FDA Raids Herbal Tea Products Company

reply to post by NuclearPaul


Regardless, either way is the wrong way in which to find stability. I think out next title should be the "Mysterious disappearance of the grey area, formerly known as stability."

What do you think?

Originally posted by cybertroy
I've dealt with folks like you on this forum before. You come in and seemingly try to "debunk" every bit truth we try to spread. Perhaps I'm wrong about you, but anyway, don't expect me to shrivel up and go away.

Who are “folks like [me]”? Who’re you? And how is the small pile of BS I debunk “every bit of truth [you] try to spread”??? I don’t expect you to shrivel up and go away. I’m just trying to smack some sense into you.

Look, I can tell you right now, I wouldn't touch some of the stuff Big Pharma makes with a 10 foot pole. They tell me right in their own commercials that some of the drugs could kill me or do damage to me? Why, in my right mind, would I even think about taking them? Just because they are honest about the side effects, does that make the product some how better? I literally just saw a commercial about a drug that was removed from the market because of serious side effects.

I wouldn’t touch it either. But don’t you have a just bit of trouble convincing people that there’s somehow a conspiracy to kill them or make them ill when in plain fact which you admit, the drug industry admits the potential harm in their drugs?

Am I saying all herbs and supplements are safe and effective? Far from it. I keep my eyes and ears open. But I, for one, don't want seemingly corrupt organizations such as the FDA, and Pharma World controlling how I take care of my health.

Doing what you think is best with your own health is a good idea. In fact I would recommend everybody do that.

But when you try to tell other people what’s good for them, without proof or good reason, then there’s a problem.

As far as my understanding on health matters, I think I'm further along than many people. Besides, being a doctor, doesn't necessarily certify you as, say, a nutritionist. And unfortunately sometimes, being a doctor, can push you into a rigidly defined "box" of understanding.

True.

Doctors, a lot of times, aren't going to tell me things like, I can knock out the flu with raw garlic.

Yeah, they stand to lose their license when they tell people things which aren’t known to be true.

I took care of my dad's feet with supplements when not one doctor offered up a solution for the terrible pain he was having with his heals. I thought the poor guy was going to have to use a cane to hobble around on, but not anymore. He walks very normal now.

So? Correlation does not equal causation.

One night, I was absolutely exhausted, so I ate grass and went to bed. I woke up the next morning feeling like a million bucks. Grass works wonders!

Originally posted by resistor:
Now let’s see, would I rather get compounds with health giving properties from the natural places that God put them like people have for millennia, or should I pay big money to get man made versions that are much less effective, and have bad side effects? Let me think.

Now let’s see, would I rather get concentrated compounds with health giving properties from licensed professionals, or should I take it on some joe’s word that there’s an herb that does the job better and without any possible side effects, and the reason I never heard about it before is that The Man is trying to keep him down, even though he’s doing just fine?

Your fallacious analogies need some work, by the way. You might as well have likened choosing pharmaceuticals over herbals to choosing to eat feces over salad.

Originally posted by Long Lance:
the comparison is more valid than yours, because advertising is not part of the inventory. an order to desist was all that was needed and i think if you're using unsound/illegal advertising in any other trade, that's all you'd get.

How about if the bogus claims were also made on the packaging of the product?

not so in the disease 'business', any pretext to ruin your livelihood will be considered legal, because, let's face it, if you're broke you won't be able to sue anyone, much less the FDA/AMA or any other alphabet soup agency.

Blah blah blah. You could give me the same BS over any kind of lawsuit or search and seizure, you know.

PS: the best comparison would be carrying an illegal item in your car, say a detachable strobe light. you'd lose it if they caught you, but the car itself? forget it.

If you got caught using it, you very well might lose the car.

Originally posted by Scalamander:
If someone develops a cure that undercuts the others on the market from Big Pharma then the FDA shuts it down.

No, it becomes the new standard.

Originally posted by NuclearPaul:

Originally posted by NRen2k5:
Your “news” source is heavily biased in favour of the alternative health industry.

It makes up for the heavily biased "news" sources in favour of the FDA.

Know, it just further muddies the water. You know the old saying “two wrongs don’t make a right.”

