Wes Groleau]

On 02-06-2011 01:01, Budd Cochran wrote:
> I worked with an African-American at a factory in IN some 40+ years ago.
>
> One day, Charlie came in to work kinda shakey and feeling poorly. A trip to
> the First Aid showed a B/P of 80 / 50.
>
> His M.D. had started him on a B/P med simply because he was Black and over
> 40.
>
> He stopped the meds, changed doctors and didn't need B/P meds for another 7
> years.


Race Doesn’t Matter
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=876

--
Wes Groleau

I've noticed lately that the paranoid fear of computers becoming
intelligent and taking over the world has almost entirely disappeared
from the common culture. Near as I can tell, this coincides with
the release of MS-DOS.
— Larry DeLuca

[[email protected] |]

On Feb 5, 12:28*pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 02-04-2011 09:57, Janet wrote:
>
> > ads. You can't make claims for supplements that haven't gone through the FDA
> > process.
>
> Yes, you can. *Almost every bottle on the racks makes all sorts of
> claims. *But get out your magnifying glass and somewhere on the
> back you'll find "These claims have not been verified by the FDA"
>
> --
> Wes Groleau
>
> * * “There ain't nothin' in this world that's worth being a snot over.”
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * — Larry Wall

One might call them part claims. They are useful if one
doesn't know about a supplement and it hints what to
read up on. Of course, the "nanny state types" get all
upset because the "moron set of humans" will go on
the partial label claims as received truth from the
mountain on high. With herbs and supplements read
up first, and only then use them otherwise a 'Darwin
award' maybe in your future. Also this goes for what
the Doc offers as a prescription in that
a Doc is unqualified to write
prescriptions (at a moral/intellectual level)
as he isn't a Pharmist/Chemist ;-) Though of
course, he has the legal right. But since when
does the law have much to do with the morally
right?

God save me from the US-FDA and its ilk...........Trig

[Peppermint Patootie]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Janet" <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > What is the functional purpose in making this distinction.
> >
> > Randy
>
> It depends: is your goal to safeguard your health, or to score points
> against cyber opponents on the internet? <G>
>
> In your case, I would venture to guess the former.
>
> In reality, I think the only difference is that one has to go through an
> elaborate and expensive federal approval process that attempts to validate
> the claims made for the drug, and the other does not. (But as we have seen,
> occasionally even drugs that manage to get approval turn out to have
> unacceptable risks or have little or no benefit for much of the population
> for whom they are prescribed.)
>
> The other difference is the likelihood that the drug will actually contain
> the labelled dose is probably higher. Some supplement manufacturers perform
> to a much lower standard than others.

For me, the difference is that I can get one of them with little
difficulty and the other I have to go through a time-consuming and
expensive ritual in which I have to convince a gatekeeper that I should
have the substance.

PP
--
"What you fail to understand is that criticising established authority by means
of argument and evidence is a crucial aspect of how science works."
- Chris Malcolm

[Peppermint Patootie]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Feb 3, 5:28*pm, "Janet" <boxh...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
> > ra...@val.com wrote:
> > > What is the functional purpose in making *this distinction.
> >
> > > Randy
> >
> > It depends: is your goal to safeguard your health, or to score points
> > against cyber opponents on the internet? <G>
> >
> > In your case, I would venture to guess the former.
> Janet Wrote:
> > In reality, I think the only difference is that one has to go through an
> > elaborate and expensive federal approval process that attempts to validate
> > the claims made for the drug, and the other does not. (But as we have seen,
> > occasionally even drugs that manage to get approval turn out to have
> > unacceptable risks or have little or no benefit for much of the population
> > for whom they are prescribed.)
> > The other difference is the likelihood that the drug will actually contain
> > the labelled dose is probably higher. Some supplement manufacturers perform
> > to a much lower standard than others.
>
> Those are not unreasonable concerns and most of those issues are
> popular topics of discussion here on ASD.
> But - I seriously doubt that those are the issues that Ellen had in
> mind. If they were she did an unexceptional poor job at stating what
> she was getting at.
>
> If this was her concern then the answer lies in how the FDA(in the US)
> classifies drug vs supplement. Question answered, end of discussion.
> Clearly not the case.
>
> Regards
> Randy

Randy, not all discussions are aimed to determine one definite clear
indisputable truth. Many discussions have the purpose of allowing
people to present their ideas, speculate, hypothesize, and share
anecdotes of direct or tangential connection to the discussion topic.
Sometimes this takes the discussion on a trajectory which is non-linear
and even directed away from the beginnings of the discussion. The
discussion ends when the participants lose interest.

