Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
Judy's discussion on this topic makes about as much sense concerning Big-Pharma as her discussion about corn-based ethenol by Big-Agra. Everyone knows, even without a study, that Big-Agra and Big-Pharma are screwing the American public. Just follow the money. Both of these topics seem to be above Judy's pay grade. The question is not why she doesn't understand, but why she won't just tell the truth about it without posting some petty convoluted argument. Go figure. On 12/18/2013 10:48 AM, Bhairitu wrote: Apparently this issue for discussion is above your pay grade. ;-) On 12/18/2013 06:37 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com 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?* * *
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
On 12/18/2013 1:46 PM, Bhairitu wrote: But the funny thing is the pseudo scientific 'tude I'm seeing here against natural medicine. It's real simple: if it is posted by either of the two Barrys or by Richard, it is a lie and trolling, according to Judy. Do you see a pattern here? Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
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?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
Apparently this issue for discussion is above your pay grade. ;-) On 12/18/2013 06:37 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com 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?* * *
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
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?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
Herbal Supplements are not what they seem: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/science/herbal-supplements-are-often-not-what-they-seem.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/science/herbal-supplements-are-often-not-what-they-seem.html?_r=0
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
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. 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. 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, authfri...@yahoo.com 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?* * *
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
How much is big pharma paying you, Xeno? Americans spend an estimated $5 billion a year on unproven herbal supplements that promise everything from fighting off colds to curbing hot flashes and boosting memory. Unproven because big pharma fears research that might show that herbal remedies that have been around for centuries might prove to be more effective than their expensive brews which these hypocrites often base on the molecular of certain herbs such as the case of ephedrine is based on the wild growing weed Ephedra. I would recommend reading Dr. Andrew Weil's From Morphine to Chocolate for a background on where big pharma gets some of their ideas. But now there is a new reason for supplement buyers to beware: DNA tests show that many pills labeled as healing herbs are little more than powdered rice and weeds. Where did they get their test samples? At a dollar store? The real culprit they're trying to shove down our throats: http://www.codexalimentarius.org/ On 12/18/2013 11:20 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: Herbal Supplements are not what they seem: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/science/herbal-supplements-are-often-not-what-they-seem.html?_r=0
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
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?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
Hi Share bear, I know a lot of people who did not take antibiotics who are now dead. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. :)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
On 12/18/2013 12:31 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: 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. He's not a nutcase. I've read his articles and a heard him on radio. He's a smart guy. He's referring to the well known cases of medicines which have had to be recalled or taken off the market that didn't have enough testing. Supplement manufacturers for alternative care professionals are very fussy about testing and their sources. But it's obvious you're *not* familiar with that. You do know when you use the terms nutcase and cuckoo you sound like a demented old woman? 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?* * *
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
Not much, Share. Leading a very boring and dull life lately. So lonely. - NOT! haha. Been a very busy and happy girl. As if the big Jyotish map in the sky came and dropped fairy dust on me and allowed for a surprise meeting of a very nice person I was not expecting in this life. I mean, something happened and well, a lesson to know that when any of us are not having things go our way, that suddenly things can change to become better day by day. I will let you know when it goes bad. hahahahaa How about you? and you? and of course, you?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
Of course I'm familiar with that. But go look at the article again. He says medicines are never tested: In today's distorted system of quack medicine, junk science and pro-pharma propaganda, medications never have to be proven effective to be promoted and hyped. As to the terms nutcase and cuckoo, they're no more demented than some of the extreme terms you use to describe the targets of your conspiracy theories. And then there was Share's brilliant OMG, they must really think we're all idiots, to try and foist medicine on us as a source of nutrients! (Which, of course, nobody had suggested in the first place.) Plus which, he says there's no evidence that chemotherapy prevents the progression of cancer, which is also, sorry, bonkers. Did you understand what I explained about the contradiction, BTW? I notice you seem to have snipped all that. I'm going to predict that because I had some objections to that article, you will now label me as pro-Big Pharma. Also note that the person who first got hostile in this exchange was none other than you. Bhairitu wrote: On 12/18/2013 12:31 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: 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. He's not a nutcase. I've read his articles and a heard him on radio. He's a smart guy. He's referring to the well known cases of medicines which have had to be recalled or taken off the market that didn't have enough testing. Supplement manufacturers for alternative care professionals are very fussy about testing and their sources. But it's obvious you're not familiar with that. You do know when you use the terms nutcase and cuckoo you sound like a demented old woman? 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?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