Originally posted by NuclearPaul:

Originally posted by Scalamander:
The FDA does not care about people. It doesn't care whether people benefit or sicken from the drugs it gives people. This is because the FDA is not an institution which has the people's interests at heart.

No drug dealers care about their victims.

That’s all too true. And I suppose you’re going to try to tell us that “herbal remedies” aren’t drugs.

reply to post by NRen2k5


"Reasonably proven to be safe"? Tell that to the countless victims of Thalidamide, Viox, PhenPhen, et al. Natural remedies have proven to be effective through countless millenia of use. In fact, drug companies are now researching natural remedies in hopes of finding active ingredients which can be patented. I read of one just yesterday in which years of research were shelved because no synthetic manufactured by the drug company was as effective as the natural plant which was PROVEN by the drug company to CURE every type of cancer they tested it on. No money in it? Never mind.

The FDA has determined that supplements and herbs are not classified as drugs so the answer to your question is "no, they are not drugs."

Better start stockpiling now, folks because recent changes in the FDA have removed all impartiality from this health dictator.

As far as doctors being up in arms about cures that are suppressed... uh, no. Back in 1936, Royal Raymond Rife invented a machine that cured the most hopeless of cancer patients and GAVE the machines to doctors around the country to test for themselves on their patients. The AMA confiscated the machines under threat of removing the doctor as members of the AMA and all the doctors just handed the machines over, leaving their cancer patients to die. Most doctors today have been taught that anything that is not surgery, chemo, or radiation is quackery and don't educate themselves to what's available.

I feel the urge to roll up my sleeves, pull out all my sources and go on a rant here so I'll stop, take a zen breath and see if reason returns to the thread.

Originally posted by NRen2k5

Originally posted by Long Lance:
the comparison is more valid than yours, because advertising is not part of the inventory. an order to desist was all that was needed and i think if you're using unsound/illegal advertising in any other trade, that's all you'd get.

How about if the bogus claims were also made on the packaging of the product?

you are very generous with oter peoples' inventories and money. let's see it's the shop owner's responsibility, if the product is fine, but the label is not, slap a new one on or repackage it, problem solved, you can't just punish without restraint or oversight, that would be tantamount to anarchy. fine the guy, let him change his labels, if he decides to fulfill the demands by dumping his stuff, fine but it's not up to anyone except a court to take it away.

not so in the disease 'business', any pretext to ruin your livelihood will be considered legal, because, let's face it, if you're broke you won't be able to sue anyone, much less the FDA/AMA or any other alphabet soup agency.

Blah blah blah. You could give me the same BS over any kind of lawsuit or search and seizure, you know.



yes, because it applies to any type of confiscation which is not directly connected to the offense. punishment is best left to the courts, if severe, and fines if it's a minor offense. the option to go to court is still there, of course, but you'll have to pay for the expenses.

in this case, the FDA acts like a landlord, pure and simple, the issue would be comparably miniscule if the guy lost his stuff after a trial( although it'd be over-the-top, imho).

PS: for how long do you think you'd lose your car? it's not like they can permanently take anything they want. the item in question can be auctioned off to cover expenses if sanctioned in a trial, however.

The FAD does their job very well indeed and they do what they are pay to do.
They protect corporate America and their corporate profits. They put profits before consumer safety, the FDA was enacted to make sure that pharmaceuticals and other corporations in American would not have too much competition.

Originally posted by whitewave
reply to post by NRen2k5

 

"Reasonably proven to be safe"? Tell that to the countless victims of Thalidamide, Viox, PhenPhen, et al.

Three drugs out of thousands. Fallacy of proof by example.…

Natural remedies have proven to be effective through countless millenia of use.

No, some of them have been used for millennia. This shows that people llike to use them, not necessarily that they work.

In fact, drug companies are now researching natural remedies in hopes of finding active ingredients which can be patented.

Patented? No. Used? Yes. This isn’t quite new. They’ve been doing this for at the very least a decade.

I read of one just yesterday in which years of research were shelved because no synthetic manufactured by the drug company was as effective as the natural plant which was PROVEN by the drug company to CURE every type of cancer they tested it on. No money in it? Never mind.

