The contents of my pimp comment:
Another Cherry Popped by the FDA
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=67568
The pimp was relevant as Doc Tuteur was railing about the FDA not policing holistic treatments and coincidentally Doc Dach reported today how the FDA was employing scant manpower.
But check out Doc Tuteur's reaction:
BBE,
I deleted your comment because I have no intention of publicizing a person described as a "board certified quack" and someone who is "desperately hopes to deceive people into buying his quack medical delusions."
Looks like libel.
This is from a doc who is no longer practising, has no license and is lambasted all over the internet as a crank with a website manned 24/7 by a staff which instantly answers questions sent to "Dr. Amy" the purpose of which is to make money by shilling her book and the contents of her "pregnancy store."
Google Dr. Amy Tuteur and learn a little.
Doc links to her money grubbing site on her OS page just like Doc Dach, so pot meet kettle.
Who is the quack here?
http://vbacfacts.com/2008/09/07/rebutting-dr-amys-information/
http://www.lamaze.org/NormalBirthForum/tabid/363/view/topic/forumid/5/postid/1082/Default.aspx
Lonnie Lazar weighed in with a Pimp of Doc Dach's cherry post and it was deleted by Doc Tuteur with the same libelous explanation:
Lazar:
Not as exciting as a couple o'honeys in a vat of ramen, but entertaining, nonetheless.
The FDA is like the IRS. It's much easier to go after the little guy than it is to take on the truly evil, multinational cash cows of the international banking cartel.
I think the western medical profession has simply never gotten over that old saying, "An apple a day keeps the doctor away."
Doc Tuteur:
Lonnie Lazar,
I deleted your comment because I have no intention of publicizing a person described as a "board certified quack" and someone who is "desperately hopes to deceive people into buying his quack medical delusions."
Quack! Quack! Quack!
PIMP for Doc Dach:
Another Cherry Popped by the FDA
Comments
So what was your comment that she deleted?
The two lines in italics. She censored Lazar's pimp as well. I am adding it.
Ok, took me a minute to sort through the two "Docs", but once I did, I got it.
I'm not surprised that she'd delete your comment, BBE. It seems to be the latest craze among some folk. "Don't agree with me? DELETE."
Sad, really. Conflict builds character.
Rated.
I'm not surprised that she'd delete your comment, BBE. It seems to be the latest craze among some folk. "Don't agree with me? DELETE."
Sad, really. Conflict builds character.
Rated.
Doc Dach is busy actually being a doctor and will probably not weigh in at all. The doc doing all the censoring is Tuteur. I will change it from Doc to Doc Tuteur to make it easier to understand.
Oh man, I'm new here in OS. I had no idea what a whack job this Dr Amy was. It's like talking to my ex-wife.
"hey honey, you ready for the movie?
"why are you hurrying me all the time?"
"Jeez, I'm not, I was just going out to warm up the car"
"Oh, it's about the car, always something besides me."
"no, honey..it's just; never mind, let me help you with that zipper."
"You don't think I can do anything on my own, do you?"
"No, no dear...in fact look, you made it look so easy, there now."
"Oh I get it..."
"Get what snookems?"
"You think all I do is practice playing dress up and going out to lunch, don't you...?"
"No, No, Absolutely nothing wrong with going to lunch with the girls and looking nice honey. It's a good thing "
"That does it! I knew all along! You are trying to get rid of me! You want to go to lunch without me...so you can see that waitress!"
"Honey...I think I'll go out now and warm up the car."
"GO ahead ! Runaway. You coward!
Yeah, I've been there before
"hey honey, you ready for the movie?
"why are you hurrying me all the time?"
"Jeez, I'm not, I was just going out to warm up the car"
"Oh, it's about the car, always something besides me."
"no, honey..it's just; never mind, let me help you with that zipper."
"You don't think I can do anything on my own, do you?"
"No, no dear...in fact look, you made it look so easy, there now."
"Oh I get it..."
"Get what snookems?"
"You think all I do is practice playing dress up and going out to lunch, don't you...?"
"No, No, Absolutely nothing wrong with going to lunch with the girls and looking nice honey. It's a good thing "
"That does it! I knew all along! You are trying to get rid of me! You want to go to lunch without me...so you can see that waitress!"
"Honey...I think I'll go out now and warm up the car."
"GO ahead ! Runaway. You coward!
Yeah, I've been there before
Even after you "prove" something, it is still not enough.
You and Lazar sure are hanging in over there.
Her insistence that doctors not be held accountable for the infections caused by their failure to wash their hands is what tipped me off. Then I started googling.
You and Lazar sure are hanging in over there.
Her insistence that doctors not be held accountable for the infections caused by their failure to wash their hands is what tipped me off. Then I started googling.
According to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) as written by Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health , doctors cause 225,000 - 250,000 deaths per year.
DEATHS PER YEAR CAUSED BY DOCTORS:
12,000 -- unnecessary surgery
7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals
20,000 -- other errors in hospitals
80,000 -- infections in hospitals
106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of drugs
It's here;
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/07/30/doctors-death-part-one.aspx
thumbed. or monkey fingered. whatever you want to call it. ;)
DEATHS PER YEAR CAUSED BY DOCTORS:
12,000 -- unnecessary surgery
7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals
20,000 -- other errors in hospitals
80,000 -- infections in hospitals
106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of drugs
It's here;
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/07/30/doctors-death-part-one.aspx
thumbed. or monkey fingered. whatever you want to call it. ;)
Don't even mention Doc Mercola. Doc Tuteur thinks he is an evil quack as well.
In Doc Tuteur's world view, despite the oath to do no harm, all those infection deaths are the hospital administrators' faults because the admin people don't "make" the doctors wash up between patient exams.
In Doc Tuteur's world view, despite the oath to do no harm, all those infection deaths are the hospital administrators' faults because the admin people don't "make" the doctors wash up between patient exams.
I don't necessarily understand it all, but deleting is bad.
