Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 327 (368822)
12-10-2006 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Omnivorous
12-08-2006 11:26 PM


Re: Herbals are Drugs
Omni writes:
Pot is in my garden along with the other herbals such as opium poppies, datura, et al. I eat St. John's wort and salvia divinorum also for health along with pot tea. I also mix pot in mushroom tea. That one eats/drinks certain foods for health doesn't make these herbal foods drugs.
He he.....very funny, Omni! Btw, great to have you back posting! Hopefully we'll see you in PAF as well. You usually are quite rational, regardless of what's in your garden.
Anyhow, back to the thread nuts & bolts. Your point is a nice joke but a non-sequitur to the topic. There's a lot of detrimental and poisonous stuff know to be wisely avoided, like poison ivy, some nightshades, varieties of mushrooms, mind debilitating plants known as harmful narcotics, and a host of others known to be unquestionably dangerous, life threatening and/or harmful to society.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Omnivorous, posted 12-08-2006 11:26 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by nator, posted 12-10-2006 6:16 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 200 by Omnivorous, posted 12-11-2006 11:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 197 of 327 (368836)
12-10-2006 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by purpledawn
12-09-2006 6:02 PM


Re: Testing Avoidance
I don't see how this supports that herbal manufacturers want to avoid proving their products are safe and effective.
there are too many factors with "dietary supplements", too many risks that people ignore because unlike doctor prescribed medicine, these supplements are "natural", so people don't know that it doesn't have to be man-made to kill you if you take too much.
as i said to buz, comfrey, if taken too long or too much of, will lead to cancer and or/liver failure, but i highly doubt any herbilists who want to sell the stuff tell people that.
in truth i think they want to avoid proving anything because all of that junk except maybe willows bark is a big fat plecebo
i'd like to see someone do a controlled experiment though, it would answer some questions

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by purpledawn, posted 12-09-2006 6:02 PM purpledawn has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 198 of 327 (368857)
12-10-2006 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by purpledawn
12-10-2006 11:33 AM


Re: Testing Avoidance
quote:
The question is what supports that Dr. Stephen Barrett's statements are true or accurate?
The same question goes for the other link you provided. What supports that the statements by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber are accurate?
OK, so what is it that you have a problem with?
What parts do you doubt are true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by purpledawn, posted 12-10-2006 11:33 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by purpledawn, posted 12-12-2006 8:32 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 199 of 327 (368859)
12-10-2006 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Buzsaw
12-10-2006 2:10 PM


Re: Herbals are Drugs
quote:
There's a lot of detrimental and poisonous stuff know to be wisely avoided, like poison ivy, some nightshades, varieties of mushrooms, mind debilitating plants known as harmful narcotics, and a host of others known to be unquestionably dangerous, life threatening and/or harmful to society.
You mean like comfrey?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Buzsaw, posted 12-10-2006 2:10 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 200 of 327 (369185)
12-11-2006 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Buzsaw
12-10-2006 2:10 PM


Re: Herbals are Drugs
Buz writes:
Btw, great to have you back posting! Hopefully we'll see you in PAF as well. You usually are quite rational, regardless of what's in your garden.
You usually are, too, Buz, despite that stuff about your Garden
But you won't see me there--my wings have been clipped.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Buzsaw, posted 12-10-2006 2:10 PM Buzsaw has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 201 of 327 (369250)
12-12-2006 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by nator
12-10-2006 6:15 PM


Re: Testing Avoidance
quote:
OK, so what is it that you have a problem with?
What parts do you doubt are true?
The problem is that you present QuackWatch as "gospel" (parden the expression) and you really have nothing that supports that his statements are true.
Linus Pauling, a Nobel Prize winner. Pauling is considered:
Pauling is noted as a versatile scholar for his expertise in inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, metallurgy, immunology, anesthesiology, psychology, debate, radioactive decay, and the aftermath of nuclear warfare, in addition to quantum mechanics and molecular biology.
Pauling became an advocate for increased vitamin C and nutrient consumption and publish his concepts and research on vitamin C and orthomolecular medicine. His ideas were considered unorthodox by conventional medicine.
Now Barrett (QuackWatch) considers Paulings concepts to be questionable.
There have been accusations of bias and lack of objectivity on the part of Dr. Barrett.
You can find MD/scientists that support your view with complaints against mine and I can find MD/scientists that support my view with complaints against yours. They are out to support/protect their interests.
So what supports that your MD is more correct than my MD other than he supports your position?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by nator, posted 12-10-2006 6:15 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Wounded King, posted 12-12-2006 9:07 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 211 by nator, posted 12-13-2006 9:05 AM purpledawn has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 202 of 327 (369255)
12-12-2006 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by purpledawn
12-12-2006 8:32 AM