It is clear that the kind of discussion I describe above is not your cup
of tea. It is, however, one of the ways many people socialize and build
community. In a support group, building community and getting to know
the other members of the group are important to the life and health of
the group.

We don't all think the same way or act the same way. That's not just
OK, but it's also good. Diversity enriches a community.

PP
--
"What you fail to understand is that criticising established authority by means
of argument and evidence is a crucial aspect of how science works."
- Chris Malcolm

[Peppermint Patootie]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"[email protected] |" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jan 31, 4:46*pm, "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
> > ra...@val.com <ra...@val.com> wrote:
> >
> > : > IAC I think the distinction between "meds" and "supplements" is neither
> > : > artificial nor irrelevant -- otherwise prescription medications would
> > : > not
> > : > require a prescription.
> >
> > : In Germany ALA is (or was) only available by perscription.
> > : So is it a med or drug?
> >
> > : Randy
> >
> > IIRC the supplement industry pressured Congress to keep all suppliments
> > from beign reviewed and controled by the FDA. *Only in a few cases where
> > serious injury has resulted for some suplements (I think one called
> > something like Huang-a kind of Ephedra clone) were removed after long cout
> > cases as the FDA did not have jrisdiction. *
> >
> > There is a real political aspect to the med/supplement issue.
> >
> > Wendy
>
> And ephedra/ma huang users that had problems
> it was those who apparently were taking extra
> large doses beyond the label that ended up
> in trouble. Do the same with OTC acetaminophen/paracetamol
> and you'll also end up in trouble.
>
> Just look at the EU and one can see how government can
> fail and just go into the mode of stalling and rejecting supplements
> in the interest of big pharma, IMO.
>
> everything is political even the air one breathes..........Trig

I think you can get ma huang / ephedra again, or at least I *thought* I
saw a box of Breathe Easy tea recently. That was what I used to use as
a decongestant.

PP
--
"What you fail to understand is that criticising established authority by means
of argument and evidence is a crucial aspect of how science works."
- Chris Malcolm

[Peppermint Patootie]

In article <[email protected]>,
Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ozlover <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Ellen K. <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Ozlover" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]..
> >> > Ellen K. <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> "Ozlover" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[email protected]..
> >> >> > Ellen K. <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> "Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:[email protected]..
> >> >> >> > On 1/30/2011 9:44 AM, [email protected] | wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Or in the drug box insert or the Jumbo sized PDR.
> >> >> >> >> Silymarin, pine bark extract, benfotiamine, pantethine are
> >> >> >> >> pretty gentle substances compared to most the prescription
> >> >> >> >> drugs.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I have used some well studied supplements at various times, and
> >> >> >> > still
> >> >> >> > occasionally use some, but the only supp I take with any
> >> >> >> > regularity
> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> > multi vitamin.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Susan
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ? I thought you are also taking ALA?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Which is a *prescription drug* in some countries.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > *That* was the point I was making - but she 'conveniently' silently
> >> >> > snipped in order not to disturb her agenda - the artificial and
> >> >> > irrelevant 'distinction' between "meds" ("bad") and "supplements"
> >> >> > ("good").
> >> >>
> >> >> She said she no longer takes it.
> >> >
> >> > That she says that she does no longer take it, has zero to do with my
> >> > point, which was/is:
> >> >
> >> >> the artificial and
> >> >> > irrelevant 'distinction' between "meds" ("bad") and "supplements"
> >> >> > ("good").
> >> >
> >> > Are you ignoring my point because you take a med (ALA), but want to
> >> > think that you don't?
> >>
> >> That was your point? Doesn't look that way to me, it looks like you
> >> wanted
> >> to play "gotcha" with Susan.
>
> > Whatever.
>
> > Anyway, do you agree that you *are* taking *medication*, which just
> > happens not to need a prescription?
>
> >> IAC I think the distinction between "meds" and "supplements" is neither
> >> artificial nor irrelevant -- otherwise prescription medications would not
> >> require a prescription.
>
> > As I *showed* the prescription 'requirement' is not a given, but more
> > to the point, the artificial distinction doesn't make the *effects* -
> > both positive and negative - of the 'med'/'drug'/'supplement' any
> > different.
>
> > Does the med which I'm prescribed suddenly become a 'supplement', and
> > 'hence' "better", when I buy it OTC?
>
> > And what if your doctor prescribes OTC meds, like paracetamol, etc.?
> > Do they turn from 'supplements' into 'meds'?
>
> The fact that there is a grey disputable area in between the
> categories of "light" and "dark" doesn't mean that the difference
> between light and dark is artificial and irrelevant.