BBE... Don't even mention Doc Mercola. Doc Tuteur thinks he is an evil quack as well...
LOL. I'm aware. That's why I mentioned that the article was written by Doc Starfield of Johns Hopkins and published by JAMA. :)
LOL. I'm aware. That's why I mentioned that the article was written by Doc Starfield of Johns Hopkins and published by JAMA. :)
Doc Tuteur doesn't care. It is featured on Doc Mercola's site and therefore WRONG. Besides, Doc Tuteur will just tell you that those deaths are the fault of shoddy admin types, not doctors. Docs are never wrong, alt med is evil, and the Palestinians deserve to be stamped out like rats.
Very Interesting. Thanks for the post.
I'd have to say that this pretty much clears any doubt about Doc Amy. She appears to be merely a self-promoting business person who doesn't want to promote anyone or anything else.
RATED
RATED
BBE writes: "Doc Dach is busy actually being a doctor . . . "
Let's look at Dr. Dach's cherry post. He leads with the picture of federal agents raiding cherry orchards. This is an interesting image, but completely false.
Finally he gets to reality: "Along with 29 other fruit companies, Fast Fruit received warning letters from the FDA ordering them to stop mentioning any health benefits of cherries, otherwise the FDA would pursue criminal prosecution for marketing an unapproved drug, the cherry."
He does not mention the content of the letter sent to these companies. But the FDA has a web page listing 2005 enforcement actions against other "cherry" companies, along with a sample warning letter:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/chrylist.html
As you can see, many of these companies are making implied or explicit claims that their cherry-based products cure or alleviate all sorts of diseases -- gout, arthritis, diabetes, and even cancer.
Dr. Dach apparently sees no problem with this. He remarks "If the cherry is a new drug, then Vladimir Putin is Mickey Mouse."
It's not that the cherry is a new drug, but that specific claims are being made for it that literally make it a drug:
"These claims cause your product to be a drug, as defined in section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Act. Because this product is not generally recognized as safe and effective when used as labeled, it is also a new drug as defined in section 201(p) of the Act. Under section 505 of the Act, a new drug may not be legally marketed in the United States without an approved New Drug Application (NDA). FDA approves a new drug on the basis of scientific data submitted by a drug sponsor to demonstrate that the drug is safe and effective."
Part of the legal definition of a drug is "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals." FD&C Act, sec. 201(g)(1)
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdcact1.htm
When a company claims that their product does these things, they are saying that the product is a drug, and thus it falls under regulation by the FDA. The claim essentially makes it a new drug. Dr. Dach seems to be unaware of any of the FDA regulations.
Dr. Dach then rises to the defense of the noble cherry: "Based on personal experience consuming cherries, I can confidently say, yes they are effective." Unfortunately, there is nothing in the FD&C act that says that Dr. Dach's approval is sufficient.
Dr. Dach asks this question: "Why Am I Free to Discuss the Health Benefits of Cherries, and Fast Fruit Cannot?"
This is because he is not marketing a product with specific health claims on the label. Since he seems to have little understanding of or concern with FDA regulations, I hope he does not.
Dr. Dach asks another question: "You might ask the question, why isn't Fast Fruit's Freedom of Speech also protected by the First Amendment? Good question. When you figure it out, let me know."
This is because commercial speech is not as protected as personal speech, and there are MANY regulations -- local, state, and federal, that cover the kinds of claims that can and cannot be made.
BBE, quoting Lonny: "The FDA is like the IRS. It's much easier to go after the little guy than it is to take on the truly evil, multinational cash cows of the international banking cartel."
Interesting, but totally irrelevant. The FDA is tasked with enforcing specific statutes, not with fighting evil.
There are many FDA regulations. I once worked for a company that proposed to import sharps containers and sell them to the public. When sample products arrived I checked them out. The containers had not been tested for puncture resistance -- ASTM F2132 - 01(2008)e1 Standard Specification for Puncture Resistance of Materials Used in Containers for Discarded Medical Needles and Other Sharps. They had no required safety labels. They had no medical waste labels as required by DOT. There was no fill-to line. They had never been registered with the FDA as "medical devices." And they had been improperly declared in Customs as "plastic boxes" rather than as "sharps containers."
I had a "come to Jesus" meeting with the honchos. I said "you CANNOT import red plastic boxes into the country and then say "oh, look, this is a sharps container, please buy it." And they decided not to.
No doubt Dr. Dach and his supporters would see this as some kind of persecution of the plastics industry.
Dr. Dach may be God's gift to natural medicine, but his cherry post is worthless as far as communicating anything of value related to FDA regulations or enforcement actions.
Let's look at Dr. Dach's cherry post. He leads with the picture of federal agents raiding cherry orchards. This is an interesting image, but completely false.
Finally he gets to reality: "Along with 29 other fruit companies, Fast Fruit received warning letters from the FDA ordering them to stop mentioning any health benefits of cherries, otherwise the FDA would pursue criminal prosecution for marketing an unapproved drug, the cherry."
He does not mention the content of the letter sent to these companies. But the FDA has a web page listing 2005 enforcement actions against other "cherry" companies, along with a sample warning letter:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/chrylist.html
As you can see, many of these companies are making implied or explicit claims that their cherry-based products cure or alleviate all sorts of diseases -- gout, arthritis, diabetes, and even cancer.
Dr. Dach apparently sees no problem with this. He remarks "If the cherry is a new drug, then Vladimir Putin is Mickey Mouse."
It's not that the cherry is a new drug, but that specific claims are being made for it that literally make it a drug:
"These claims cause your product to be a drug, as defined in section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Act. Because this product is not generally recognized as safe and effective when used as labeled, it is also a new drug as defined in section 201(p) of the Act. Under section 505 of the Act, a new drug may not be legally marketed in the United States without an approved New Drug Application (NDA). FDA approves a new drug on the basis of scientific data submitted by a drug sponsor to demonstrate that the drug is safe and effective."