Let’s see your proof of this. Come on. Even a news article!

The FDA has determined that supplements and herbs are not classified as drugs so the answer to your question is "no, they are not drugs."

Oh, so now you use the FDA’s definition. Convenient!

As far as doctors being up in arms about cures that are suppressed... uh, no. Back in 1936, Royal Raymond Rife invented a machine that cured the most hopeless of cancer patients and GAVE the machines to doctors around the country to test for themselves on their patients.

Wow, there seems to be a problem among members here not understanding burden of proof.

Where’s your proof, or even any indication, that this machine even worked?!

The AMA confiscated the machines under threat of removing the doctor as members of the AMA and all the doctors just handed the machines over, leaving their cancer patients to die.

Gee, maybe because the machines didn’t work as well as touted, or even not at all?

Most doctors today have been taught that anything that is not surgery, chemo, or radiation is quackery and don't educate themselves to what's available.

Not true.

I feel the urge to roll up my sleeves, pull out all my sources and go on a rant here so I'll stop, take a zen breath and see if reason returns to the thread.

It might if you stop trying to chase it off.

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by NRen2k5

Originally posted by Long Lance:
the comparison is more valid than yours, because advertising is not part of the inventory. an order to desist was all that was needed and i think if you're using unsound/illegal advertising in any other trade, that's all you'd get.

How about if the bogus claims were also made on the packaging of the product?

you are very generous with oter peoples' inventories and money. let's see it's the shop owner's responsibility, if the product is fine, but the label is not, slap a new one on or repackage it, problem solved, you can't just punish without restraint or oversight, that would be tantamount to anarchy. fine the guy, let him change his labels, if he decides to fulfill the demands by dumping his stuff, fine but it's not up to anyone except a court to take it away.

Are you a law enforcement officer, lawyer, or judge?

You’re arguing that they absolutely shouldn’t have seized the inventory. I’m arguing that maybe they should have.

So remember your own point - it’s not for us to decide or judge.

not so in the disease 'business', any pretext to ruin your livelihood will be considered legal, because, let's face it, if you're broke you won't be able to sue anyone, much less the FDA/AMA or any other alphabet soup agency.

Blah blah blah. You could give me the same BS over any kind of lawsuit or search and seizure, you know.

yes, because it applies to any type of confiscation which is not directly connected to the offense.

And you don’t know that in this case it wasn’t.

punishment is best left to the courts, if severe, and fines if it's a minor offense. the option to go to court is still there, of course, but you'll have to pay for the expenses.

in this case, the FDA acts like a landlord, pure and simple, the issue would be comparably miniscule if the guy lost his stuff after a trial( although it'd be over-the-top, imho).

No, the FDA acts like a cop, which it is.

If the company in question is not found guilty, they can get their property back.

PS: for how long do you think you'd lose your car? it's not like they can permanently take anything they want. the item in question can be auctioned off to cover expenses if sanctioned in a trial, however.

That’s right.

[edit on 28-10-2007 by NRen2k5]

Originally posted by marg6043
The FAD does their job very well indeed and they do what they are pay to do.
They protect corporate America and their corporate profits. They put profits before consumer safety, the FDA was enacted to make sure that pharmaceuticals and other corporations in American would not have too much competition.

That’s a fine opinion, but it’s all it is. And you have to be careful touting your opinions as facts.

How would you like it if a local newspaper columnist called you a whore in their column?

Originally posted by NRen2k5

Originally posted by marg6043
The FAD does their job very well indeed and they do what they are pay to do.
They protect corporate America and their corporate profits. They put profits before consumer safety, the FDA was enacted to make sure that pharmaceuticals and other corporations in American would not have too much competition.

That’s a fine opinion, but it’s all it is. And you have to be careful touting your opinions as facts.

How would you like it if a local newspaper columnist called you a whore in their column?

The FDA's history is pretty factual and documented. They've been caught red-handed enough times to establish their intentions. If it looks like a whore, acts like a whore and smells like a whore... well you know the rest.

has no one heard of Codex Alimentarius ?

here's a 40 minute video that explains how you may need
a perscription for lower quality vitamins in the future

Criminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins, and Herbs

reply to post by NRen2k5


This member comments are just out of place in this boards, if this is the way that he needs to post just to win an argument he do not deserve to be addressed.

