Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
37 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, GDR, jar, JonF, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (8 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,132 Year: 22,168/19,786 Month: 731/1,834 Week: 231/500 Day: 59/69 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Safety and Effectiveness of Herbs and Pharmaceuticals
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 209 (554852)
04-10-2010 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Granny Magda
04-10-2010 9:47 AM


Re: Unfair definition
Granny Magda writes:

So marijuana is not a drug? Opium is not a drug? Peyote is not a drug?

Have I understood you right? If not, why not?

These examples are pretty much strawmen relative to my point. They have been deemed exclusively illegal by government due to the danger they pose to the people. The majority of naturals sold in the health stores pose no health risk. For the most part, the only side effects are positive whereas the majority of pharms have a list of negative side effects all of the way up to death. Regulation is all about money, power and control.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Granny Magda, posted 04-10-2010 9:47 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Taq, posted 04-10-2010 3:39 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 130 by Granny Magda, posted 04-10-2010 7:41 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 209 (554860)
04-10-2010 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Coragyps
04-10-2010 9:33 AM


Re: Unfair definition
Coragyps writes:

So what are you saying here, Buz? That they do no more for your health than celery does? Or that they contain only all-natural ingredients but none of those nasty chemicals!!1!?

Perhaps you should reread me, Coragyps. I said they've been a significant factor in keeping my wife and I MD free for 40 years. Celery, good, but having different properties than others. The designer has apparently designed a wide variety of herbs for a variety of remedies.

In Psalms 104 we read of all of the things that Jehovah has created, including the herbs (verse 14) "for the service of man that he may bring forth food out of the earth." As Oil, and other fluids service the automobile, so the herbs service man in order that both may fully function efficiently.

Coragyps writes:

Atropine or scopolamine that I can make in my lab is identically as potent and dangerous as that you can get from Jimsonweed. The ONLY difference is that the Jimsonweed synthesizes it in plant cells, and I would do it in expensive flasks or in discarded Mason jars.

There has been no evidence of any potency of any dangerous herbs being sold in the health stores across the nation, whereas the majority of pharms prescribed have some possible harmful side effects, due to the fact that they are largly manufactured compounds of chemicals and/or reconstituted plant compounds, un-natural to human consumption.

I've said the above to say that there are minerals and some tested chemicals which have no detrimental effects on the body. For this reason, Dr. Whitaker, MD, having five MDs on his staff operates an integrated health center, Wellness Center, the largest in the naiton where he integrates an occasional drugs into treatments which are largely holistic, involving diet, exercise, oxygen chambers, fasts, herbs and minerals, etc. I believe he is in Ventura, Ca.

He has effectively treated many terminal or otherwise incurable diseases for many thousands of Americans. One of these happens to be my daughter-in-law's mother, a career hospital nurse who had arthritis so bad that she was beginning to loose the use of her arms, etc. My wife apprised her of Dr Whitaker's clinic where she was helped to the extent that she once again has full function of here arms and feels better holistically over her whole body. She's just one example. I could cited many.

After a sick free winter my body recently underwent a spring cleaning. Without any drugs or MD visits, I began a cleansing process, including fasting, application of herbs, stringent diet, lots of water, etc. It makes one feel miserable for a day or two as the mucus and toxins are flushed to the surface but works to invigorate and strengthen the immune system etc. It takes me a while for the coughing and blowing of mucus from head and lungs to subside. This diminishes as the cleansing is accomplished. The nice part is good side effects upon the whole body.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Coragyps, posted 04-10-2010 9:33 AM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Coragyps, posted 04-10-2010 4:21 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 123 of 209 (554861)
04-10-2010 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Buzsaw
04-10-2010 2:41 PM


Re: Unfair definition
The majority of naturals sold in the health stores pose no health risk. For the most part, the only side effects are positive . . .

Can you please cite the clinical trials that support this claim? If no clinical, scientific studies exist then how can you make these claims?

