A call to more heavily regulate the supplement industry

rml_16

Yeah, no company would ever lie about what they're selling.

\

Not for long.

Kevin Trudeau.

Raspberry ketones.

jonnythan

Knee-jerk reaction? My husband has Crohn's disease. If he does not take certain vitamins as supplements, it will exacerbate his illness. He has his blood and urine examined every three months by a *real* laboratory, recommended by his *licensed* physician and paid for through Humana, to ensure that he is maintaining his health. This is truth, but believe what you will. (I'm not a politician so I must be lying. *eye roll*) If the companies that put these out were defrauding him, it would be evident in his test results. And at that time, we would file suit against the company for fraud.

It's great that your husband can have this kind of certainty.

For everyone else, quarterly blood analysis should not be necessary. If a company says it's vitamin D in the bottle, I should be able to depend on it being vitamin D in the bottle and not just chalk pills. That's the point here.

LOL@ "chalk pills"

Strong retort.

Not intended to be a retort. I just thought that was hilarious to believe that they are selling chalk pills.

Yeah, no company would ever lie about what they're selling.

\

Not for long.

I love that you think any company that does anything bad would cease to exist. It's amusingly naive.

Then again, that's about what I'd expect from someone who is so unreasonably angry that the government won't let her smoke pot.

WendyTerry420

My husband has Crohn's disease. If he does not take certain vitamins as supplements, it will exacerbate his illness.

Out of curiosity, does Crohn's disease prevent the body from converting sunlight into vitamin D?

Even the strongest supplement won't give you the amount of vitamin D 10 minutes in the sun without sunscreen does and the D from the sun is more easily used by the body in most cases.

I don't know a lot about Crohn's, though, so I guess if it interferes with that process, it would make sense to take supplements.

I can't claim to know the exact amount of Vitamin D that one might get from the sun, but he takes 10,000 IU of Vitamin D, much higher than what most people need. The Crohn's interferes with absorption, so he has to take a lot more in to ensure that he has enough.

WendyTerry420

Knee-jerk reaction? My husband has Crohn's disease. If he does not take certain vitamins as supplements, it will exacerbate his illness. He has his blood and urine examined every three months by a *real* laboratory, recommended by his *licensed* physician and paid for through Humana, to ensure that he is maintaining his health. This is truth, but believe what you will. (I'm not a politician so I must be lying. *eye roll*) If the companies that put these out were defrauding him, it would be evident in his test results. And at that time, we would file suit against the company for fraud.

It's great that your husband can have this kind of certainty.

For everyone else, quarterly blood analysis should not be necessary. If a company says it's vitamin D in the bottle, I should be able to depend on it being vitamin D in the bottle and not just chalk pills. That's the point here.

LOL@ "chalk pills"

Strong retort.

Not intended to be a retort. I just thought that was hilarious to believe that they are selling chalk pills.

Yeah, no company would ever lie about what they're selling.

\

Not for long.

I love that you think any company that does anything bad would cease to exist. It's amusingly naive.

Then again, that's about what I'd expect from someone who is so unreasonably angry that the government won't let her smoke pot.

Yep, another flame-baiting comment.


My husband has Crohn's disease. I am referring to *his* daily use to keep his Crohn's in remission. This has nothing to do with me. The only reason to make it about me is because you have no reasonable answer.

rml_16

My husband has Crohn's disease. If he does not take certain vitamins as supplements, it will exacerbate his illness.

Out of curiosity, does Crohn's disease prevent the body from converting sunlight into vitamin D?

Even the strongest supplement won't give you the amount of vitamin D 10 minutes in the sun without sunscreen does and the D from the sun is more easily used by the body in most cases.

I don't know a lot about Crohn's, though, so I guess if it interferes with that process, it would make sense to take supplements.

I can't claim to know the exact amount of Vitamin D that one might get from the sun, but he takes 10,000 IU of Vitamin D, much higher than what most people need. The Crohn's interferes with absorption, so he has to take a lot more in to ensure that he has enough.

OK. So the interfering with absorption would be the reason he needs supplements.

I can't remember the numbers with the direct sunlight, but it's incredibly high. If someone took that amount in supplements, it would kill the person. But because the sunlight is a natural source, the body handles it differenlty. It may not be enough, though, with absorption problems and the Corhn's might actually inhibit the process.

That makes sense.