*What part of I'm familiar with Mike Adams articles and his reports on the radio DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND! I didn't even need to read the article to know his intent. Besides I heard an hour long discussion on it the other day. What is your point other than trying to discredit somebody to gratify your already bloated ego? If you think Mike Adams needs an editor then contact him. Maybe you can pick up a few extra bucks that way. * On 12/18/2013 01:39 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Of course I'm familiar with that. But go look at the article again. He says medicines are /never/ tested: In today's distorted system of quack medicine, junk science and pro-pharma propaganda, medications never have to be proven effective to be promoted and hyped. As to the terms nutcase and cuckoo, they're no more demented than some of the extreme terms you use to describe the targets of your conspiracy theories. And then there was Share's brilliant OMG, they must really think we're all idiots, to try and foist medicine on us as a source of nutrients! (Which, of course, nobody had suggested in the first place.) Plus which, he says there's no evidence that chemotherapy prevents the progression of cancer, which is also, sorry, bonkers. Did you understand what I explained about the contradiction, BTW? I notice you seem to have snipped all that. I'm going to predict that because I had some objections to that article, you will now label me as pro-Big Pharma. Also note that the person who first got hostile in this exchange was none other than you. Bhairitu wrote: On 12/18/2013 12:31 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: 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. He's not a nutcase. I've read his articles and a heard him on radio. He's a smart guy. He's referring to the well known cases of medicines which have had to be recalled or taken off the market that didn't have enough testing. Supplement manufacturers for alternative care professionals are very fussy about testing and their sources. But it's obvious you're *not* familiar with that. You do know when you use the terms nutcase and cuckoo you sound like a demented old woman? 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?* * *
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
Calm down, Bhairitu. Does the fact that you're familiar with his articles and reports on the radio somehow make him immune from criticism? Why are you taking my comments about him so personally? Seems like it's maybe your ego that's bloated. Bhairitu screamed: What part of I'm familiar with Mike Adams articles and his reports on the radio DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND! I didn't even need to read the article to know his intent. Besides I heard an hour long discussion on it the other day. What is your point other than trying to discredit somebody to gratify your already bloated ego? If you think Mike Adams needs an editor then contact him. Maybe you can pick up a few extra bucks that way. On 12/18/2013 01:39 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Of course I'm familiar with that. But go look at the article again. He says medicines are never tested: In today's distorted system of quack medicine, junk science and pro-pharma propaganda, medications never have to be proven effective to be promoted and hyped. As to the terms nutcase and cuckoo, they're no more demented than some of the extreme terms you use to describe the targets of your conspiracy theories. And then there was Share's brilliant OMG, they must really think we're all idiots, to try and foist medicine on us as a source of nutrients! (Which, of course, nobody had suggested in the first place.) Plus which, he says there's no evidence that chemotherapy prevents the progression of cancer, which is also, sorry, bonkers. Did you understand what I explained about the contradiction, BTW? I notice you seem to have snipped all that. I'm going to predict that because I had some objections to that article, you will now label me as pro-Big Pharma. Also note that the person who first got hostile in this exchange was none other than you. Bhairitu wrote: On 12/18/2013 12:31 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: 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. He's not a nutcase. I've read his articles and a heard him on radio. He's a smart guy. He's referring to the well known cases of medicines which have had to be recalled or taken off the market that didn't have enough testing. Supplement manufacturers for alternative care professionals are very fussy about testing and their sources. But it's obvious you're not familiar with that. You do know when you use the terms nutcase and cuckoo you sound like a demented old woman? 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?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
On 12/18/2013 3:39 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: I'm going to predict that because I had some objections to that article, you will now label me as pro-Big Pharma. We could label you pro-Big Agra because you failed to warn us about the danger of using corn-based E15 in our cars; sort of like you labeled Share a Fox News watcher, when she doesn't even own a TV set. So, I'm going to predict that you will label me a liar and a troll for objecting to your reference to the Snope's mixed review, when everyone knows that big Agra is making all the money from corn-based ethenol. In both cases, you seem to be pro-Big Pharma and pro-big Agra,so you get the label.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
On 12/18/2013 2:59 PM, Bhairitu wrote: You do know when you use the terms nutcase and cuckoo you sound like a demented old woman? Let's just make it real simple:If it's posted by either of the two Barrys, Share, or Richard, then we're either liars, trolls, nutcases, or cuckoo. Is that clear?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
