PDA

View Full Version : The shadiest thing the FDA has ever done.



daodejing
02-03-2005, 10:48 PM
This was sent to me this morning by a close friend. Doc and Zach, please check this out, and put your research monkeys to work on it, cause if this is true, shit I hope this isn't true.


THIS IS EXTREMELY SERIOUS. PLEASE TAKE ACTION!

Can you afford to pay $100/Month for each and every vitamin and
mineral supplement
you take?
Read this very important health message below and contact everyone in
the suggestions.

Your right to choose your vitamin, mineral and other supplements may
end in June of this
year (2005). After that U.S. supplements will be defined
and controlled by the World Trade
Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The CODEX
ALIMENTARIUS
(Food Code) is setting the supplement standards for all countries in
the WTO. They will be
enforced by the WTO and will override U.S. laws. The U.S. President
and Congress
agreed to this take-over when the WTO Treaty was signed. Violations are
punished
by WTO trade sanctions.

CODEX drastically restricts vitamins, minerals, herbs and other
supplements. CODEX met
secretly in November, 2004 and finalized Step 8 (the final stage) to
begin
implementation in June, 2005.

The CODE includes:

(1) No supplement can be sold for preventive or therapeutic use.

(2) Any potency higher than RDA (minimal strength) is a drug requiring
a prescription and
must be produced by drug companies. Over 5000 safe items now in health
stores will be
banned, terminating health stores as we now know them.
(3) CODEX regulations become binding internationally.
(4) New supplements are banned unless given very expensive CODEX
testing
and approval.

CODEX now applies to Norway and Germany, among others, where zinc
tablets rose
from $4 per bottle to $52. Echinacea (an ancient
immune-enhancement herb) rose from
$14 to $153 (both examples are now allowed by prescription only). They
are now drugs.
Vitamin C above 200 mg, niacin above 32 mg, vitamin B6 above 4 mg, all
are
banned over-the-counter as drugs. No amino acids (arginine, lysine,
carnitine, etc. =
essential amino acids!), essential fatty acids (omegas 3, 6, 9, etc.),
or other essential
supplements such as DMEA, DHEA, CoQ10, MSM, beta-carotene, etc. are
allowed.

The CODEX rules are not based on real science. They are made by a few
people meeting
in secret (see web sites below), not necessarily scientists. In
1993 the FDA and drug
corporations tried to put all supplements under restriction and
prescription. But over 4
million Americans told Congress and the President to protect their
freedom of choice
on health supplements. The DSHEA Law was passed in 1994, which
does protect our
freedom of choice. But this will be over ruled by CODEX and the World
Trade
Organization. Virtually nothing about it has been in the media. What
the drug
corporations have failed to do through Congress they have gotten by
sneak attack
through CODEX with the help of a silent media.

What can be done at this late hour?

(1) Spread the word as much as possible. Inform yourselves fully at
www.ahha.org,
www.iahf.com, and www.alliance-natural-health.org.

(2) Oppose bills S.722 and H.R.3377. These support the CODEX
restrictions with U.S.
laws, changing the DSHEA law.

(3) Support H. R.1146 which would restore the sovereignty of the
U.S. Constitution over
CODEX, etc.

(4) Express your wishes to the President, Senators and
Representatives (They got us into
this!) ASAP.

(5) Contact multi-level health marketing groups that can get their
members to inform the
government.

(6) Send donations, however small, to the British Alliance for Natural
Health (see web site
above). It has succeeded in challenging the CODEX directives in World
Court later this
month or next. They need help financially, having carried the fight
effectively for
everyone.