WendyTerry420

Even an outright ban would *NOT* prevent people from being stupid. Look at how many people still smoke crack, and it's 100% illegal with jail time as a penalty. We can not end stupidity through legislation.

Right, but at least they know they're smoking crack.

This isn't about protecting people from stupidity. It's about offering people information so they can make an in formed choice. I like to make informed choices, but if there's no information available, there isn't a way to make an informed choice.

And people buying Vitamin D know that they are buying Vitamin D.

I use that as an example because in the current market, a supplement of Vitamin D is $6, whereas a prescription for it is running $10 due to over-regulation of prescription drugs.

No they don't! There is no regulation and no testing. The company could be putting anything in that pill and calling it Vitamin D. And how is the consumer to know?


Not Vit. D directly, but the point is the same:

Two bottles labeled as St. John’s wort, which studies have shown may treat mild depression, contained none of the medicinal herb. Instead, the pills in one bottle were made of nothing but rice, and another bottle contained only Alexandrian senna, an Egyptian yellow shrub that is a powerful laxative. Gingko biloba supplements, promoted as memory enhancers, were mixed with fillers and black walnut, a potentially deadly hazard for people with nut allergies.

Of 44 herbal supplements tested, one-third showed outright substitution, meaning there was no trace of the plant advertised on the bottle — only another plant in its place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/science/herbal-supplements-are-often-not-what-they-seem.html?_r=1&

That's absurd.


Also, Vitamin D is *not* an herb, and my husband has regular blood and urine tests, so he is quite positive that he is actually taking the vitamins he needs. :laugh:

Logic isn't your strong point is it?

So now the lab that he visits is full of liars and frauds? Is that your stance? Everyone lies, except bureaucrats?

Your posts are generally a bunch of emotional knee-jerk reactions that have very little do with the content of the posts that you are responding to. Hence my observation.

Knee-jerk reaction? My husband has Crohn's disease. If he does not take certain vitamins as supplements, it will exacerbate his illness. He has his blood and urine examined every three months by a *real* laboratory, recommended by his *licensed* physician and paid for through Humana, to ensure that he is maintaining his health. This is truth, but believe what you will. (I'm not a politician so I must be lying. *eye roll*) If the companies that put these out were defrauding him, it would be evident in his test results. And at that time, we would file suit against the company for fraud.

Who ensures the laboratory is "real?" Where does that physician get his "license" from?

I only provided those details for the ones who are in love with government control.

Exactly the point, the GOVERNMENT regulates both laboratories, and physician licenses.

And I am not in favor of that either, but that's a separate issue.

jonnythan

Knee-jerk reaction? My husband has Crohn's disease. If he does not take certain vitamins as supplements, it will exacerbate his illness. He has his blood and urine examined every three months by a *real* laboratory, recommended by his *licensed* physician and paid for through Humana, to ensure that he is maintaining his health. This is truth, but believe what you will. (I'm not a politician so I must be lying. *eye roll*) If the companies that put these out were defrauding him, it would be evident in his test results. And at that time, we would file suit against the company for fraud.

It's great that your husband can have this kind of certainty.

For everyone else, quarterly blood analysis should not be necessary. If a company says it's vitamin D in the bottle, I should be able to depend on it being vitamin D in the bottle and not just chalk pills. That's the point here.

LOL@ "chalk pills"

Strong retort.

Not intended to be a retort. I just thought that was hilarious to believe that they are selling chalk pills.

Yeah, no company would ever lie about what they're selling.

\

Not for long.

I love that you think any company that does anything bad would cease to exist. It's amusingly naive.

Then again, that's about what I'd expect from someone who is so unreasonably angry that the government won't let her smoke pot.

Yep, another flame-baiting comment.


My husband has Crohn's disease. I am referring to *his* daily use to keep his Crohn's in remission. This has nothing to do with me. The only reason to make it about me is because you have no reasonable answer.

I was referring to *yours*.

QuietBloom

Even an outright ban would *NOT* prevent people from being stupid. Look at how many people still smoke crack, and it's 100% illegal with jail time as a penalty. We can not end stupidity through legislation.

Right, but at least they know they're smoking crack.

This isn't about protecting people from stupidity. It's about offering people information so they can make an in formed choice. I like to make informed choices, but if there's no information available, there isn't a way to make an informed choice.

And people buying Vitamin D know that they are buying Vitamin D.