Part of the legal definition of a drug is "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals." FD&C Act, sec. 201(g)(1)
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdcact1.htm
When a company claims that their product does these things, they are saying that the product is a drug, and thus it falls under regulation by the FDA. The claim essentially makes it a new drug. Dr. Dach seems to be unaware of any of the FDA regulations.
Dr. Dach then rises to the defense of the noble cherry: "Based on personal experience consuming cherries, I can confidently say, yes they are effective." Unfortunately, there is nothing in the FD&C act that says that Dr. Dach's approval is sufficient.
Dr. Dach asks this question: "Why Am I Free to Discuss the Health Benefits of Cherries, and Fast Fruit Cannot?"
This is because he is not marketing a product with specific health claims on the label. Since he seems to have little understanding of or concern with FDA regulations, I hope he does not.
Dr. Dach asks another question: "You might ask the question, why isn't Fast Fruit's Freedom of Speech also protected by the First Amendment? Good question. When you figure it out, let me know."
This is because commercial speech is not as protected as personal speech, and there are MANY regulations -- local, state, and federal, that cover the kinds of claims that can and cannot be made.
BBE, quoting Lonny: "The FDA is like the IRS. It's much easier to go after the little guy than it is to take on the truly evil, multinational cash cows of the international banking cartel."
Interesting, but totally irrelevant. The FDA is tasked with enforcing specific statutes, not with fighting evil.
There are many FDA regulations. I once worked for a company that proposed to import sharps containers and sell them to the public. When sample products arrived I checked them out. The containers had not been tested for puncture resistance -- ASTM F2132 - 01(2008)e1 Standard Specification for Puncture Resistance of Materials Used in Containers for Discarded Medical Needles and Other Sharps. They had no required safety labels. They had no medical waste labels as required by DOT. There was no fill-to line. They had never been registered with the FDA as "medical devices." And they had been improperly declared in Customs as "plastic boxes" rather than as "sharps containers."
I had a "come to Jesus" meeting with the honchos. I said "you CANNOT import red plastic boxes into the country and then say "oh, look, this is a sharps container, please buy it." And they decided not to.
No doubt Dr. Dach and his supporters would see this as some kind of persecution of the plastics industry.
Dr. Dach may be God's gift to natural medicine, but his cherry post is worthless as far as communicating anything of value related to FDA regulations or enforcement actions.
Mishima666... RE: Part of the legal definition of a drug is "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals."
So, then, is an orange a drug? Because oranges DO cure scurvy.
lol
So, then, is an orange a drug? Because oranges DO cure scurvy.
lol
mishima6666:
"Dr. Dach may be God's gift to natural medicine, but his cherry post is worthless as far as communicating anything of value related to FDA regulations or enforcement actions."
In addition, people may be interested to know that, according to his writings, he is a believer in intelligent design and denial that HIV causes AIDS.
"Dr. Dach may be God's gift to natural medicine, but his cherry post is worthless as far as communicating anything of value related to FDA regulations or enforcement actions."
In addition, people may be interested to know that, according to his writings, he is a believer in intelligent design and denial that HIV causes AIDS.
Ranting Boomer writes: "So, then, is an orange a drug? Because oranges DO cure scurvy. lol"
Sure, you could market oranges as a drug for the treatment of scurvy, but you'd have to know how much ascorbic acid was in each orange in order to track dosage.
A quick web search reveals that treatment of scurvy in an adult might require 1000 mg of ascorbic acid per day, and that the typical orange has around 100 mg. So that means 10 oranges per day. But then the person would also be consuming 210 grams of carbohydrate per day, not appropriate for diabetics. High doses of ascorbic acid may not be appropriate for people with kidney disease, people taking blood thinners, and people with various other medical conditions and taking other medications and supplements.
So feel free to market oranges as a scurvy treatment to the general public. Just make sure to test each orange for ascorbic acid content, and have an appropriate warning label to make sure that people don't inadvertently kill themselves while consuming large volumes of the fruit.
This, of course is if you want to sell oranges as a *medical treatment* for scurvy, as contrasted with merely recommending them in reasonable amounts as part of a normal diet to otherwise healthy people.
Sure, you could market oranges as a drug for the treatment of scurvy, but you'd have to know how much ascorbic acid was in each orange in order to track dosage.
A quick web search reveals that treatment of scurvy in an adult might require 1000 mg of ascorbic acid per day, and that the typical orange has around 100 mg. So that means 10 oranges per day. But then the person would also be consuming 210 grams of carbohydrate per day, not appropriate for diabetics. High doses of ascorbic acid may not be appropriate for people with kidney disease, people taking blood thinners, and people with various other medical conditions and taking other medications and supplements.
So feel free to market oranges as a scurvy treatment to the general public. Just make sure to test each orange for ascorbic acid content, and have an appropriate warning label to make sure that people don't inadvertently kill themselves while consuming large volumes of the fruit.
This, of course is if you want to sell oranges as a *medical treatment* for scurvy, as contrasted with merely recommending them in reasonable amounts as part of a normal diet to otherwise healthy people.
Rated for your awesome choice of photos.
I don't think Dr. Amy is making money off of any of her sites. I've been on her homebirthdebate board for a while, and she's stated that she loses money on that site. I believe her.
However, she never admits she's wrong. Just, you know, so you all can stop trying to achieve that. You are just wasting your energy. She is never wrong and she never reconsiders anything. And doctors are never wrong either- collectively. Well, except the ones that support home birth or natural child birth like Marsden Wagner, and apparently those who advocate cherries for medicinal purposes. She's never joined a community to make friends, as far as I know. It's always to promote her agenda (even if she's not making any money off of it).
However, she never admits she's wrong. Just, you know, so you all can stop trying to achieve that. You are just wasting your energy. She is never wrong and she never reconsiders anything. And doctors are never wrong either- collectively. Well, except the ones that support home birth or natural child birth like Marsden Wagner, and apparently those who advocate cherries for medicinal purposes. She's never joined a community to make friends, as far as I know. It's always to promote her agenda (even if she's not making any money off of it).