Not to mention OTC medications like acetaminophen/paracetamol are still
medications. They're just not medications that require a prescription.

PP
--
"What you fail to understand is that criticising established authority by means
of argument and evidence is a crucial aspect of how science works."
- Chris Malcolm

[Susan]

x-no-archive: yes

On 2/7/2011 5:00 PM, Peppermint Patootie wrote:

> Not to mention OTC medications like acetaminophen/paracetamol are still
> medications. They're just not medications that require a prescription.

To go further, in the U.S. many of our rx meds have gone OTC because
that allows our health insurers to refuse to pay for them on our drug plans.

Notably, weight loss drugs, acid blockers and antihistamines.

Susan

[Chris Malcolm]

[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 6:23*am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> ra...@val.com <ra...@val.com> wrote:
>> > Ellen Wrote:
>> >> Others, including myself, are currently discussing whether it is possible to
>> >> draw a clear distinction between "medication" and "supplements", and if so,
>> >> how. *Obviously we find that more interesting.
>> > Huh??
>> > For what operational purpose does it matter if I call the pill I
>> > swallow a supplement or medicine?
>> > Will it act differently?
>> > If I call ALA a medicine or supplement will it have different effect
>> > physiologically?
>> > What is the functional purpose in making *this distinction.
>>
>> You're quite right that a rose by any other name will smell as sweet,
>> but you're missing the point. It doesn't matter what you or I choose
>> to call it. What matters is what the regulatory authorities choose to
>> call it and why. Because as has often been pointed out the intended
>> distinction made by the regulatory authorities that the possible side
>> effects of drugs are dangerous enough that you should only be
>> prescribed by a physician, whereas a supplement is safe enough to be
>> sold directly to the public with no more than warnings on the packet.
>>
>> The fact that they sometimes get this wrong, and that there are
>> disputatious and controversial grey areas between the two means that
>> this is not a hard and fast genral rule with on exceptions, but merely
>> a generally useful guideline. In other words, if you know nothing
>> about a medicine, if it's called a supplement by the authorities it's
>> very likely to be safer than a drug.
>>
>> --
>> Chris Malcolm

> But that's not how the conversation was contructed.
> And then we need specifics - which drugs, which supplements, what side
> effects, what benefits.

> Keeping the discussion generalized in very inefficient.

It is if you're interested in specifics. It's not if you're interested
in generalisations and generalised categories. It all depends on
purpose.

--
Chris Malcolm

[BobP]

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 16:57:51 -0500, Peppermint Patootie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article
><[email protected]>,
> "[email protected] |" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 31, 4:46*pm, "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
>> > ra...@val.com <ra...@val.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > : > IAC I think the distinction between "meds" and "supplements" is neither
>> > : > artificial nor irrelevant -- otherwise prescription medications would
>> > : > not
>> > : > require a prescription.
>> >
>> > : In Germany ALA is (or was) only available by perscription.
>> > : So is it a med or drug?
>> >
>> > : Randy
>> >
>> > IIRC the supplement industry pressured Congress to keep all suppliments
>> > from beign reviewed and controled by the FDA. *Only in a few cases where
>> > serious injury has resulted for some suplements (I think one called
>> > something like Huang-a kind of Ephedra clone) were removed after long cout
>> > cases as the FDA did not have jrisdiction. *
>> >
>> > There is a real political aspect to the med/supplement issue.
>> >
>> > Wendy
>>
>> And ephedra/ma huang users that had problems
>> it was those who apparently were taking extra
>> large doses beyond the label that ended up
>> in trouble. Do the same with OTC acetaminophen/paracetamol
>> and you'll also end up in trouble.
>>
>> Just look at the EU and one can see how government can
>> fail and just go into the mode of stalling and rejecting supplements
>> in the interest of big pharma, IMO.
>>
>> everything is political even the air one breathes..........Trig
>
>I think you can get ma huang / ephedra again, or at least I *thought* I
>saw a box of Breathe Easy tea recently. That was what I used to use as
>a decongestant.
>
>PP
Following the FDA's ban, the supplement industry has marketed
"ephedrine-free" or "legal" ephedra products, in which the ephedra is
replaced with other herbal stimulants such as bitter orange. Wiki..