I use that as an example because in the current market, a supplement of Vitamin D is $6, whereas a prescription for it is running $10 due to over-regulation of prescription drugs.

No they don't! There is no regulation and no testing. The company could be putting anything in that pill and calling it Vitamin D. And how is the consumer to know?


Not Vit. D directly, but the point is the same:

Two bottles labeled as St. John’s wort, which studies have shown may treat mild depression, contained none of the medicinal herb. Instead, the pills in one bottle were made of nothing but rice, and another bottle contained only Alexandrian senna, an Egyptian yellow shrub that is a powerful laxative. Gingko biloba supplements, promoted as memory enhancers, were mixed with fillers and black walnut, a potentially deadly hazard for people with nut allergies.

Of 44 herbal supplements tested, one-third showed outright substitution, meaning there was no trace of the plant advertised on the bottle — only another plant in its place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/science/herbal-supplements-are-often-not-what-they-seem.html?_r=1&

That's absurd.


Also, Vitamin D is *not* an herb, and my husband has regular blood and urine tests, so he is quite positive that he is actually taking the vitamins he needs. :laugh:

Logic isn't your strong point is it?

So now the lab that he visits is full of liars and frauds? Is that your stance? Everyone lies, except bureaucrats?

Your posts are generally a bunch of emotional knee-jerk reactions that have very little do with the content of the posts that you are responding to. Hence my observation.

Knee-jerk reaction? My husband has Crohn's disease. If he does not take certain vitamins as supplements, it will exacerbate his illness. He has his blood and urine examined every three months by a *real* laboratory, recommended by his *licensed* physician and paid for through Humana, to ensure that he is maintaining his health. This is truth, but believe what you will. (I'm not a politician so I must be lying. *eye roll*) If the companies that put these out were defrauding him, it would be evident in his test results. And at that time, we would file suit against the company for fraud.

See? There you go again. A gigantic knee jerk reaction to something I never said, implied or even thought privately to myself.

WendyTerry420

My husband has Crohn's disease. If he does not take certain vitamins as supplements, it will exacerbate his illness.

Out of curiosity, does Crohn's disease prevent the body from converting sunlight into vitamin D?

Even the strongest supplement won't give you the amount of vitamin D 10 minutes in the sun without sunscreen does and the D from the sun is more easily used by the body in most cases.

I don't know a lot about Crohn's, though, so I guess if it interferes with that process, it would make sense to take supplements.

I can't claim to know the exact amount of Vitamin D that one might get from the sun, but he takes 10,000 IU of Vitamin D, much higher than what most people need. The Crohn's interferes with absorption, so he has to take a lot more in to ensure that he has enough.

OK. So the interfering with absorption would be the reason he needs supplements.

I can't remember the numbers with the direct sunlight, but it's incredibly high. If someone took that amount in supplements, it would kill the person. But because the sunlight is a natural source, the body handles it differenlty. It may not be enough, though, with absorption problems and the Corhn's might actually inhibit the process.

That makes sense.

Yes, he has to take an iron-free multi-vitamin, then an additional high dose of both Vitamin B and Vitamin D. He doesn't take any prescriptions for his Crohn's. He only uses OTC vitamins and cannabis to maintain remission.

People in this thread claim to care about the well-being of others, but show they don't give two $hits about the chronically ill.

UsedToBeHusky

Wall o'quotes!

Carnivor0us

I balk at the idea of giving the FDA (or any other regulatory agency) enough power that they can outright ban certain foods or chemicals, even those that have potentially harmful effects.

Hmm. That's kinda beyond crazy. Completely nonsensical stance. Products like Thalidomide have to be taken off the market.

Hmm. It's kinda not, actually. If a product is known to be harmful and someone who knows this still wishes to consume it, I say all power to them. Why are you trying to protect people from themselves? That's kinda beyond crazy, possibly bordering on completely nonsensical.

Thalidomide was a product marketed to treat morning sickness, that caused birth defects. Your stance is insane.

Let's talk crazy, then.

There are plenty of foods and chemicals that don't have many (or sometimes any) redeeming qualities. Alcohol has shown to have similar effects, but you're not advocating removing it from the market, just to name one example. Since you're specifically talking about a product that was meant for a pregnant market and it causes severe issues for that market, I would agree that it's probably not the best thing for consumers in that market to purchase. I would argue that it shouldn't need to be taken off the market by a regulatory agency at that point, since they'd already failed. At the point where everyone realized the adverse effects it had, I'm betting the market looking at purchasing it reconsidered their decision. Taking it a step further, with no customers interested in purchasing it, it would swiftly fail in any market.