Dr. Dach made a very good point about the FDA over at his cherry blog:
"Why is it that the FDA approved GMO food without any safety testing or labeling, and yet persecutes cherry farmers?"
Of course the Community Scold aka Mishima666 will insist that GMO food is not a drug or that purveyors of GMO food are not claiming it is beneficial for health, but as food is consumed by more people than drugs are it is disturbing to be reminded how the FDA crumbles in the face of the corporatocracy.
How telling that Doc Tuteur comes over and instead of defending herself, attacks Doc Dach some more.
I have no problem with intelligent design people as long as they don't insist it be taught in science class. At least they admit the world is billions of years old, not six thousand.
The HIV stuff will be interesting to read. I wouldn't put it past the government to have engineered that virus just like they allow the engineering of our food.
"Why is it that the FDA approved GMO food without any safety testing or labeling, and yet persecutes cherry farmers?"
Of course the Community Scold aka Mishima666 will insist that GMO food is not a drug or that purveyors of GMO food are not claiming it is beneficial for health, but as food is consumed by more people than drugs are it is disturbing to be reminded how the FDA crumbles in the face of the corporatocracy.
How telling that Doc Tuteur comes over and instead of defending herself, attacks Doc Dach some more.
I have no problem with intelligent design people as long as they don't insist it be taught in science class. At least they admit the world is billions of years old, not six thousand.
The HIV stuff will be interesting to read. I wouldn't put it past the government to have engineered that virus just like they allow the engineering of our food.
Great post bbe! I googled her andchecked out some of her websites and was amazed. What do you think the OS eds will do now that you outed her? Thanks.
Rated!
Rated!
They will do nothing.
They are aloof gods, those OS editors. One must insult a sponsor like the almighty Shell to merit their bolts of corrective lightning.
They are aloof gods, those OS editors. One must insult a sponsor like the almighty Shell to merit their bolts of corrective lightning.
mishima:
Thank you for your factual and well thought out comments on this issue.
Thank you for your factual and well thought out comments on this issue.
You can't really think the government could do something like that, do you? There's no way that happened. HIV actually appeared in France before it appeared in the US, so if anyone engineered it, it would have been the French government. And even then, how do you explain the fact that HIV has been traced back in Africa decades before (the 1940's I believe?) it appeared in the developed world? It's just not possible. It's completely logical that the virus was spread to humans through consumption of other primates.
No offense, or anything, but we know what happened with HIV and the government had nothing to do with it (other than, of course, the Reagan administration horrifically denying funding for research even when it was obvious that an epidemic was looming).
No offense, or anything, but we know what happened with HIV and the government had nothing to do with it (other than, of course, the Reagan administration horrifically denying funding for research even when it was obvious that an epidemic was looming).
The same government that has killed over a million Iraqis and maimed five million more? The same government that had Osama bin Laden on the CIA payroll? The same government that faked the Gulf of Tonkin? The same government that can't account for the 350 billion dollars they just handed the banks last month? The same government and medical establishment that allows gross human experimentation?
You're way too trusting.
You're way too trusting.
It has nothing to do with trust and everything to do with science. The epidemiology of the disease isn't consistent with an intentional inoculation. The HIV virus is almost identical to the SIV virus which occurs in Chimpanzees. It's well known that virus' can cross species (zoonosis), and this seems even more likely given how closely we are related to Chimpanzees evolutionarily. No artificial engineering was needed. All that was needed was for a hunter to have had an open wound when he was cleaning his kill (an infected Chimp). Bam, transmission. That hunter goes back and sleeps with his wives, and/or prostitutes, those prostitutes sleep with other men, those other men are perhaps truck drivers across Africa who carry the disease across the continent, and so you have it. I can understand that it seems almost unbelievable. If we can put a man on the moon how can there be this naturally occurring virus that is still killing people- everywhere! Why haven't we found a cure or a vaccine yet? But seriously. No one who's anyone in science is an AIDS denialist. Duesberg, etc. They're all nutters. (Although I'd love one more thing to blame on the government, personally. This just isn't it.)
This is the same government sponsored medical establishment that injected people with cancer cells and gave soldiers LSD?
"Science" can be faked and fudged. Look at drug trials.
"Science" can be faked and fudged. Look at drug trials.
BBE writes: "Of course the Community Scold aka Mishima666 will insist that GMO food is not a drug or that purveyors of GMO food are not claiming it is beneficial for health, but as food is consumed by more people than drugs are it is disturbing to be reminded how the FDA crumbles in the face of the corporatocracy."
For the sake of argument let's say that the decision to allow genetically engineered food was a bad decision. It doesn't follow that all FDA decisions are bad decisions, or even that "cherry enforcement" is wrong.
And let's be very clear about something: Contrary to Dr. Dach cherry farmers are not being persecuted by the FDA. Cherry farmers can produce as many cherries as they want. I worked my way through college in a fruit cannery, and in that time we processed and sold millions of pounds of cherries. What we and the growers DIDN'T do was to claim that our cherries cured cancer or arthritis or baldness or anything else. The growing of cherries is not the problem; making medical claims about them and selling them under those pretenses is.
Consumers who bought the cherries were, of course, free to believe anything about the cherries or do anything with them they wanted. They could eat them, bathe in cherry juice, rub cherries on warts, make their own cherry extract and inject it, dry and smoke the cherries, pray to the cherries, or whatever. It's just that other than the standard nutrition information on the package we made no medical claims about the cherries.
If you think that cherries will cure your cancer or make you popular or whatever, knock yourself out. But please don't support Dr. Dach's misunderstanding of and misrepresentation of the FDA regulatory process.
For the sake of argument let's say that the decision to allow genetically engineered food was a bad decision. It doesn't follow that all FDA decisions are bad decisions, or even that "cherry enforcement" is wrong.