Also, if natural medications are not effective in treating illness then who cares if they don't have any side effects. You need to show that they are effective and have fewer side effects compared to a comparable pharm product in clinical trials if you are going to make these claims.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Buzsaw, posted 04-10-2010 2:41 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Buzsaw, posted 04-10-2010 4:31 PM Taq has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5414
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 124 of 209 (554871)
04-10-2010 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Buzsaw
04-10-2010 3:32 PM


Re: Unfair definition
whereas the majority of pharms prescribed have some possible harmful side effects, due to the fact that they are largly manufactured compounds of chemicals and/or reconstituted plant compounds, un-natural to human consumption.

So if it's manufactured, it's "un-natural for human consumption?" Pressing dried leaves into a pill seems pretty "un-natural" too, Buz. Where do you draw the line? Shouldn't you grow the stuff yourself without a Rototiller, so your product is more "natural?" Or at least use a wood-burning, steam-powered Rototiller?

And who tests the "few tested chemicals" to show they have no detrimental effects? Dr Whitaker? Where does he publish his results so that I can read them?

Anecdote does not equal evidence.

And I'm happy for you that your health is so good.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Buzsaw, posted 04-10-2010 3:32 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 209 (554873)
04-10-2010 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Taq
04-10-2010 3:39 PM


Re: Unfair definition
Taq writes:

Can you please cite the clinical trials that support this claim? If no clinical, scientific studies exist then how can you make these claims?

Also, if natural medications are not effective in treating illness then who cares if they don't have any side effects. You need to show that they are effective and have fewer side effects compared to a comparable pharm product in clinical trials if you are going to make these claims.

No clenical study would be required in order to assertain the health benefits of garlic, rose hips, brussel sprout, cilantro, parsley, magnesium, calcium, zinc, various sprouts, fish and other essential oils, etc. The knowledge regarding the beneficial benefits of these and other naturals has been widespread over the millenia of human history.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Taq, posted 04-10-2010 3:39 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Taq, posted 04-10-2010 5:32 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1798 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 126 of 209 (554875)
04-10-2010 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Granny Magda
04-10-2010 11:37 AM


Re: FDA - Labeling
quote:
Yes, I know that. The fact is though, that any product sold with a medicinal claim carries with it an implication that the product has been tested, that it's alleged effects are real and that it has stood up to the appropriate regulations. Customers are going to assume that he has met any appropriate standards. To carry such boasts without compliance with FDA standards is intrinsically dishonest.
The last letter was 2006. Do you feel his site didn't make the appropriate change?

Are his claims worse than those put out by pharmaceutical companies that also make supplements?

IMO, pharmaceutical companies would be more misleading. Wouldn't the customer assume that a pharmaceutical company would be more likely to test, more reliable?

Wyeth makes Centrum

From Centrum Cardio Bottle
# Corowise™ Phytosterols, an ingredient derived from soybeans, may reduce the risk of heart disease by lowering LDL (bad) cholesterol.*
# High levels of Vitamins B6 and B12 to support heart health.*

Bayer makes One A Day

Men's Health Formula
One A Day® Men’s Health Formula is a complete multivitamin specially formulated for leading men's health concerns. It contains key nutrients to support heart health, healthy blood pressure††, immunity and physical energy.*

A Complete Multivitamin with More of What Matters to Men.
Formulated to Support:*

* Heart Health with Vitamins B6, B12, C, E and Folic Acid
* Healthy Blood Pressure†† Vitamin C, Calcium, Magnesium, and more† Vitamin D
* Immunity with Vitamins A, C, E and Selenium
* Physical Energy with Vitamins B6, B12, Pantothenic Acid, Chromium, and Folic Acid

Both carry this statement:

*These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Why wouldn't he cash the checks? Pharmaceutical companies cash their checks regardless of whether their meds cure, maim, kill, or do nothing for an individual.

I feel it is a big mistake to assume any company is looking out for our best interests. Advertisements are designed to make us think they are. Companies push the envelope. Does that make them all dishonest?