CODEX and the FDA wish to protect us by controlling supplements in the
same way
they do prescription drugs. A study of the latter by three medical
scientists was reported
in the Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998 Vol.
279, No. 15, p.
1200. Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) was found to be
extremely high.
Covering 30 years (1966 to 1996) it was found that in the U.S. an
average of
106,000 hospitalized patients per year (290 per day) die from ADRs and
2,200,000 need
more hospitalization for recovery. These were FDA approved drugs,
properly administered
by competent professionals in hospitals--none were
considered malpractice. This is
the number four cause of death in the U.S. When combined, these account
for 7% of all
hospitalized patients. This is equivalent to a 9-11 attack every
ten days. There are very
few fatalities from supplements or the news would be on every front
page. There is no
need for more FDA control of supplements than is already in place,
which is substantial.
Instead of drastically restricting supplements, why doesn't the FDA
better control and
restrict the extremely dangerous pharmaceutical drugs which are now
killing us at the rate
of a major airline crash per day?

Adam K.
02-03-2005, 10:58 PM
Who needs vitamins and herbs? I think I'll just take a viagra and some celebrex and call it a day.:( That way when I die of adverse effects at least I'll have a boner........ Seriously though, this can't be really happening.

LeiYunFat
02-03-2005, 11:43 PM
If it lasts longer than 4 hours, seek immediate medical attention.

zachsan
02-04-2005, 03:32 PM
when i say that i think over the counter drugs ought to be controlled better, this isn't exactly what i have in mind. but i've never heard anything about this. given how large the over-the-counter supplement industry is in the states, i find it kind of hard to believe that something like this could ever actually happen, especially "in secret". but i'll read up on it.

also, the last paragraph reveals an obvious agenda behind this article which calls the credibility of the whole thing into question (especially since nothing's been said about it in the media).


CODEX and the FDA wish to protect us by controlling supplements in the
same way they do prescription drugs. A study of the latter by three medical
scientists was reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998 Vol. 279, No. 15, p. 1200. Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) was found to be extremely high. Covering 30 years (1966 to 1996) it was found that in the U.S. an average of 106,000 hospitalized patients per year (290 per day) die from ADRs and 2,200,000 need more hospitalization for recovery. These were FDA approved drugs, properly administered by competent professionals in hospitals--none were considered malpractice. This is the number four cause of death in the U.S. When combined, these account for 7% of all hospitalized patients. This is equivalent to a 9-11 attack every ten days. There are very
few fatalities from supplements or the news would be on every front
page. There is no need for more FDA control of supplements than is already in place, which is substantial. Instead of drastically restricting supplements, why doesn't the FDA better control and restrict the extremely dangerous pharmaceutical drugs which are now killing us at the rate of a major airline crash per day?
prescription drugs are much riskier than OTC supplements because they do a hell of a lot more to someone, good or bad. this author seems to be trying to suggest that the bad outweighs the good, and tries to make his case by dramatizing the "bad" numbers (a 9/11 attack every week, a major airline crash per day) and making no mention whatsoever of the number of people these drugs help.

at least those numbers are valid. the "fourth leading cause of death" thing is something that has flown around for quite some time with absolutely no basis in fact. click here for the top ten causes of death in the U.S. (http://www.kcom.edu/faculty/chamberlain/Website/TOPTEN99.HTM)

i was going to look into this whole thing with a lot more urgency before i re-read that last paragraph. i'll still see what i can find, though.

zachsan
02-04-2005, 04:12 PM
on second thought, even the numbers that i said were right, weren't right. 7% of hospitalized patients do require further hospitalization from things like this (and yes, that number does include malpractice), but only 14% of those patients actually die. the author would have us believe they all do. the author mixes up presumably data from the study he mentions, a study conducted in new york in 1991 (where the 7% comes from), and the extrapolations that dr. lucian leape drew from the data of the 1991 study (he coined the jumbo-jet-crashes-per-day comparison).

zachsan
02-04-2005, 04:53 PM
a 1997 article from the FDA addressing the matter (apparently this isn't anything new).

http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/codex.html

from the article:

"The public concerns that the proposed Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) guidelines may restrict the availability of supplements in the United States or limit the amount and type of information that may be legally disseminated by manufacturers may arise from, in part, a misunderstanding of the requirements which the United States is obligated to abide by as a signatory to the Final Act of the Uruguay Round, which includes the GATT and other agreements having bearing on these concerns. Nothing in the trade agreements or process will restrict either the sale of dietary supplements in the United States or the type of information that manufacturers may provide to consumers about their products."