And let's be very clear about something: Contrary to Dr. Dach cherry farmers are not being persecuted by the FDA. Cherry farmers can produce as many cherries as they want. I worked my way through college in a fruit cannery, and in that time we processed and sold millions of pounds of cherries. What we and the growers DIDN'T do was to claim that our cherries cured cancer or arthritis or baldness or anything else. The growing of cherries is not the problem; making medical claims about them and selling them under those pretenses is.
Consumers who bought the cherries were, of course, free to believe anything about the cherries or do anything with them they wanted. They could eat them, bathe in cherry juice, rub cherries on warts, make their own cherry extract and inject it, dry and smoke the cherries, pray to the cherries, or whatever. It's just that other than the standard nutrition information on the package we made no medical claims about the cherries.
If you think that cherries will cure your cancer or make you popular or whatever, knock yourself out. But please don't support Dr. Dach's misunderstanding of and misrepresentation of the FDA regulatory process.
To steal another comment from Doc Dach's blog's comment thread this time from Koakuma:
The cherry farming collective must not have paid the right fees to the right people.
Fund a couple of "scientific" studies like the drug companies and them cherry producers will all labeled up legal like. Then the FDA and the OS Community Scold will be content.
Perhaps instead of sending letter to cherry farmers, the FDA should be looking over those GMO crops or policing the supplement industry like Doc Tuteur wants.
The cherry farming collective must not have paid the right fees to the right people.
Fund a couple of "scientific" studies like the drug companies and them cherry producers will all labeled up legal like. Then the FDA and the OS Community Scold will be content.
Perhaps instead of sending letter to cherry farmers, the FDA should be looking over those GMO crops or policing the supplement industry like Doc Tuteur wants.
I ain't got a dog in this fight, and as long as I thought Doc Dach was a bot peddling his nostrums here on automatic a la the silk saree or the real estate in Mumbai folks, I was content to put him on ignore.
But now he seems to have gone "live" and that, methinks, is a dangerous development.
The facts remain that:
(1) Dr. Amy is a real doctor (trust me, I have the Crimson Alumni directory open in front of me), though I'm not a particular fan of her blogs or her style, and as far I can tell Doc Dach falls into the category of "antecedents unknown".
(2) As far as I know, Dr. Amy has not been peddling her services on this or any other blog. Doc Dach with his patent medicines and nostrums pre-dating the Materia Medica seems to do nothing else. That makes him as worthy of consideration as Amaresh, the acne guy. Wait, I think Doc Dach also had an acne post. Hmmm.
(3) Till one can see Doc Dach's qualifications and certifications, and even then IMO, his Neanderthal non-science (intelligent design, HIV/AIDS et al) puts him out on the loony, kooky fringe and beyond the pale of serious consideration.
Doc Duck called "Quack" has a certain euphonious charm. Would calling Doc Dach a charlatan or snake oil salesman constitute libel too?
WOOF
But now he seems to have gone "live" and that, methinks, is a dangerous development.
The facts remain that:
(1) Dr. Amy is a real doctor (trust me, I have the Crimson Alumni directory open in front of me), though I'm not a particular fan of her blogs or her style, and as far I can tell Doc Dach falls into the category of "antecedents unknown".
(2) As far as I know, Dr. Amy has not been peddling her services on this or any other blog. Doc Dach with his patent medicines and nostrums pre-dating the Materia Medica seems to do nothing else. That makes him as worthy of consideration as Amaresh, the acne guy. Wait, I think Doc Dach also had an acne post. Hmmm.
(3) Till one can see Doc Dach's qualifications and certifications, and even then IMO, his Neanderthal non-science (intelligent design, HIV/AIDS et al) puts him out on the loony, kooky fringe and beyond the pale of serious consideration.
Doc Duck called "Quack" has a certain euphonious charm. Would calling Doc Dach a charlatan or snake oil salesman constitute libel too?
WOOF
This should make the OS Community Scold's Night. Notice Doc Tutuer's vaunted Harvard is mentioned repeatedly:
from http://reformfda.org/339/
FDA Roadblocks Revolution in Nutrition
There is a real scientific revolution taking place at the intersection of food, food extracts, and food supplements. Solid, peer reviewed scientific research is pouring forth from reputable research institutions, especially research universities such as Harvard, Stanford, and the like.
This research suggests that changes in diet could reduce both heart disease and cancer by as much as 90%. (For example, see Archives of Internal Medicine, Oct 22, 2007; 167(19): 2122-7.) Alzheimers too by a significant but still to be determined percentage (Neurology, 2007:69:1921-30).
This is not just a question of eating more fruits and vegetables, although that alone might increase lifespan by an estimated average of 14 years. It is also about specific nutrients. In many cases, there is strong scientific evidence that a specific nutrient may be used to prevent, moderate, reverse, or in therapeutic doses cure disease.
Scientific Research Censored by FDA
Unfortunately the American people do not hear about this research. Food producers would like to tell them about it. But FDA rules prevent it.
The FDA has imposed its "Extended Label" rule on food producers and dietary supplements manufacturers. This rule does not allow the circulation of truthful scientific information about food and nutrient health benefits.
Take cherries. Research from Harvard published in the Annals of Internal Medicine suggested that cherries could reduce heart attack risk (Ann Inter Med, 1996, Sept 1: 125 (5): 384-9). A large number of other studies published in prestigious journals have indicated that cherries could do that and also reduce pain and cancer. But the FDA says that cherry producers, sellers, and food manufacturers may not talk about this research.
In February 2008, the FDA even obtained a court order to silence 29 cherry orchards. The FDA held that any discussion of the health benefits of cherries automatically turned cherries into "unapproved" drugs. Moreover, the Agency says that any "claim" made for an "unapproved drug" is by definition false and legally actionable, even if the claim originates at the Harvard Medical School.
By the way, many people think of "health food" as less "tasty". But nobody dislikes cherries. And blueberries have a large amount of research supporting them as a "superfood" too.
The FDA presumably wants to protect the American public from "snake oil." But the best scientific research on critical health issues is not "snake oil." In general, there are a number of problems with the FDA's over-restrictive approach.