It's still a world of buyer beware.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Granny Magda, posted 04-10-2010 11:37 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 04-10-2010 5:37 PM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply
 Message 131 by Granny Magda, posted 04-10-2010 8:03 PM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 127 of 209 (554881)
04-10-2010 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Buzsaw
04-10-2010 4:31 PM


Re: Unfair definition
No clenical study would be required in order to assertain the health benefits of garlic, rose hips, brussel sprout, cilantro, parsley, magnesium, calcium, zinc, various sprouts, fish and other essential oils, etc. The knowledge regarding the beneficial benefits of these and other naturals has been widespread over the millenia of human history.

There was widespread knowledge that the Sun moved about the Earth as well. No clinical trial = no evidence of efficacy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Buzsaw, posted 04-10-2010 4:31 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 128 of 209 (554882)
04-10-2010 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by purpledawn
04-10-2010 4:52 PM


Re: FDA - Labeling
I feel it is a big mistake to assume any company is looking out for our best interests.

This is why clinical trials are run independently of the pharm company. Yes, there has been malfeasance in the past with regards to clinical trials. However, this only points to the necessity of running strongly independent clinical trials.

With "natural remedies" you have the company running everything without any independent fact checking. This leads to false claims, unneeded risk to the patient, and outright fraud. There is every reason in the world to bring natural remedies under the same rules that we have for pharmaceuticals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by purpledawn, posted 04-10-2010 4:52 PM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Buzsaw, posted 04-10-2010 9:32 PM Taq has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 129 of 209 (554895)
04-10-2010 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Kitsune
04-10-2010 12:52 PM


Re: Vaccine-Denialism Not the Issue
Hi Kitsune,

I never claimed he was being persecuted. I said I think he has been misrepresented.

Given that these misrepresentations have led to his being professionally destroyed, it amounts to the same thing.

That is because whenever I look into this fiasco, I find that the charges you listed (which have not been substantiated) are refuted in some quarters. Perhaps you are biased enough to brand anyone who disagrees a quack, but the jury is out with me.

The jury is not out. In the case of medical doctors the jury is the General Medical Council. The GMC finds those charges to be very much substantiated.

If you don't like Mercola, there are lots of other sites where the allegations against Wakefield are disputed. Here is another.

Melanie Phillips!? That's your voice of reason? Melanie-frickin-Phillips? An insane creationist global warming denier is someone who you think I should listen to on matters of medical science? Quick, get me some herbs, I may have split my side laughing. Mostly she recycles Wakefield's own denials, hardly an unbiased source. Melanie Phillips knows jack shit about science and she presents no evidence of any link between MMR and autism in her article.

(Yawn) Purpledawn wrote a good succinct post about this, above. Though in your eyes this no doubt proves that Dr. Mercola is selling snake oil. Curiously my health has been fine while using his products.

I certainly feel that it tarnishes his reputation and effectively discredits him as a source.

Oh, by the way, I got a new office chair recently and since, I've not been trampled by a rhinoceros. So... office chairs protect from rhino attack?

Also, how much are you paying for that coconut oil? $17.45 a pint it says on Mercola's site. Jebus! You know that you can get it from local Indian and Pakistani grocers for about a couple of quid, right?

Regarding the baking soda one, your propaganda site says that Mercola is telling people to use baking soda to cure swine flu.
Here is what his web page says:

Taken internally, it helps maintain the pH balance in your bloodstream. This is likely the basic premise behind its recommended uses against both colds and influenza symptoms

Nice editing job there. Here's the full version;

quote:
Few people realize, however, that baking soda also has potent medicinal properties. Taken internally, it helps maintain the pH balance in your bloodstream. This is likely the basic premise behind its recommended uses against both colds and influenza symptoms, and even cancer.

Cheap trick that. Mercola's page is full of references to the supposed curative powers of baking soda. He specifically mentions flu, again and again. He goes on to eulogise the use of baking soda as a treatment against cancer of all things! Ask yourself what Mercola is trying to tell us with this "historical" analysis. The page ends with a link to his "Top 12 all-natural cancer prevention strategies", which include an awful lot of the things that he sells... It's all just advertising, mixed in with grotesque pseudo-science. Amusing - he quotes an 86 year old pamphlet from Arm & Hammer! - but ultimately just advertising.