Pathetic.

This is just a few of the long list of articles showing how the FDA links to pharmaceuticals and receiving funding shows the corruption within the agency.

If anybody wants more links I have plenty to post.

Americans Are Sick of FDA Corruption

www.associatedcontent.com...

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Biased By Drug Industry User Fees. FDA, Food and Drug Administration Corruption. FDA influenced by drug industry money.

www.fdastudy.com...

FDA corruption, part the 65456

www.b12partners.net...

Americans fed up with drug industry influence, FDA corruption, reveals remarkable Consumer Reports survey

www.newstarget.com...

With COX-2 decision, no longer any doubt about FDA corruption and U.S. drug racket

www.newstarget.com...

Alright NRen2k5, it's obvious we don't agree on everything. I guess that is a point of understanding we can share.

But honestly, I don't want to get into a circular argument that never goes anywhere with you, because you have no intention of understanding some of my "points." Been there. Every time I would post something, a few people jumped in to try and invalidate my post.

Here's the thing; I don't want organizations telling me I can't mega dose on Vitamin C if I feel appropriate, or take extra B vitamins, or whatever. I've witnessed enough with supplements and herbs, to see that these things can work. I don't need a clinical trial to see this. It's none of their business how I take care of my health, anyway.

And why should I trust that the Pharmacy world will give supplements a fair clinical trial? They have already been pumping out obviously poisonous products to the masses. I don't have much of a reason to trust them with the supplements I use on a daily basis.

And I don't want to have to pay an arm and a leg for supplements that are downgraded and not as effective, because Pharmacy World took over the manufacture of supplements. "Here you go. This amount of Vitamin C will keep you just above the level of Scurvy. That's all you need."

Troy

[edit on 29-10-2007 by cybertroy]

Hah, get this.

Was just watching a commercial on a drug to help those with Restless Legs Syndrome.

One drug is named pramipexole. Near the end they talk about side effects, and one is...

unusual side effects include...increased urge to gamble and hypersexuality.

They must be making these drugs up in Castle Frankenstein.

Originally posted by NRen2k5

Originally posted by cybertroy

Doctors, a lot of times, aren't going to tell me things like, I can knock out the flu with raw garlic.

Yeah, they stand to lose their license when they tell people things which aren’t known to be true.

The problem here lies that an experienced medical practitioner can discover the cure for cancer, but cannot use it because people will not allow it to be "approved", especially if it means money will be lost.
And so people die.

Who cares if it's "approved" when you are going to die, seriously?
Only the pharmaceutical companies...

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by NRen2k5

 

This member comments are just out of place in this boards, if this is the way that he needs to post just to win an argument he do not deserve to be addressed.

Pathetic.

Excuse me? I’m only (pardon my choice of words) giving her a taste of her own medicine.

Pathetic? That comment better have been addressed at what you think my actions were and not at me personally.

Originally posted by marg6043
This is just a few of the long list of articles showing how the FDA links to pharmaceuticals and receiving funding shows the corruption within the agency.

If anybody wants more links I have plenty to post.

Americans Are Sick of FDA Corruption

www.associatedcontent.com...

Uh, no, that shows how people are sick of the FDA’s ineffectiveness and the the big pharmaceuticals’ priviledges.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Biased By Drug Industry User Fees. FDA, Food and Drug Administration Corruption. FDA influenced by drug industry money.

www.fdastudy.com...

Biased, search engine spamming site.

FDA corruption, part the 65456

www.b12partners.net...

Biased site. All it shows is that like Merck, the FDA was silent about potential Vioxx deaths.

Americans fed up with drug industry influence, FDA corruption, reveals remarkable Consumer Reports survey

www.newstarget.com...

With COX-2 decision, no longer any doubt about FDA corruption and U.S. drug racket

www.newstarget.com...

Please read the thread before replying. NewsTarget biased and therefore untrustworthy.


A good rule of thumb in debate is to not use a source that you’d be fairly certain a teacher would reject.

Originally posted by cybertroy:
Alright NRen2k5, it's obvious we don't agree on everything. I guess that is a point of understanding we can share.