1) It defies common sense to call cherries or blueberries "drugs."
The FDA rejoinder is: take the food through the standard drug approval process anyway. Why not? For one thing, approval of a drug commonly costs hundreds of millions of dollars and has cost nearly a billion in some instances. No company can afford to spend even much smaller sums on a food or food supplement because neither can be patented. Even if cherries and blueberries and their juices are deemed to be "drugs," it is completely unrealistic to treat them exactly like patented drugs. The FDA knows this but just shrugs it off.
There have been very few instances of any foods actually being taken through the drug approval process. One recent exception is fish oil. For years, the FDA refused to accept any health claims for fish oil despite mounting research about its widespread health benefits for heart, cancer, depression, pain, and other conditions. Then a drug company decided to pay for the approval process. Its fish oil was approved, which means that Medicare and insurance companies will now pay for this particular brand of approved prescription fish oil. Happy ending to the story? Well, no. This prescription fish oil costs as much as ten times what good quality non-prescription fish oil costs.
What does a drug company usually do when a natural substance is proven to be of medical value? The usual approach is to "twist the molecules" of the natural substance until a "new" and patentable substance results. The trouble with this approach is that the "new" drug may or may not be as effective as the natural substance, but precisely because it is new to the human body, may be much more toxic and dangerous. Whether it is much more dangerous may also take years to find out. Even if the new drug really is safe and effective, it will cost vastly more than the original natural substance.
Melatonin provides a recent example of how this works. Melatonin is a natural substance. Our bodies produce it every day. It has been found to cure 'jet lag". So did drug companies take melatonin through the FDA approval process. No. Instead they created a new and thus patentable substance named Tasimelteon. This new drug binds to the same receptors in the brain that melatonin binds to, will do the same job with unknown toxicity. Unlike melatonin, Tasimelteon will be FDA approved, thus potentially prescribable under Medicare. Unlike melatonin, it will also cost an arm and a leg to buy it.
2) Logic and cost are key considerations. But there are equally important reasons to feel that the current FDA stance needs revision. In particular, communicating accurately about legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific research should be protected under the first amendment.
3) Even if it weren't stretching the Constitution beyond recognition and violating our most basic American values, censorship of science also thwarts technological advance. Technological advance means using science and telling people about it, not hiding it in little read journals.
4) The taking of specific nutrients in foods or supplements (or the withholding of the same, for example by denying iron to cancer cells -- see August 2007 Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology) is not only a very promising approach to preventing, moderating, or even curing disease. It is also a much cheaper approach than drugs or surgery. At a time when spiraling healthcare costs are threatening jobs and our economy, we should be embracing new science to help reduce healthcare costs.
FDA Mission At Odds With Its Actions
The FDA's own mission statement says that the Agency "is responsible for...helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health." Given this mission, it is perverse to allow pharmaceutical companies to spend so many billions on consumer advertising but not to allow food producers to tell the public about legitimate and revolutionary food research. This is all the more true given our heritage of free speech and free science, the opportunity to save or prolong million of American lives, and the need to use every resource at our command to rein in surging and economically destructive healthcare costs.
from http://reformfda.org/339/
FDA Roadblocks Revolution in Nutrition
There is a real scientific revolution taking place at the intersection of food, food extracts, and food supplements. Solid, peer reviewed scientific research is pouring forth from reputable research institutions, especially research universities such as Harvard, Stanford, and the like.
This research suggests that changes in diet could reduce both heart disease and cancer by as much as 90%. (For example, see Archives of Internal Medicine, Oct 22, 2007; 167(19): 2122-7.) Alzheimers too by a significant but still to be determined percentage (Neurology, 2007:69:1921-30).
This is not just a question of eating more fruits and vegetables, although that alone might increase lifespan by an estimated average of 14 years. It is also about specific nutrients. In many cases, there is strong scientific evidence that a specific nutrient may be used to prevent, moderate, reverse, or in therapeutic doses cure disease.
Scientific Research Censored by FDA
Unfortunately the American people do not hear about this research. Food producers would like to tell them about it. But FDA rules prevent it.
The FDA has imposed its "Extended Label" rule on food producers and dietary supplements manufacturers. This rule does not allow the circulation of truthful scientific information about food and nutrient health benefits.
Take cherries. Research from Harvard published in the Annals of Internal Medicine suggested that cherries could reduce heart attack risk (Ann Inter Med, 1996, Sept 1: 125 (5): 384-9). A large number of other studies published in prestigious journals have indicated that cherries could do that and also reduce pain and cancer. But the FDA says that cherry producers, sellers, and food manufacturers may not talk about this research.
In February 2008, the FDA even obtained a court order to silence 29 cherry orchards. The FDA held that any discussion of the health benefits of cherries automatically turned cherries into "unapproved" drugs. Moreover, the Agency says that any "claim" made for an "unapproved drug" is by definition false and legally actionable, even if the claim originates at the Harvard Medical School.
By the way, many people think of "health food" as less "tasty". But nobody dislikes cherries. And blueberries have a large amount of research supporting them as a "superfood" too.
The FDA presumably wants to protect the American public from "snake oil." But the best scientific research on critical health issues is not "snake oil." In general, there are a number of problems with the FDA's over-restrictive approach.
1) It defies common sense to call cherries or blueberries "drugs."
The FDA rejoinder is: take the food through the standard drug approval process anyway. Why not? For one thing, approval of a drug commonly costs hundreds of millions of dollars and has cost nearly a billion in some instances. No company can afford to spend even much smaller sums on a food or food supplement because neither can be patented. Even if cherries and blueberries and their juices are deemed to be "drugs," it is completely unrealistic to treat them exactly like patented drugs. The FDA knows this but just shrugs it off.