"The United States, by participating in the process, does not surrender to an international organization any of its sovereign authority to protect the health and safety of Americans."

Fa Hui
02-04-2005, 05:02 PM
Unfortunately things can change a lot in 8 years, what's going on now?

zachsan
02-04-2005, 05:17 PM
not sure. almost everything i can find online is from 1997/98 and is clearly on the anti-codex side of the issue. none of them are from reputable news sources, liberal or conservative, and one would expect to see at least some mention of the issue in these sources, were there any validity to it. for some reason, public (online, at least) outcry over the issue seems to have died down after that, with few mentions since.

there's this thing that DDJ pasted into his thread, but it's based on allegations that the FDA lays to rest back in 1997 in the article i linked to, such as the U.S. signing a treaty that "overrides" its own laws and sovereignty, or that such a treaty would restrict the sale or advertising of supplements. now you could say that the FDA is outright lying to us, but that's a huge leap from changing policy "in secret" or "sneaking in" litigation. i would want some damn good evidence for something like that before buying into it.

this whole issue just seems a bit improbable. drug companies are powerful, but so is the alternative health industry. you can't just squash an entire industry "in secret". but who knows, i could be wrong.

daodejing
02-04-2005, 07:23 PM
Just read those particular bills that were mentioned, if you're capable of the horrible task that is reading legislature, and it should quickly solve the issue of credibility in the article in question.

(2) Oppose bills S.722 and H.R.3377. These support the CODEX
restrictions with U.S.
laws, changing the DSHEA law.

(3) Support H. R.1146 which would restore the sovereignty of the
U.S. Constitution over
CODEX, etc.

zachsan
02-04-2005, 08:06 PM
okay. so i've read into it a bit and here's how it looks to me right now.

there is actually an issue here. the U.S. is ahead of much of the world in its regulation of some foods, such as dairy and meat products, and is behind much of the world in its regulation of herbal supplements, due to DSHEA, in large part. full adoption of the codex standards by the FDA would mean that we would have to accept the importation of nonpasteurized milk products, and yes, that we would have to strengthen our regulations when it comes to supplements.

however, nobody is going to fully adopt codex standards. codex is an international body that makes recommendations that countries can either choose to accept or reject; and it also sets guidelines that are referred to in trade disputes. no country is expected to accept the codex guidelines over their own in full, but rather, balance domestic consumer protection with international trade concerns, using codex as a reference point. the U.S. basically rejected the codex standards for its dietary supplements back in 96/97. just look at how that turned the industry on its ear... :rolleyes:

the funny thing about this is that, in the issue of dietary supplements in the U.S., there really is nothing to balance, since our standards are so bad to begin with. our existing guidelines have resulted in debacles (ephedra, phen phen). adopting the codex guidelines would very much improve our consumer protection in this field. however, due to pressure from supplement companies, the FDA simply refuses to update their standards to the level of the rest of the world. at a summit on the matter held in 1996 in berlin, the u.s. delegation contained numerous members of groups representing trade associations and supplement companies, but not a single consumer advocacy group.

so basically what we have here is a work of genius on the part of supplement companies. to protect their interests, they put pressure on the FDA, and succeed in convincing them not to regulate supplements, in 1994 (DSHEA). when, in 1996, an international commission (codex) provides the FDA with an opportunity to cite international trade as a reason for updating its standards, the supplement companies basically attend the conference and again convince the FDA to reject the idea. every time the issue is revived, they convince people that major drug companies somehow have a hand in this and are trying to use the WTO as a tool to put supplement companies out of business. after all, they're just the defenseless little guys. $19 billion little guys.

they want you to fight for your right to buy pills that may or may not do anything and may or may not actually hurt you, they want you to fight to make sure that you won't know which is which, and they want you to fight to make sure that your government doesn't protect you in the matter. their approach is brilliant because it plays on so many pre-existing fears (the WTO, drug companies, science in general) at once. classic slight of hand. sprinkle in a little misinformation ("fourth leading cause of death", "overrides domestic law") and you have a recipe for success. how better to promote big business, than to recruit the masses to lobby for you, thinking that they're fighting against big business?

zachsan
02-04-2005, 08:12 PM
haha, thank god i have already decided the issue is real, or i might have to read those damn things.