Re: Testing Avoidance
So what supports that your MD is more correct than my MD other than he supports your position?
Generally this would be done by looking at the published literature. If you look at Barrett's criticism of Pauling then what flaws do you see in it? He frequently references a number of studies which clearly contradict many of Pauling's claims for the efficacy of Vitamin C. If there is a comparable body of research supporting Pauling's claims then why not tell us where to find it?
If there isn't a comparable body of research then we would have a good indication which MD was 'more correct'.
This doesn't need to be a game of 'he said, she said' all you need to do is look and see what the actual scientific research shows, it may show that the question is still an open one or it may not.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by purpledawn, posted 12-12-2006 8:32 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by purpledawn, posted 12-12-2006 6:38 PM Wounded King has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 203 of 327 (369379)
12-12-2006 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Wounded King
12-12-2006 9:07 AM


Re: Testing Avoidance
Don't derail, we're still talking about "testing avoidance". See Message 189
quote:
This doesn't need to be a game of 'he said, she said' all you need to do is look and see what the actual scientific research shows, it may show that the question is still an open one or it may not.
In Message 184 I asked for support concerning schrafs repeated statement.
schraf writes:
And about the FDA? It's been mentioned at least a dozen times in this thread, and by me in several direct replies to you, that the law that was passed that classifies all herbal drugs as "nutritional supplements" was lobbied heavily for in Washington by the manufacturers and retailers of these herbal drugs so they could continue to avoid having to test them for safety and efficacy.
The only support shown so far is Barrett referencing his own book.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Wounded King, posted 12-12-2006 9:07 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Wounded King, posted 12-13-2006 5:10 AM purpledawn has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 204 of 327 (369471)
12-13-2006 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by purpledawn
12-12-2006 6:38 PM


Re: Testing Avoidance
Don't derail
I assume what you mean is 'when I derail don't follow me', since my post directly addresses the post I was replying to. If discussing Linus Pauling is such a derail then why do it? Pointing to an area in which Barrett has a substantial body of literature to support his position is hardly a good way of emphasising your argument of him only using his own book as a reference.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by purpledawn, posted 12-12-2006 6:38 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by purpledawn, posted 12-13-2006 6:09 AM Wounded King has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 205 of 327 (369478)
12-13-2006 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by purpledawn
12-09-2006 8:08 PM


Re: Testing Avoidance
There is an extensive review of nutritional regulatory laws on the Harvard LEDA repository. One paper there, 'An Examination of the History and Current Regulatory Status of Dietary Supplements and Their Label Claims', references a paper by William Skinner in the Journal of Pharmacy and Law.
Later in 1993, Congressman Waxman, then chairman of the House Health Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, wrote to other members about ”the large volume of mail on the issue of dietary supplements.’ Waxman said much of the mail was generated by scare tactics to lead the public to believe the FDA was about to take vitamins, herbs and other dietary supplements off the market or to require prescriptions for them.
So this isn't simply a claim that Barrett has made up.
*ABE* Here is another source, a NY times article, which describes the lobbying efforts to represent the FDA as trying to restrict access to suplements. The article starts ...
THOUSANDS of Americans have been led to believe that the Food and Drug Administration plans to take away their vitamins and minerals and herbals and botanicals and amino acids.
It mentions an advertisment produced by a lobbying group showing Mel Gibson being arrested for posession of vitamin C.
And one of the lobbyist sets out their future roadmap ...
Mr. Kessler of the Nutritional Health Alliance said the thrust of future lobbying, which he expects to become even more intense, will change. "We are honing in more on censorship of statements," he said, "rather than the lack of availability of products."
So instead of dishonestly claiming that regulation is equivalent to criminalisation they switch to claiming that lying about your product is simply the exercise of free speech.*ABE*
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : Added link to NY times article