There have been very few instances of any foods actually being taken through the drug approval process. One recent exception is fish oil. For years, the FDA refused to accept any health claims for fish oil despite mounting research about its widespread health benefits for heart, cancer, depression, pain, and other conditions. Then a drug company decided to pay for the approval process. Its fish oil was approved, which means that Medicare and insurance companies will now pay for this particular brand of approved prescription fish oil. Happy ending to the story? Well, no. This prescription fish oil costs as much as ten times what good quality non-prescription fish oil costs.
What does a drug company usually do when a natural substance is proven to be of medical value? The usual approach is to "twist the molecules" of the natural substance until a "new" and patentable substance results. The trouble with this approach is that the "new" drug may or may not be as effective as the natural substance, but precisely because it is new to the human body, may be much more toxic and dangerous. Whether it is much more dangerous may also take years to find out. Even if the new drug really is safe and effective, it will cost vastly more than the original natural substance.
Melatonin provides a recent example of how this works. Melatonin is a natural substance. Our bodies produce it every day. It has been found to cure 'jet lag". So did drug companies take melatonin through the FDA approval process. No. Instead they created a new and thus patentable substance named Tasimelteon. This new drug binds to the same receptors in the brain that melatonin binds to, will do the same job with unknown toxicity. Unlike melatonin, Tasimelteon will be FDA approved, thus potentially prescribable under Medicare. Unlike melatonin, it will also cost an arm and a leg to buy it.
2) Logic and cost are key considerations. But there are equally important reasons to feel that the current FDA stance needs revision. In particular, communicating accurately about legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific research should be protected under the first amendment.
3) Even if it weren't stretching the Constitution beyond recognition and violating our most basic American values, censorship of science also thwarts technological advance. Technological advance means using science and telling people about it, not hiding it in little read journals.
4) The taking of specific nutrients in foods or supplements (or the withholding of the same, for example by denying iron to cancer cells -- see August 2007 Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology) is not only a very promising approach to preventing, moderating, or even curing disease. It is also a much cheaper approach than drugs or surgery. At a time when spiraling healthcare costs are threatening jobs and our economy, we should be embracing new science to help reduce healthcare costs.
FDA Mission At Odds With Its Actions
The FDA's own mission statement says that the Agency "is responsible for...helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health." Given this mission, it is perverse to allow pharmaceutical companies to spend so many billions on consumer advertising but not to allow food producers to tell the public about legitimate and revolutionary food research. This is all the more true given our heritage of free speech and free science, the opportunity to save or prolong million of American lives, and the need to use every resource at our command to rein in surging and economically destructive healthcare costs.
CCC - research before you assume.
www.askdramy.com
It is linked from her OS page.
She is selling her book and products in her pregnancy store.
www.askdramy.com
It is linked from her OS page.
She is selling her book and products in her pregnancy store.
Dr Amy represents everything that is wrong with medicine right now - she wants to own it, lock, stock and barrel. She wants it to be a closed, elite system. No midwives, no herbs, and I bet she has a special part of hell reserved for chiropractors. She's losing the war and alienating the refugees.
That you can't say that fruit is good for various ailments is ridiculous. Fruit is fucking good for you and if we ate more cherries, we'd have to go to doctors far less. That's what really scares her.
Dr Dach's blog, where he expresses his opinion and leaves it at that, is far less objectionable and arrogant. Some of his ideas are more compelling than others, but he isn't shoving them down our throats.
That you can't say that fruit is good for various ailments is ridiculous. Fruit is fucking good for you and if we ate more cherries, we'd have to go to doctors far less. That's what really scares her.
Dr Dach's blog, where he expresses his opinion and leaves it at that, is far less objectionable and arrogant. Some of his ideas are more compelling than others, but he isn't shoving them down our throats.
Ardee - Stealin' from Lazar:
From now on doc amy is The Doctor Who Could Not Be Wrong™
From now on doc amy is The Doctor Who Could Not Be Wrong™
For what's it's worth, I can;t help but notice that we are all still talking about her and every other minute her name appears in the feed as she responds to each comment individually. WOuld that constitute feed whoring? And, as an aside, has anyone ever noticed her reading or commenting on anyone else's posts but her OWN.....? Just wondering.....
BBE- great article - that says it all.
Arrgh! I just lost my comment and I'm too pissed to try retyping it. Anyway, bottom line: thanks for this, BBE. Are you a private investigator in real life?
Point taken. Strike "or any other". Still leaves 2 3/4 substantive points unanswered re Dr. Duck's quackery.
WOOF
WOOF
CCC - take it the fuck up with Dr. Dach then, ok?
'touche, she commented here in an attempt to smear Dr. Dach again.
Quaker girl, my truth is stranger than any possible fiction.
CCC - Do you have the balls to call Dr Dach a quack on his blog?
Quaker girl, my truth is stranger than any possible fiction.
CCC - Do you have the balls to call Dr Dach a quack on his blog?
I've seen her comment on other people's blogs a scant few times. She's not interested in what any of us has to say. We're not up to her standards. I think she's a textbook narcissist who got her medical degree because it would engender in the "little people" a satisfying amount of adulation and slavish obedience. But that's just my personal opinion.
CCC - before you go and shoot your mouth off at Dr. Dach's blog, you should check this link out. It might save you some embarrassment.
I wish someone would argue with my posts. I wish someone would just read my posts...
BBE writes: "This should make the OS Community Scold's Night."
I love each post and comment more and more.
BBE quotes: "Unfortunately the American people do not hear about this research. Food producers would like to tell them about it. But FDA rules prevent it."
Absolutely, positively untrue. The FDA has a process by which health claims for foods and supplements can be made. Note their web page "Claims That Can Be Made for Conventional Foods and Dietary Supplements" --
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/hclaims.html
One category of health claim is called a "qualified health claim." The FDA has extensive examples of such permissible claims:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qhc-sum.html
Here, for example, is an example of an acceptable qualified health claim concerning walnuts and heart disease:
"Supportive but not conclusive research shows that eating 1.5 ounces per day of walnuts, as part of a low saturated fat and low cholesterol diet and not resulting in increased caloric intake, may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease."