So what you're saying is that thalidomide should be legal.

I see.

It is, actually. It's just hard to get.

QuietBloom

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

The idea that government can regulate supplements in a fashion similar to every other product intended for human use or consumption isn't much of a fantasy.

Oh, they *can* most certainly do so. Trusting them to get it right is the fantasy.

But you trust supplement companies.

Huh.

It's not about trust, but about remedy. When the government lies, I can do nothing. If a company lies, I can sue them. There is a remedy for it. Blind trust is foolish, but more so when there is no recourse to remedy it.

Well you can't sue them if you're dead. And you can't sue them if you have no idea whether the royal jelly pills you bought actually have any royal jelly. And you can't sue them if the royal jelly doesn't "boost your immune system" as it says on the bottle because there's no way to establish that.

And you certainly can't sue them if it turns out the supplement you've been taking for 10 years has actually given you cancer, because no one ever required them to do any safety studies.

My family would sure for wrongful death.

Can I sue the feds for banning my husband's primary medication (cannabis)? Hell to the no. They would rather he be sick and waste away from the Crohn's. For that matter, no one can sue government for ANYthing. For that reason alone, they have NO business having the final say-so.

Ahh now we get to the bottom of your anger at the government.

Indeed. And it may even explain some of the illogical ravings that have been such a treat.

WendyTerry420

Even an outright ban would *NOT* prevent people from being stupid. Look at how many people still smoke crack, and it's 100% illegal with jail time as a penalty. We can not end stupidity through legislation.

Right, but at least they know they're smoking crack.

This isn't about protecting people from stupidity. It's about offering people information so they can make an in formed choice. I like to make informed choices, but if there's no information available, there isn't a way to make an informed choice.

And people buying Vitamin D know that they are buying Vitamin D.

I use that as an example because in the current market, a supplement of Vitamin D is $6, whereas a prescription for it is running $10 due to over-regulation of prescription drugs.

No they don't! There is no regulation and no testing. The company could be putting anything in that pill and calling it Vitamin D. And how is the consumer to know?


Not Vit. D directly, but the point is the same:

Two bottles labeled as St. John’s wort, which studies have shown may treat mild depression, contained none of the medicinal herb. Instead, the pills in one bottle were made of nothing but rice, and another bottle contained only Alexandrian senna, an Egyptian yellow shrub that is a powerful laxative. Gingko biloba supplements, promoted as memory enhancers, were mixed with fillers and black walnut, a potentially deadly hazard for people with nut allergies.

Of 44 herbal supplements tested, one-third showed outright substitution, meaning there was no trace of the plant advertised on the bottle — only another plant in its place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/science/herbal-supplements-are-often-not-what-they-seem.html?_r=1&

That's absurd.


Also, Vitamin D is *not* an herb, and my husband has regular blood and urine tests, so he is quite positive that he is actually taking the vitamins he needs. :laugh:

Logic isn't your strong point is it?

So now the lab that he visits is full of liars and frauds? Is that your stance? Everyone lies, except bureaucrats?

Your posts are generally a bunch of emotional knee-jerk reactions that have very little do with the content of the posts that you are responding to. Hence my observation.

Knee-jerk reaction? My husband has Crohn's disease. If he does not take certain vitamins as supplements, it will exacerbate his illness. He has his blood and urine examined every three months by a *real* laboratory, recommended by his *licensed* physician and paid for through Humana, to ensure that he is maintaining his health. This is truth, but believe what you will. (I'm not a politician so I must be lying. *eye roll*) If the companies that put these out were defrauding him, it would be evident in his test results. And at that time, we would file suit against the company for fraud.

See? There you go again. A gigantic knee jerk reaction to something I never said, implied or even thought privately to myself.

Then what was your point?

WendyTerry420

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

The idea that government can regulate supplements in a fashion similar to every other product intended for human use or consumption isn't much of a fantasy.

Oh, they *can* most certainly do so. Trusting them to get it right is the fantasy.

But you trust supplement companies.

Huh.

It's not about trust, but about remedy. When the government lies, I can do nothing. If a company lies, I can sue them. There is a remedy for it. Blind trust is foolish, but more so when there is no recourse to remedy it.