*Don't be Ridiculous!* On 12/18/2013 04:50 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: *Calm down, Bhairitu. Does the fact that you're familiar with his articles and reports on the radio somehow make him immune from criticism? Why are you taking my comments about him so personally? Seems like it's maybe your ego that's bloated.* * * *Bhairitu screamed:* * What part of I'm familiar with Mike Adams articles and his reports on the radio DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND! I didn't even need to read the article to know his intent. Besides I heard an hour long discussion on it the other day. What is your point other than trying to discredit somebody to gratify your already bloated ego? If you think Mike Adams needs an editor then contact him. Maybe you can pick up a few extra bucks that way. * On 12/18/2013 01:39 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Of course I'm familiar with that. But go look at the article again. He says medicines are /never/ tested: In today's distorted system of quack medicine, junk science and pro-pharma propaganda, medications never have to be proven effective to be promoted and hyped. As to the terms nutcase and cuckoo, they're no more demented than some of the extreme terms you use to describe the targets of your conspiracy theories. And then there was Share's brilliant OMG, they must really think we're all idiots, to try and foist medicine on us as a source of nutrients! (Which, of course, nobody had suggested in the first place.) Plus which, he says there's no evidence that chemotherapy prevents the progression of cancer, which is also, sorry, bonkers. Did you understand what I explained about the contradiction, BTW? I notice you seem to have snipped all that. I'm going to predict that because I had some objections to that article, you will now label me as pro-Big Pharma. Also note that the person who first got hostile in this exchange was none other than you. Bhairitu wrote: On 12/18/2013 12:31 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: 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. He's not a nutcase. I've read his articles and a heard him on radio. He's a smart guy. He's referring to the well known cases of medicines which have had to be recalled or taken off the market that didn't have enough testing. Supplement manufacturers for alternative care professionals are very fussy about testing and their sources. But it's obvious you're *not* familiar with that. You do know when you use the terms nutcase and cuckoo you sound like a demented old woman? 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?* * *
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
Supplements from the various suppliers of metabolic typing that I use
are of high quality. However I learned early on why they were supplying
some of the B vitamins as synthetics because the food based B's weren't
that stable and their potency would vary.
Big pharma is after the supplement market and wants it all to
themselves. I've talked with supplement manufacturers and they would
like better government regulation of the industry just not the pull the
ladder up kind that big pharma wants. They want to be able to assure
their customers that their products are top quality and that also
requires being able to verify their raw sources.
I agree with much of what Mike Adams writes on Natural News but not
necessarily anything that propose the shotgun use of supplements.
That in spite of the fact he has a good article there on metabolic typing.
On 12/17/2013 11:09 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com wrote:
Share,
Naturalnews.com is not necessarily a source of unbiased opinion. There
are clearly some things wrong in this article that was cited. Vitamins
are fat or water soluble chemicals that the body needs in limited
amounts. If you take more than the body needs, it just excretes them,
or in some cases, toxicity results. A vitamin has a specific chemical
structure, and it should work fine if ingested into the body; it
really does not matter how it gets into the body, from food or a pill,
or even injection, if the body can process it. Until about 80 years
ago, everyone got vitamins in food. Unless food sources are scarce or
the quality of the food is lacking, that should be enough and you need
not take any more. Most pill form vitamins are manufactured by just a
few companies, and they package them for other companies just changing
the labels on the bottles. You can check the bottle to see if was
'manufactured by' or 'distributed by' - the latter means the company
probably paid to have the product made under their label.
Most studies of vitamins are done by universities and pharmaceutical
companies. Pharmaceuticals have to be shown to be effective to be
marketed (even if in some cases the research is sub par), while food
supplements do not require proof of efficacy and are not restricted
for a specific intended use as are pharmaceuticals. The safety of food
supplements is left up to the manufacturer unless a definite problems
shows up. I take a multivitamin. I cannot tell if it does anything,
but I do not always follow a well balanced diet, so it is just a bit
of insurance, but I do not take more than the minimum daily
requirement. I have on occasion been prescribed a specific vitamin by
a physician for a specific reason.
While the article in your interpretation implies that advertising on a
web cite is inciting people to substitute pharmaceuticals for
vitamins, I did not read it that way. Ads are ubiquitous on the
Internet now.
Using Dietary Supplements Wisely
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/supplements/wiseuse.htm
Research has been done at NCCAM on quite a lot of alternate modalities
but the results of many of these have dashed the hopes of finding
effective alternatives to pharmaceuticals. Suspiciously many studies
done simply have not been published and the reason seems to be they
showed no useful effect for a particular modality.
There is a problem with government regulation in that, most
unfortunately, those that oversee the agencies often have ties to the
drug companies, and so there is always a suspicion that compromises
are being made behind closed doors. On the other hand supplement
companies sell products without any real research being done in most
cases.
The only reason to take a pharmaceutical is it will actually help with
a particular condition. Following the approval of a drug, its use is
monitored. In general the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical reported
in the studies that resulted in its approval turns out to be about
double what its effectiveness is reported to be in actual use by
physicians for their patients. And in some cases, a few drugs simply
do not prove to work at all, or have disastrous side effects and are
removed from the market. If you are healthy you really do not need to
take anything other than a well balanced diet.
For lunch today I had tilapia with Indian masala spices, white and
black rice, curried zucchini and tomatoes, and a small glass of
Riesling. I forgot to take my vitamin pill, and a specific drug that
has been prescribed (which works as intended by the way, unlike many
drugs, its effect is very obvious), so I will do that now.