But honestly, I don't want to get into a circular argument that never goes anywhere with you

Could have fooled me.

because you have no intention of understanding some of my "points." Been there. Every time I would post something, a few people jumped in to try and invalidate my post.

The problem isn’t that I don’t understand some of your points. The problem is that you don’t understand some of your points.

Here's the thing; I don't want organizations telling me I can't mega dose on Vitamin C if I feel appropriate, or take extra B vitamins, or whatever.

And they don’t. And the law doesn’t want you telling people to choose vitamins and herbs over medecine because it could kill them.

I've witnessed enough with supplements and herbs, to see that these things can work. I don't need a clinical trial to see this. It's none of their business how I take care of my health, anyway.

And it’s none of your business how other people take care of their health.

And why should I trust that the Pharmacy world will give supplements a fair clinical trial?

Haven’t they already? And haven’t they rightly determined that they are beneficial, but hardly a cure-all or a replacement for a healthy diet?

They have already been pumping out obviously poisonous products to the masses.

Apparently you didn’t see me correct AnneStacey on this over and over again.

You don’t go and say stuff like that without some kind of proof!

And I don't want to have to pay an arm and a leg for supplements that are downgraded and not as effective, because Pharmacy World took over the manufacture of supplements. "Here you go. This amount of Vitamin C will keep you just above the level of Scurvy. That's all you need.

Wishful thinking.

Originally posted by NuclearPaul:
The problem here lies that an experienced medical practitioner can discover the cure for cancer, but cannot use it because people will not allow it to be "approved", especially if it means money will be lost.
And so people die.

Who cares if it's "approved" when you are going to die, seriously?
Only the pharmaceutical companies...

Oh, sure. Like they’ve been doing with polio and tuberculosis, right?

Yeah, damn Big Pharma for never curing anything!

reply to post by NuclearPaul


I agree, pharmaceuticals are a multi billion industry complex that are very active and putting forward millions of dollars in congers for lobbying.

They stop trying to find cures a long time ago when they found out that profiting from treatments was more attractive.

Still our government give tax payer money that they do not need for the research of what should be cures but treatments is all they can offer.

Is like any other monopoly they can buy agencies to stop or squash the competitors.

Drug Lobby Second to None
How the pharmaceutical industry gets its way in Washington/b]

www.publicintegrity.org...

Spending on Lobbying Thrives
Drug and health products industries invest $182 million to influence legislation

www.publicintegrity.org...

If they can influence congress they can influence a poorly funded agency like the FDA.

Simple as that.

Originally posted by annestacey

The FDA's history is pretty factual and documented. They've been caught red-handed enough times to establish their intentions. If it looks like a whore, acts like a whore and smells like a whore... well you know the rest.

let me give you a prime example of FDA's policies in action. some of the views bandied about around here are quite uncompromising, to say the least, which does not mean they are founded in irrationality.

in 'eighty nine, a mysterious ailment induced by toxins in supplements (courtesy of fubared genetically engineered microorganisms) killing a few dozen and crippled thousands of people. the FDA's reaction was to ban all supplements of this type - a naturally occuring essential amino acid, Tryptophan. the ban exists to this day. (and Prozac® took its place within weeks)

www.aquarianonline.com/Eco/UnnaturalHarvest.html

www.lightparty.com/Health/FDABan.html

in this light everyone will find it easier to understand why the FDA is a red rag to approximately half of the posters on this board, me included.

Originally posted by Long Lance
in 'eighty nine, a mysterious ailment induced by toxins in supplements (courtesy of fubared genetically engineered microorganisms) killing a few dozen and crippled thousands of people. the FDA's reaction was to ban all supplements of this type - a naturally occuring essential amino acid, Tryptophan. the ban exists to this day. (and Prozac® took its place within weeks)

I think it is imperative for everyone to understand why the FDA originally banned such a substance however.

