Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill?

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?

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?

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.

But PD, you didn't answer my question. What specific claims made do you dispute, and what specific evidence do you dispute them with?What specific parts of the testing avoidance lobbying effort do you doubt are true, and what specific evidenceis this doubt based upon?

quote:

---

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.

---

No, the fact that he attacks Pauling's claims is evidence against his being biased.It shows that he looks at the merits of claims independently of the person making them and is not swayed by authority, reputation, or past successes.You know...like scientific peer-review.Many of Pauling's ideas about Vitamin C are not supported by the evidence. You can read about that here.

quote:

---

Even though there are always groups trying scam the system, I don't feel that respectable supplement manufacturers want to avoid showing that their products are safe and effective. As shown below, some did not agree with the FDA interpretation of "significant scientific agreement".

---

PD, this is getting silly.Do you or do you not agree that the PR campaign took place?If you do, then what is your interpretation of WHY it took place and WHY the industry did it at that time?

quote:

---

It took place to prevent the FDA from finalizing regulations they had proposed in 1993. Some consumers and manufacturers apparently still had problems with the proposed regulations.

---

And what problems do you think the industry had with the laws?And the PR campaign actually IS the issue, because if they had legitimate reasons for wanting to prevent the law, they would have used those instead of the false claims they made in the campaign.Also, do you agree that the PR campaign was intentionally misleading to consumers when it depicted Mel Gibson being arrested for possession of vitamin C?Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

For example: The supplement industries want the FDA to prove before a court that a supplement is unsafe etc.

---

Shouldn't the producers of the product have to show that it is safe BEFORE they are allowed to sell it?Why should the taxpayers have to pay for research that the manufaturers should have to do?I've asked this question before in this thread, and it was never addressed.It's not rhetorical, by the way.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

A bag of jelly beans or double bubble gum has more potential for serious illness than 98% of the herbals.

---

Buzsaw, when are you going to address the case studies I posted where people were seriously injured by the liver poisons in comfrey?

quote:

---

For example if one uses perfumes, fumigators, hair and arm sprays, tanning/sunburn lotions, hair dyes, lipsticks, et al, et al, their cancer risk rises significantly.

---

Reference, please.

quote:

---

It is about as addictive to children as tobacco is to adults

---

Evidence, please.

quote:

---

and many times more of a health threat than 98% of herbal and other health suppliments found on the natural health suppliment shelves.

---

Evidence, please.

quote:

---

The FDA took a position in response to the NLEA, which many, including some in Congress, took to reflect an overeagerness to place undue restrictions upon claims made from dietary supplements.

---

This is a quote from a consultant to the supplement industry who shares your opinion.What is that supposed to prove?Given the industry's willingness to lie to consumers about their products and also about the proposed regulation doesn't give me much confidence in their analysis of the situation.

quote:

---

Since natural substances supposedly can't be patented, the supplement industry would not benefit financially from the level of testing done for drugs, which IMO is why they don't want to be deemed drugs.

---

OK, PD.Please explain to me why a manufacturer who claims that their product "supports liver function" or "tetoxifies the blood" shouldn't have to actually demonstrate that their product does, in fact, support the function of the liver or detoxify the blood, before they are allowed to sell it?Would it also be acceptable for a manufacturer and seller of an automobile to claim that it gets good gas mileage without actually having to demonstrate that the car actually gets good mileage?

quote:

---

They want to be responsible for maintaining safety standards.

---

What safety standards?Seriously, what safety standards exist for herbal supplements?

Mostly, I'd like a reply to message #228 in this thread.Thanks.

You are using the definition of "dietary supplement" to encompass herbal drugs when they shouldn't.I mean, come on.Many, many things sold as "dietary supplements" (a term invented in 1994 to be a loophole for the manufacturers and retailers) have no "dietary" value.They are taken as, and intended to be, medicine. Remedies. Theraputic.In other words, drugs.I mean, what nutrition does Comfrey provide? Black Cohosh? Willow bark? Ephedra? Kava Kava? Ginko Biloba? Echinacia?To expect me to agree that people ingest these and probably hundreds of other substances because they are trying to improve their nutrition is insulting.They are clearly marketed with that loophole in mind.

quote:

---

What research have you found that taxpayers are paying for?

---

When you said that the FDA should have to prove that an herbal drug is unsafe, it is the same as saying that the American taxpayers should pay to prove that a product sold by a private company isn't safe, since the taxpayers fund the FDA.To me, this is backwards.The company that wishes to sell anything should have to prove that it is safe BEFORE being allowed to sell it, not require the taxpayers to do the research the company should have been required to do in the first place.This would include determining what a safe dosage is, what the side effects in the short or long term are, if there are interactions with other drugs or foods, if there are certain subgroups that are affected differently, etc.Currently, herbal manufacturers are not required to do any of this, and, AFAIK, none of them do it voluntarily.Can you explain why you believe they shouldn't be required to do so? Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

As does the FDA.

---

And it shouldn't have to, PD, that's the whole frigging point.It was forced to when that travesty of a law was passed instead of the one that should have been.The FDA was forced to adopt that definition because of the law that was passed that was, in large part, influenced by the false PR and lobbying campaign put on by the herbal manufacturers and retailers.

quote:

---

Personally I agree with the ACMA and feel that medicinal herbs should have a slot of their own with appropriate regulations. They are not for the general public or unlearned practioners.

---

So, what do you think appropriate regulations should consist of?

quote:

---

In the United States, doesn't the burden of proof lie with the accuser?

---

No, not when somebody is SELLING something.Shouldn't a product that claims on its label that it "supports liver function" have to show that it actually does, in fact, "support liver function" before it is allowed to sell such a product?IOW, should a company be allowed to sell a product that it doesn't actually know if it works or not?Why or why not?ABE: Basically, what you are suggesting is that, instead of Honda and Ford and BMW having to pay for the safety testing they do for their automobiles as a cost of doing business, it should be the taxpayers who pay for all of that testing only after some of their new models are shown to be dangerous.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.