And about the cancer-caused-by-fungus thing . . . this is someone talking about candida.

No it is not. It is Dr. Tullio Simoncini, a hilarious wackaloon, who has written a book entitled Cancer is a Fungus. He means that literally. He is suggesting that cancerous tumours are actually fungal growths, an argument so insane that it boggles the mind. He thinks that they are fungi because they are white. There is a video on Mercola's site, with Simoncini being interviewed. Unfortunately for me, I know a bit about fungi, so I really couldn't watch past this comment from the insipid host;

quote:
Ah, see, because yeast and fungi are white. Anybody take a mushroom, crush it up; it's a white mass.

The stupid, it burns. That is a top contender for the most ignorant statement I've ever heard. There are thousands of coloured mushrooms. Even the button mushrooms you buy in Tesco will stain pink/grey when crushed. These guys are unbelievable. Simoncini repeatedly stresses that tumours are white, as if this observation were somehow meaningful. Mercola sees fit to link to this piffle on his site. This is a very good reason not to trust his opinions on matters scientific.

No, coconut oil is not unhealthy for overweight people. I don't know where you're getting this idea that eating fat causes people to be fat

Be serious. If you are overweight, eating fat is far less healthy than reducing fat intake. this is not complicated. Coconut fat may be a very in healthy fat in comparison to other fats but if you are seriously obese, no fat can truly be considered healthy, certainly not in the naive sense that you suggested.

Firstly, cases {of measles and mumps} have not "boomed,"

I repeat;

quote:
Parents are urged to ensure their children get the MMR jab. Measles cases in England and Wales rose by 36% in 2008, figures show. Confirmed cases increased from 990 in 2007 to 1,348 last year - the highest figure since the monitoring scheme was introduced in 1995.

Vaccination could have prevented those cases.

and adverse reactions are far fewer than the number of cases because healthy people's immune systems fight these illnesses off.

Adverse reactions? What, like death? Avoidable death. That is adverse.

Secondly, Wakefield advocated that the vaccines be given in separate doses rather than all together; he did not tell people not to vaccinate at all.

And the net effect has been that children have been left unvaccinated. The wider vaccine denying crowd (including Mercola) and the media must take their share of the blame of course, for creating a wider panic about vaccines in general, but that does not excuse Wakefield's cavalier actions based as they are upon flimsy non-evidence.

It's odd how people rail on against "dangerous" supplements sold by health food stores, and people dying from diseases for which there are vaccines. Strangely, the rates of iatrogenic illnesses and the death toll from FDA-approved prescription drugs never make the headlines. Why is that?

Because the media is made up of shallow, scientifically illiterate fuckwits? Or perhaps it's not actually true, given the number of stories about hospital-acquired infections such as MRSA.

Why aren't people like Steven Barrett going after the manufacturers of drugs like Zyprexa (which causes akathisia and diabetes), which instead of being pulled off the market, get a black box warning that you should be "monitored" if you take them?

Because the complete lack of any scientific rigour that characterises the alt-med fraternity stands out as being a clear and present danger to public health, with little or no oversight. Pharmaceutical companies have oversight. They actually test their products. It may not be perfect, but it functions. Who discovered the ill effects of Zyprexa? Was it a herbalist or homeopath?

I meant that precisely: he would have us steer clear of all healthy nutritional supplements.

Look, either provide a citation or quit slagging the guy. If that's his view, it should be easy for you to back up. For the record, I fail to see why a healthy person should require food supplements in the first place. I've always found that actual food was quite adequate.

Well congratulations. A whole post with hardly a mention of Andrew Wakefield and not a shred of evidence that MMR causes autism. Kudos. Are you ever going to provide evidence that MMR is linked to autism? Or cite those monkey studies? Or show that coconut oil fights cancer? I guess not, because you're not actually debating...