The ban on Tryptophan (L-Tryptophan to be exact) was in direct relation to cases of Eosinophilia-myalgia Syndrome caused by contaminated imported batches from Japan containing impurities in its chemical composition. According to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as amended by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, the "manufacturer is solely responsible for ensuring that its own products are safe and effective". You can read about this here: FDC Act, directly from the FDA. This means that anyone marketing a product has to prove it's efficiency and safety (not the FDA as some seem to think). This also applies to so-called "natural" products, which are oftentimes mislabeled and ill researched. In fact, researchers were not sure whether it was the Tryptophan itself or the contaminant that were causing the ill effects when the first cases of the Syndrome were tied to the product. In lieu of this, and because research was ongoing at the time, it was imperative to ban all substances containing possible contaminations until the issue could be resolved. Now that research has shown L-Tryptophan itself may have little to no negative side effects the FDA has somewhat loosened its ban and allowed for marketing of the product to continue...thus why pharmaceuticals such as Tryptan are allowed to be sold.

reply to post by NRen2k5


It is impossible to reason with unreasonable people so I was just going to put you on my ignore list but your snide and smug comments need to be repudiated so, for the benefit of those who may have thought you had some valid come-back to my post, I will respond.

1) "Three drugs out of thousands? Fallacy of proof by example!"
I could refer to my PDR, several nursing drug books or my 28 years of observation and experience as a registered nurse to show that many more than 3 drugs are responsible for people's deaths but the last part of your response was the more interesting; fallacy of proof by example. In other words, "you prooved by example, therefore it's a fallacy." That's actually pretty funny NRen. I guess I'll have to stop cheating by giving examples of proof. NOT!

2) You said that just because people had been using natural remedies for millenia didn't proove they were effective. Technically that's true but one has to ask WHY would people go to the time and trouble of searching for plants, concocting potions, etc. if those remedies were not effective? Why would they continue to do so for thousands of years if there were no benefit? I think that through trial and error people have found that certain plants have physiological effects on them and have incorporated that knowlege into their survival repetoire.

3) "Patented? No. Used? Yes." (regarding drug companies researching natural remedies in hopes of finding active ingredients they can patent) It's true that natural ingredients can not be patented which is why Codex Alimentarius is geared toward ridding us of herbs and supplements to make way for the multibillion dollar industry left in its wake. Drug companies are researching active ingredients in natural herbs and plants to determine if a synthetic (ie, patentable) product that mimics the natural plants effectiveness can be produced. Digitalis is the pharmaceutical industry's answer to the natural Foxglove.

4) You asked for a report on the cancer cure that was shelved due to lack of ability to patent anything that worked as well as the natural. If you're not too lazy or self-satisfied in what you think passes for knowledge to look it up, the following URL is provided. www.isecureonline.com/Reports/FCBK/W680/HA01

5) "So NOW you use the FDA's definition? Convenient!" (referring to the word "drug")
I have only referred to natural remedies as "natural remedies". I believe it was YOU that suggested they were drugs, not I. And yes, according to the FDA, natural remedies are not drugs, negating the need for a prescription.

6) "Problem among some members here not understanding burden of proof." Before I open that can of worms (which I am quite willing and able to do), let me ask if you even know who Royal Raymond Rife was. Do you? Do you know what he accomplished? Do you know his universal microscope is still on display in the Smithsonian? The Smithsonian does not devote a lot of floor space to snake oil or voodoo dolls.

7) "Maybe the machines didn't work?"
I suppose that's why the AMA offered to BUY the machines? I suppose that's why all those terminal patients didn't die of cancer even though their own doctors had given up on them.

8) "Not true." Are you saying that it's not true that doctors don't educate themselves on what alternative treatments to cancer are available or are you saying that it's not true that they are taught that chemo, surgery or radiation are the only effective treatments against cancer?
I work with doctors on a daily basis and I can assure you that they get about one (count them...ONE!) hour of nutrition education. They are taught that only chemo, surgery and radiation are effective against cancer. All the new "alternative" therapies in allopathic medicine (in regards to cancer treatments) are geared toward making one a good surgical candidate, making radiation more target specific or making chemo more tolerable.

9) It is not I that is trying to "chase off" reason on this board, but you, sir. Attacking the person is not equivalent to attacking the argument or the reasoning behind it. If you would like a list of fallacies in logic, I would be happy to provide it. Unreasoned insults and condescension will not serve you well on this site, buddy.