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by purpledawn, posted 12-09-2006 8:08 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by purpledawn, posted 12-13-2006 7:15 AM Wounded King has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 206 of 327 (369479)
12-13-2006 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Wounded King
12-13-2006 5:10 AM


Re: Testing Avoidance
Look at Message 201 again. Scraf doesn't seem to comprehend what I'm asking for. So I'm trying to explain.
purpledawn writes:
The problem is that you (Scraf) present QuackWatch as "gospel" (parden the expression) and you really have nothing that supports that his statements are true.
I found info that Barrett may not be as objective as he would lead his readers to believe. The example with Pauling is to show that Barrett is not just opposing unscientific quacks.
I end the post by rephrasing my question so that she might understand what I'm asking.
The post was not written to initiate a discussion on Pauling or his research.
So if you have information to support that the following statement is true, I'm listening.
Scraf writes:
...that the law that was passed that classifies all herbal drugs as "nutritional supplements" was lobbied heavily for in Washington by the manufacturers and retailers of these herbal drugs so they could continue to avoid having to test them for safety and efficacy.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Wounded King, posted 12-13-2006 5:10 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Wounded King, posted 12-13-2006 6:29 AM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 212 by nator, posted 12-13-2006 10:30 PM purpledawn has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 207 of 327 (369481)
12-13-2006 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by purpledawn
12-13-2006 6:09 AM


Re: Testing Avoidance
See how good I am, I posted the information before you even asked me to.
The example with Pauling is to show that Barrett is not just opposing unscientific quacks.
Just because Pauling had a couple of nobel's doesn't necessarily mean he couldn't be an unscientific quack when it came to Vitamin C and certainly doesn't mean he can't be wrong. I'm not saying that Pauling was wrong or that Vitamin C can't be beneficial, just that his having won the nobel doesn't prove that he is right.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by purpledawn, posted 12-13-2006 6:09 AM purpledawn has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 208 of 327 (369484)
12-13-2006 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Wounded King
12-13-2006 6:05 AM


Re: Testing Avoidance
Testing avoidance is the point not scare tactics.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Wounded King, posted 12-13-2006 6:05 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Wounded King, posted 12-13-2006 7:44 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 210 by nator, posted 12-13-2006 8:53 AM purpledawn has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 209 of 327 (369486)
12-13-2006 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by purpledawn
12-13-2006 7:15 AM


Re: Testing Avoidance
Alarmed by these developments, the health-food industry and its allies urged Congress to "preserve the consumer's freedom to choose dietary supplements." To whip up their troops, industry leaders warned retailers that they would be put out of business. Consumers were told that unless they took action, the FDA would take away their right to buy vitamins. These claims, although bogus, generated an avalanche of communications to Congress [3].
Reference #3 is his own book. "The Vitamin Pushers: How the Health Food Industry Is Selling America a Bill of Goods"
Why are you pissing and moaning about that specific reference if the claim that that reference supports is entirely irrelevant to your argument?
Never mind testing avoidance what about your own point avoidance. If all of these things are unconnected to the argument why have you kept bringing them up?
If the Supplements industry doesn't want to avoid strict regulation then why does it lobby so fervently to do just that? Why weren't they perfectly happy for their 3 year exemption to lapse and to adhere to the same strictures as food manufacturers that in order to make a health claim, the FDA requires "significant scientific agreement."
What is the point of lobbying to be able to make unsubstantiated health claims other than the desire to be able to make such claims without sufficient testing to back them up?
Given that the reason they used to mobilise consumers was specious what was their real motivation in your opinion?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by purpledawn, posted 12-13-2006 7:15 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by purpledawn, posted 12-14-2006 7:41 AM Wounded King has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 210 of 327 (369497)
12-13-2006 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by purpledawn
12-13-2006 7:15 AM


Re: Testing Avoidance
quote:
Testing avoidance is the point not scare tactics.
But the use of scare tactics by the manufacurers and retailers was the way the industry convinced people to influence Congress.
The proposal by the FDA to require that any product making health claims be tested just like any other drug was the impetus for this PR campaign.
Both WK and I have presented evidence that supports this claim.
I mean, did the PR campaign not happen? Was that commercial depicting Mel Gibson being put in handcuffs for having vitamin C a figment of our imaginations?
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by purpledawn, posted 12-13-2006 7:15 AM purpledawn has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024