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Kitsune, posted 04-10-2010 12:52 PM Kitsune has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Kitsune, posted 04-13-2010 7:38 AM Granny Magda has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 130 of 209 (554901)
04-10-2010 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Buzsaw
04-10-2010 2:41 PM


Re: Unfair definition
Hi Buz,

These examples are pretty much strawmen relative to my point.

No they aren't. They are all natural organic herbs which happen to have an active effect on our bodies. That makes them drugs, just as if they were synthetic chemicals. How does it not?

They have been deemed exclusively illegal by government...

Are you saying that it's only a drug if it's illegal? We're not talking about the legal sense of a "controlled drug" here.

...due to the danger they pose to the people.

Are you saying that it's only a drug if it's unsafe? Many synthetic drugs are perfectly safe. Does that mean that they're not really drugs?

The majority of naturals sold in the health stores pose no health risk.

Firstly, you just pulled that claim out of a certain orifice.

Secondly, St. John's Wort poses a health risk. Does that mean that it is a drug, even though it's a herb?

For the most part, the only side effects are positive

Again, you made this up. Citation needed. I would be especially curious to witness a "positive side effect".

Of course, St John's Wort has negative side effects (unless you consider "High blood pressure, headaches, stiff neck, nausea, and vomiting" positive. Does that mean that SJW is a drug, even though it is a herbal?

whereas the majority of pharms have a list of negative side effects all of the way up to death.

So if a synthetic drug doesn't have any negative side effects and can't kill you, does that mean it's no longer a drug?

Regulation is all about money, power and control.

Nice paranoid fantasy you got there. Regulation isn't even the issue I'm addressing here. For now I just want to know what criteria you use to define the word "drug". You seem to think that the word is somehow derogatory. I disagree. It is a neutral term that describes certain chemical substances. I think that the definition cited by Percy ("any chemical or combination of chemicals that has biological activity within the body above and beyond their purely nutritional value.") is a fair and useful one. What's your definition?

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Buzsaw, posted 04-10-2010 2:41 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 131 of 209 (554906)
04-10-2010 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by purpledawn
04-10-2010 4:52 PM


Re: FDA - Labeling
Hi PD,

The last letter was 2006. Do you feel his site didn't make the appropriate change?

His site still makes unsubstantiated claims about products like coconut oil. It doesn't really matter if he has been forced to make the appropriate changes. One offence I could overlook, but twice shows that he doesn't really care whether he meets the FDA standards or not. His open hostility towards such standards is all over his site. I find that pretty damning. I can't help but suspect that Mercola is against the FDA because he is the exact type of charlatan that the FDA is there to guard against.

Are his claims worse than those put out by pharmaceutical companies that also make supplements?

That's not relevant. No-one was talking about by claims made by the pharma companies.

I'm not sure what relevance you think the supplements have. I don't approve of food supplements making claims that they can help healthy people who already get plenty of nutrition. I suspect that they are more flim-flam, whether they come from herbalists or pharmaceutical companies, although I have to admit that I am not familiar with any evidence either way.

Why wouldn't he cash the checks?

There is no reason why he shouldn't...except that he criticises "Big Pharma" for being a profiteering racket. You can't both make that claim and sell unproven treatments. That is simple hypocrisy. It's not so much his income that I am criticising, it's his hypocritical bullshit.

I feel it is a big mistake to assume any company is looking out for our best interests. Advertisements are designed to make us think they are. Companies push the envelope. Does that make them all dishonest?

It's still a world of buyer beware.

No, I'm sorry, but it's not. At least it certainly shouoldn't be whne it comes to medicines. The FDA regulations (and similar regulations in most countires) are there for a very good reason. they are there to protect patients from the horrifc effects of unfettered capitalism in health care. The days of literal snake-oil salesmen have been ended by such regulations.

Patients have a right to expect a certain minimum level of scientific oversight from their medicines. Lack of such oversight leads to exploitation and even damage to health (as in the recent Traditional Chinese Medicine poisoning in Britain). Simply saying caveat emptor is insufficient.

Oh, and as for advertising, I agree with this guy...