[Julie Bove]

"BobP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 16:57:51 -0500, Peppermint Patootie
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article
>><[email protected]>,
>> "[email protected] |" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 31, 4:46 pm, "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> > ra...@val.com <ra...@val.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > : > IAC I think the distinction between "meds" and "supplements" is
>>> > neither
>>> > : > artificial nor irrelevant -- otherwise prescription medications
>>> > would
>>> > : > not
>>> > : > require a prescription.
>>> >
>>> > : In Germany ALA is (or was) only available by perscription.
>>> > : So is it a med or drug?
>>> >
>>> > : Randy
>>> >
>>> > IIRC the supplement industry pressured Congress to keep all
>>> > suppliments
>>> > from beign reviewed and controled by the FDA. Only in a few cases
>>> > where
>>> > serious injury has resulted for some suplements (I think one called
>>> > something like Huang-a kind of Ephedra clone) were removed after long
>>> > cout
>>> > cases as the FDA did not have jrisdiction.
>>> >
>>> > There is a real political aspect to the med/supplement issue.
>>> >
>>> > Wendy
>>>
>>> And ephedra/ma huang users that had problems
>>> it was those who apparently were taking extra
>>> large doses beyond the label that ended up
>>> in trouble. Do the same with OTC acetaminophen/paracetamol
>>> and you'll also end up in trouble.
>>>
>>> Just look at the EU and one can see how government can
>>> fail and just go into the mode of stalling and rejecting supplements
>>> in the interest of big pharma, IMO.
>>>
>>> everything is political even the air one breathes..........Trig
>>
>>I think you can get ma huang / ephedra again, or at least I *thought* I
>>saw a box of Breathe Easy tea recently. That was what I used to use as
>>a decongestant.
>>
>>PP
> Following the FDA's ban, the supplement industry has marketed
> "ephedrine-free" or "legal" ephedra products, in which the ephedra is
> replaced with other herbal stimulants such as bitter orange. Wiki..

I don't think bitter orange is safe either!

[Ellen K.]

"Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 2/7/2011 5:00 PM, Peppermint Patootie wrote:
>
>> Not to mention OTC medications like acetaminophen/paracetamol are still
>> medications. They're just not medications that require a prescription.
>
> To go further, in the U.S. many of our rx meds have gone OTC because that
> allows our health insurers to refuse to pay for them on our drug plans.
>
> Notably, weight loss drugs, acid blockers and antihistamines.
>
> Susan
>

Yep. This is allergy season for me (I'm highly allergic to ash trees, which
pollinate Jan-Feb) and I have to buy my Claritin OTC now. This time I
bought the Rite-Aid version, which besides being cheaper turns out to have
more intelligent packaging than the original (backing of blisters peels off
so you don't go crazy trying to push the little pill through the foil).

[Ellen K.]

"Peppermint Patootie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]..
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Janet" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > What is the functional purpose in making this distinction.
>> >
>> > Randy
>>
>> It depends: is your goal to safeguard your health, or to score points
>> against cyber opponents on the internet? <G>
>>
>> In your case, I would venture to guess the former.
>>
>> In reality, I think the only difference is that one has to go through an
>> elaborate and expensive federal approval process that attempts to
>> validate
>> the claims made for the drug, and the other does not. (But as we have
>> seen,
>> occasionally even drugs that manage to get approval turn out to have
>> unacceptable risks or have little or no benefit for much of the
>> population
>> for whom they are prescribed.)
>>
>> The other difference is the likelihood that the drug will actually
>> contain
>> the labelled dose is probably higher. Some supplement manufacturers
>> perform
>> to a much lower standard than others.
>
> For me, the difference is that I can get one of them with little
> difficulty and the other I have to go through a time-consuming and
> expensive ritual in which I have to convince a gatekeeper that I should
> have the substance.
>

If you ever get really tired of the ritual you can move to Mexico, where a
huge percentage of drugs that require a prescription here are sold OTC.


> PP
> --
> "What you fail to understand is that criticising established authority by
> means
> of argument and evidence is a crucial aspect of how science works."
> - Chris
> Malcolm
>

[Peppermint Patootie]

In article <[email protected]>,
Susan <[email protected]> wrote:

> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 2/7/2011 5:00 PM, Peppermint Patootie wrote:
>
> > Not to mention OTC medications like acetaminophen/paracetamol are still
> > medications. They're just not medications that require a prescription.
>
> To go further, in the U.S. many of our rx meds have gone OTC because
> that allows our health insurers to refuse to pay for them on our drug plans.
>
> Notably, weight loss drugs, acid blockers and antihistamines.
>
> Susan

We get to set aside up to $5K (I think it went up to 5 from 3) before
taxes for Health Care Reimbursement, which used to be able to be used
for OTC medications as well as co-pays, stuff insurance didn't cover,
deductibles, etc. This year it changed, and OTC meds are no longer
covered. Rats!

PP
--
"What you fail to understand is that criticising established authority by means
of argument and evidence is a crucial aspect of how science works."
- Chris Malcolm