---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, sharelong60@... wrote:
OMG, they must really think we're all idiots, to try and foist
medicine on us as a source of nutrients!
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 11:54 AM, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote:
Mainstream media and big pharma is hoodwinking the
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
Thank you, Xeno for your balanced input. I'm replying from the website because yahoo mail kept refreshing and losing what I had written! Anyway, supplement-wise, I read and experiment and sometimes ignore the results of both, just going by my intuition or, as you said, just continue in the spirit of *just in case it's doing something good.* I really don't like to take supplements. Nonetheless, I use a liquid multi vitamin and spray Vit D. The latter was recommended by my regular doc as was Vit C and calcium. My diet is pretty healthy albeit rather limited. I think even a healthy person would need to take something to supplement their diet. Mainly because our soil is so depleted of nutrients that even organic food in normal amounts might not supply all the nutrients one needs. As for tumeric, I'd much rather obtain that from delicious food I eat than from the capsules I see in the herb shop! I think in general the Oriental diets are much healthier if only because they supply herbs and spices that are beneficial. Laughing now because I'm remembering two aphorisms I've heard: food is Brahman; Brahman is the eater!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
Share,
Naturalnews.com is not necessarily a source of unbiased opinion. There are
clearly some things wrong in this article that was cited. Vitamins are fat or
water soluble chemicals that the body needs in limited amounts. If you take
more than the body needs, it just excretes them, or in some cases, toxicity
results. A vitamin has a specific chemical structure, and it should work fine
if ingested into the body; it really does not matter how it gets into the body,
from food or a pill, or even injection, if the body can process it. Until about
80 years ago, everyone got vitamins in food. Unless food sources are scarce or
the quality of the food is lacking, that should be enough and you need not take
any more. Most pill form vitamins are manufactured by just a few companies, and
they package them for other companies just changing the labels on the bottles.
You can check the bottle to see if was 'manufactured by' or 'distributed by' -
the latter means the company probably paid to have the product made under their
label.
Most studies of vitamins are done by universities and pharmaceutical
companies. Pharmaceuticals have to be shown to be effective to be marketed
(even if in some cases the research is sub par), while food supplements do not
require proof of efficacy and are not restricted for a specific intended use as
are pharmaceuticals. The safety of food supplements is left up to the
manufacturer unless a definite problems shows up. I take a multivitamin. I
cannot tell if it does anything, but I do not always follow a well balanced
diet, so it is just a bit of insurance, but I do not take more than the minimum
daily requirement. I have on occasion been prescribed a specific vitamin by a
physician for a specific reason.
While the article in your interpretation implies that advertising on a web
cite is inciting people to substitute pharmaceuticals for vitamins, I did not
read it that way. Ads are ubiquitous on the Internet now.
Using Dietary Supplements Wisely
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/supplements/wiseuse.htm
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/supplements/wiseuse.htm
Research has been done at NCCAM on quite a lot of alternate modalities but the
results of many of these have dashed the hopes of finding effective
alternatives to pharmaceuticals. Suspiciously many studies done simply have not
been published and the reason seems to be they showed no useful effect for a
particular modality.
There is a problem with government regulation in that, most unfortunately,
those that oversee the agencies often have ties to the drug companies, and so
there is always a suspicion that compromises are being made behind closed
doors. On the other hand supplement companies sell products without any real
research being done in most cases.
The only reason to take a pharmaceutical is it will actually help with a
particular condition. Following the approval of a drug, its use is monitored.
In general the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical reported in the studies that
resulted in its approval turns out to be about double what its effectiveness is
reported to be in actual use by physicians for their patients. And in some
cases, a few drugs simply do not prove to work at all, or have disastrous side
effects and are removed from the market. If you are healthy you really do not
need to take anything other than a well balanced diet.
For lunch today I had tilapia with Indian masala spices, white and black rice,
curried zucchini and tomatoes, and a small glass of Riesling. I forgot to take
my vitamin pill, and a specific drug that has been prescribed (which works as
intended by the way, unlike many drugs, its effect is very obvious), so I will
do that now.
---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, sharelong60@... wrote:
OMG, they must really think we're all idiots, to try and foist medicine on us
as a source of nutrients!
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 11:54 AM, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote:
Mainstream media and big pharma is hoodwinking the public into believing
that vitamin supplements are bad. Thing is they didn't bother to study
quality vitamins which do work, just the cheap ones (often produced by
big pharma themselves):
www.naturalnews.com/043254_mainstream_media_multivitamins_quack_science.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
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?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Big Pharma#39;s Phony Study
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, authfri...@yahoo.com 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?* * *