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by purpledawn, posted 04-10-2010 4:52 PM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Buzsaw, posted 04-10-2010 9:50 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 209 (554922)
04-10-2010 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Taq
04-10-2010 5:37 PM


Re: FDA - Labeling
Taq writes:

With "natural remedies" you have the company running everything without any independent fact checking. This leads to false claims, unneeded risk to the patient, and outright fraud. There is every reason in the world to bring natural remedies under the same rules that we have for pharmaceuticals.

When you begin reading about the maimed and dead due to the naturals as is the case with the pharms, then you have reason for government oversight and regulation. Otherwise you're advocating even more big expensive government bureaucratic costly harassment on the naturals than they are already encountering to the detriment of us, their satisfied and benefited customers.

We who apply the naturals significantly reduce the need to apply the overloaded healthcare system's public funded services. At age 74, thanks to the naturals, neither my wife or I have once used any form of medicare or medicaid.

We are loosing our freedoms and tax depleted earnings, one law at a time. A caged bird is safely caged, managed and fed by it's owner but has no freedom. An uncaged, unmanaged and unowned bird's safety is at risk but it's free to go where, eat and do what it pleases. Freedom necessarily involves an element of risk. Compared to the pharms the naturals pose relatively insignificant risk.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 04-10-2010 5:37 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Granny Magda, posted 04-10-2010 9:50 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 140 by Coragyps, posted 04-11-2010 11:28 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 141 by Taq, posted 04-11-2010 2:20 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 133 of 209 (554924)
04-10-2010 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Buzsaw
04-10-2010 9:32 PM


Re: FDA - Labeling
Uh, Buz old chap,

When you begin reading about the maimed and dead due to the naturals as is the case with the pharms, then you have reason for government oversight and regulation.

Could you pop on over to Message 73 and take a look please. Thanks.

At age 74, thanks to the naturals, neither my wife or I have once used any form of medicare or medicaid.

You're sure it's due to the herbs? Really? How do you know it's them and not something else? Maybe it's Jesus.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Buzsaw, posted 04-10-2010 9:32 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 209 (554925)
04-10-2010 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Granny Magda
04-10-2010 8:03 PM


Re: Mercola's Wonderful Body Butter
Granny Magda writes:

His site still makes unsubstantiated claims about products like coconut oil. It doesn't really matter if he has been forced to make the appropriate changes. One offence I could overlook, but twice shows that he doesn't really care whether he meets the FDA standards or not. His open hostility towards such standards is all over his site. I find that pretty damning. I can't help but suspect that Mercola is against the FDA because he is the exact type of charlatan that the FDA is there to guard against.

My wife loves Dr Mercola's wonderful body butter. It's ingredients are so safe that it is great for baby's skin and if it were accidently ingested, would pose no health risk. Not so with most body creams.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Granny Magda, posted 04-10-2010 8:03 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Granny Magda, posted 04-10-2010 10:07 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 142 by Taq, posted 04-11-2010 2:22 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 135 of 209 (554926)
04-10-2010 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Buzsaw
04-10-2010 9:50 PM


Re: Mercola's Wonderful Body Butter
My wife loves Dr Mercola's wonderful body butter. It's ingredients are so safe that it is great for baby's skin

Your wife is a baby? I didn't know you were Catholic.

Seriously, I have no argument with you here. What's not to love about a delicious fat that melts at body temperature? It's more the claims that coconut oil can fight cancer that I'm sceptical of.

Believe it or not, I'm very much in favour of herbal medicine. It's a neglected field, although increasingly less so. There must be thousands of herbs out there with wonderful medicinal properties and the capacity to improve our lives in a multitude of ways. I'm just not in favour of building false distinctions between herbal and synthetic medicines. All drugs should be treated the same; trialled as thoroughly as possible for safety and efficacy, whether herbal or otherwise. I don't think that most herbal medics have risen to this challenge.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Buzsaw, posted 04-10-2010 9:50 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Buzsaw, posted 04-10-2010 10:27 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019