(2) Oppose bills S.722 and H.R.3377. These support the CODEX
restrictions with U.S.
laws, changing the DSHEA law.
if a bill has to be passed in order to accept the codex restrictions, that demonstrates that the codex restrictions don't automatically "override" our laws because of a prior treaty we signed, as the article would have us believe.


(3) Support H. R.1146 which would restore the sovereignty of the
U.S. Constitution over
CODEX, etc.
and the fact that someone drafted a bill to restore the sovereignty of the u.s. constitution does not necessarily mean that that sovereignty was ever in question.

the more i think about this, the more holes in this whole theory come to mind. do supplements even cut into pharmaceutical sales significantly? i don't really think they do, and if not, then there's no motive for this conspiracy. also, many of the sites i came across mentioned that the codex is supposed to hold its meetings in "secret". but in fact representatives from supplement companies are present at these meetings. what the hell?

zachsan
02-04-2005, 10:12 PM
lol, sorry to keep posting to this thread, but it's friday, i'm bored, and things keep coming to mind.

when i first read that article, it scared me. which is good, that's what it was supposed to do, and it was supposed to prompt me to immediate action. but think about it. what's the big deal, really? why not just buy RDA strength supplements and herb pills over the counter, and increase the dosage yourself? the point of these guidelines is basically to say that that's not necessarily safe, and get a prescription first, please. but if you're so convinced that it is safe, not to mention that it works, just buy it in bulk at minimum strength. the restriction is on the strength they can sell it at OTC, not how much of that you can buy.

supplement companies can still charge inflated prices for the lesser-strength pills. the reason they will lose money is because your average consumer will become a little more cautious about sticking strange pills into his or her mouth. how to offset that? spin it to make it seem like a move by The Big Drug Companies to shut down supplements. along with the WTO. along with the FDA. anything except the possibility that the pills might be unsafe.

i can't find the link now, but i posted in a thread somewhere on the forum ("herbal medicine"? "chinese herbs"? something like that) a link to a study that found that a high percentage of herbal pills contain heavy metals. better standards are long overdue.

Pujo
02-09-2005, 04:39 AM
Can't say I like this. My family runs a small supplement company. This could be pretty bad news for us.

zachsan
10-12-2005, 06:29 PM
this thing has been turning around in the back of my mind for the past few months, and upon further reflection, i want to completely reverse my position on this.

don't get me wrong, i'm still pissed off that someone is trying to bill this as some big conspiracy by the Evil FDA against the Harmless Supplement Companies, because a lot of these drugs really are harmful, and supplement companies have committed their own share of shadiness to get the FDA to turn a blind eye to them up to this point.

but all shadiness aside... why shouldn't you have the "right to buy pills that may or may not do anything and may or may not actually hurt you" (my words)? a big warning label (a la cigarettes and alcohol) along the lines of "DON'T BE STUPID, TALK TO A DOCTOR" would be appropriate, but interfering with legal quantities and the like would not. not only does this add fuel to the fire of said conspiracy theorists, but it takes away people's choice to be stupid, which i think we ought to have. after all, i drink all the time, which is stupid in a sense, and i would be pretty pissed if The Man told me i could only buy a quart of JD per week, for my own good.

of course, if they're going to let you buy your untested drugs over the counter while making me get a prescription to buy my tested drugs, i'm still going to be annoyed with that. but that's really another issue.

mortal
10-12-2005, 09:40 PM
In my opinion vitamins and supplements are a waste of time. I haven't taken any since I was in grammar school. What proof is there that they actually do anything for you? DOn't show me some steriod head that claims he got that way from takinb xyence or whatever. Waste of money.