Well you can't sue them if you're dead. And you can't sue them if you have no idea whether the royal jelly pills you bought actually have any royal jelly. And you can't sue them if the royal jelly doesn't "boost your immune system" as it says on the bottle because there's no way to establish that.

And you certainly can't sue them if it turns out the supplement you've been taking for 10 years has actually given you cancer, because no one ever required them to do any safety studies.

My family would sure for wrongful death.

Can I sue the feds for banning my husband's primary medication (cannabis)? Hell to the no. They would rather he be sick and waste away from the Crohn's. For that matter, no one can sue government for ANYthing. For that reason alone, they have NO business having the final say-so.

Ahh now we get to the bottom of your anger at the government.

Indeed. And it may even explain some of the illogical ravings that have been such a treat.

it's not logical to want your loved one to be able to access their medicine?

WendyTerry420

Knee-jerk reaction? My husband has Crohn's disease. If he does not take certain vitamins as supplements, it will exacerbate his illness. He has his blood and urine examined every three months by a *real* laboratory, recommended by his *licensed* physician and paid for through Humana, to ensure that he is maintaining his health. This is truth, but believe what you will. (I'm not a politician so I must be lying. *eye roll*) If the companies that put these out were defrauding him, it would be evident in his test results. And at that time, we would file suit against the company for fraud.

It's great that your husband can have this kind of certainty.

For everyone else, quarterly blood analysis should not be necessary. If a company says it's vitamin D in the bottle, I should be able to depend on it being vitamin D in the bottle and not just chalk pills. That's the point here.

LOL@ "chalk pills"

Strong retort.

Not intended to be a retort. I just thought that was hilarious to believe that they are selling chalk pills.

Yeah, no company would ever lie about what they're selling.

\

Not for long.

I love that you think any company that does anything bad would cease to exist. It's amusingly naive.

Then again, that's about what I'd expect from someone who is so unreasonably angry that the government won't let her smoke pot.

Yep, another flame-baiting comment.


My husband has Crohn's disease. I am referring to *his* daily use to keep his Crohn's in remission. This has nothing to do with me. The only reason to make it about me is because you have no reasonable answer.

I was referring to *yours*.

I have no chronic illness.

jonnythan

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

The idea that government can regulate supplements in a fashion similar to every other product intended for human use or consumption isn't much of a fantasy.

Oh, they *can* most certainly do so. Trusting them to get it right is the fantasy.

But you trust supplement companies.

Huh.

It's not about trust, but about remedy. When the government lies, I can do nothing. If a company lies, I can sue them. There is a remedy for it. Blind trust is foolish, but more so when there is no recourse to remedy it.

Well you can't sue them if you're dead. And you can't sue them if you have no idea whether the royal jelly pills you bought actually have any royal jelly. And you can't sue them if the royal jelly doesn't "boost your immune system" as it says on the bottle because there's no way to establish that.

And you certainly can't sue them if it turns out the supplement you've been taking for 10 years has actually given you cancer, because no one ever required them to do any safety studies.

My family would sure for wrongful death.

Can I sue the feds for banning my husband's primary medication (cannabis)? Hell to the no. They would rather he be sick and waste away from the Crohn's. For that matter, no one can sue government for ANYthing. For that reason alone, they have NO business having the final say-so.

Ahh now we get to the bottom of your anger at the government.

Indeed. And it may even explain some of the illogical ravings that have been such a treat.

Paranoia? Diminished reasoning ability? Derealization?

Hmmm.

jonnythan

I have no chronic illness.

Cute.

Carnivor0us

People should be allowed to put whatever they want in their bodies.

However, corporations should not be able to market and sell anything they want, unchecked and unregulated. Those are two very different concepts.

Your second sentence here contradicts your first sentence.

Not my post, but no it doesn't.

If I chose to consume St John's wort thinking it will help depression, that is my choice.

If I buy a bottle labeled St John's Wort, I should be getting St John's Wort, not some filler of unknown origin that the company decided to use instead because it was cheaper.

Since your second example is already illegal (labeling something as A when it's really what is being argued here?

WendyTerry420

I have no chronic illness.

Cute.

Why is that "cute?"

jwdieter

Since your second example is already illegal (labeling something as A when it's really what is being argued here?

Maybe should check out the link on the first post?