Bhairitu wrote: << Apparently I need to do a reader's digest version for Judy. But what the writer was pointing out that the problem with many supplements are the cheap ones that big pharma makes which indeed does seem a bit contradictive. >>
Yes, that's exactly what I was asking about, given that, according to the article, Big Pharma makes sure that its own low-quality supplements are used for the evaluative studies. If what it wants is the whole supplement market, one would think that Big Pharma would want the studies to have good results and therefore would want them to test the best possible supplements available (i.e., not its own) so as not to scare away consumers. Once science gave supplements its stamp of approval, Big Pharma could just compete on price because consumers wouldn't know about the difference in quality. That would make sense as a strategy--but, according to the article, that isn't what Big Pharma is doing. If Big Pharma wants people not to buy supplements at all, its own or any others (as the article also claims), it would make sense to have the studies test its own low-quality supplements and come up with negative results. The problem with making Big This and Big That guilty of every conceivable type of conspiracy is that some of the conspiracies' goals may be in conflict with each other. In this case, if Big Pharma wants everyone to use its supplements, it can't also want people to stop using supplements altogether and use its medicines instead. Those two goals are incompatible. BTW, you do realize the guy who wrote the article is a nutcase, right? I mean, he claims that medicines are never tested for effectiveness while supplements always are. That's just cuckoo; it's exactly the opposite. << Real natural health practitioners will be very fussy about supplement sources (as I pointed out as did the article). And if you actually have enough background in the supplement therapy you can also use some of the cheap supplements too for certain conditions. It''s all just biochemistry (which as I've said before that a friend who went to medical school told me many of the students were lousy at). Also this trying to stop supplements has been going on for ages. It won't go anywhere because even standard medicine uses supplements for some things. But the funny thing is the pseudo scientific 'tude I'm seeing here against natural medicine. >> Seeing here where? Oh, you mean Xeno. Back in the 1970s my fellow TM'ers were interested in alternative medicine and supported local MDs, naturopaths and chiropractors who used it. Remember MMY hadn't blessed us with his brand of ayurveda yet. I guess some of the folks here have turned into old fogies seeking salvation by being pharmadicts standing in line at CVS or Walgreens to get their fix. On 12/18/2013 10:09 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Translation: Bhairitu can't figure out why he (and the writer of the article) contradicted himself either... Can anyone else here explain it? Bhairitu wrote: << Apparently this issue for discussion is above your pay grade. ;-) >> On 12/18/2013 06:37 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Wait. First you said Big Pharma wanted the supplement market all to itself. That doesn't jibe with making the public terrified of supplements, period. Bhairitu wrote: Because the public doesn't know which are theirs and which are not. They just want the public terrified of supplements period and then sell them the higher profit "Brave New World" pharmaceuticals. On 12/17/2013 02:48 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Bhairitu wrote: << Big pharma is after the supplement market and wants it all to themselves. >> But but but...according to the Natural News article you linked to, Big Pharma arranged for all the testing to be done on its own supplements. Why would it do that knowing the study results would be negative and that folks would be discouraged from using supplements generally?