Behold! an acceptable food health claim. You see, it's not impossible, but someone has to go through the approval process. The "Interim Procedures for Qualified Health Claims in the Labeling of Conventional Human Food and Human Dietary Supplements" provides information on how to do that:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/hclmgui3.html
(Normally I charge people for doing research like this for them, but I like you so it's free.)
BBE quotes: "Fish oil . . . . melatonin. . . . "
Strange you should mention that. As an employee of a medical university for 21 years I participated in a number of clinical trials including fish oil and melatonin, both of which lasted for six months. So I have actually taken the stuff and observed the effects.
The article you quote talks about one type of fish oil for which a company paid to have it approved as a prescription drug. Please note the company could have chosen to sell fish oil under an FDA "qualified health claim." In fact, in one of the links I have provided you can see an example of such a claim for fish oil.
In this case the company chose to go with full approval as a prescription drug, which I assume is Lovaza: http://www.lovaza.com/
Thus, Lovaza can in fact make medical claims, in this case its effect on lowering triglycerides. It is a purified and concentrated form of fish oil with a consistent concentration of Omega-3 and known medical effects.
Not all fish oils are equal. They differ in quality, purity, and concentration of Omega-3. Some are not even very well absorbed by the body (one researcher told me of one fish oil that was not well-absorbed, stating that she "just about had to wear a diaper).
Again, if you want to sell fish oil with qualified health claims, there is a way to do that. If you want to make specific health claims there is a way to do that too (as a prescription drug). What you CAN'T do is make specific health claims for your product without going through the drug approval process.
Likewise melatonin. Not all melatonin is the same. Some of it will put you to sleep in the middle of dinner and some of it does nothing. (I've taken both kinds.) If you want to sell it as a prescription drug you have to go through the process.
This is kind of fun, and I'm happy to try to bring some actual information to the discussion. It's what we Community Scolds do.
I love each post and comment more and more.
BBE quotes: "Unfortunately the American people do not hear about this research. Food producers would like to tell them about it. But FDA rules prevent it."
Absolutely, positively untrue. The FDA has a process by which health claims for foods and supplements can be made. Note their web page "Claims That Can Be Made for Conventional Foods and Dietary Supplements" --
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/hclaims.html
One category of health claim is called a "qualified health claim." The FDA has extensive examples of such permissible claims:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qhc-sum.html
Here, for example, is an example of an acceptable qualified health claim concerning walnuts and heart disease:
"Supportive but not conclusive research shows that eating 1.5 ounces per day of walnuts, as part of a low saturated fat and low cholesterol diet and not resulting in increased caloric intake, may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease."
Behold! an acceptable food health claim. You see, it's not impossible, but someone has to go through the approval process. The "Interim Procedures for Qualified Health Claims in the Labeling of Conventional Human Food and Human Dietary Supplements" provides information on how to do that:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/hclmgui3.html
(Normally I charge people for doing research like this for them, but I like you so it's free.)
BBE quotes: "Fish oil . . . . melatonin. . . . "
Strange you should mention that. As an employee of a medical university for 21 years I participated in a number of clinical trials including fish oil and melatonin, both of which lasted for six months. So I have actually taken the stuff and observed the effects.
The article you quote talks about one type of fish oil for which a company paid to have it approved as a prescription drug. Please note the company could have chosen to sell fish oil under an FDA "qualified health claim." In fact, in one of the links I have provided you can see an example of such a claim for fish oil.
In this case the company chose to go with full approval as a prescription drug, which I assume is Lovaza: http://www.lovaza.com/
Thus, Lovaza can in fact make medical claims, in this case its effect on lowering triglycerides. It is a purified and concentrated form of fish oil with a consistent concentration of Omega-3 and known medical effects.
Not all fish oils are equal. They differ in quality, purity, and concentration of Omega-3. Some are not even very well absorbed by the body (one researcher told me of one fish oil that was not well-absorbed, stating that she "just about had to wear a diaper).
Again, if you want to sell fish oil with qualified health claims, there is a way to do that. If you want to make specific health claims there is a way to do that too (as a prescription drug). What you CAN'T do is make specific health claims for your product without going through the drug approval process.
Likewise melatonin. Not all melatonin is the same. Some of it will put you to sleep in the middle of dinner and some of it does nothing. (I've taken both kinds.) If you want to sell it as a prescription drug you have to go through the process.
This is kind of fun, and I'm happy to try to bring some actual information to the discussion. It's what we Community Scolds do.
From Umbrellakinesis: I've seen her comment on other people's blogs a scant few times. She's not interested in what any of us has to say. We're not up to her standards. I think she's a textbook narcissist who got her medical degree because it would engender in the "little people" a satisfying amount of adulation and slavish obedience. But that's just my personal opinion.
Why would she comment on anyone else's blog? She is here to get her message out, not make friends or participate in a community. I think your assessment is very accurate. This is the way she runs all of her internet "communities" where she is the reigning czar. She's very old school and patriarchal. You should hear her opinion of nurses... She once proclaimed on her homebirthdebate board that ALL research that's performed in the medical field is done by doctors. Any research done by nurses (and we're talking advanced practice nurses- CRNAs, CNMs, PhDs) is merely a regurgitation of research that had already been performed by a doctor. So, basically, the only person who can have a unique thought in the medical field is someone with an MD. Everyone else is just a copy-cat. Totally outdated POV.
Why would she comment on anyone else's blog? She is here to get her message out, not make friends or participate in a community. I think your assessment is very accurate. This is the way she runs all of her internet "communities" where she is the reigning czar. She's very old school and patriarchal. You should hear her opinion of nurses... She once proclaimed on her homebirthdebate board that ALL research that's performed in the medical field is done by doctors. Any research done by nurses (and we're talking advanced practice nurses- CRNAs, CNMs, PhDs) is merely a regurgitation of research that had already been performed by a doctor. So, basically, the only person who can have a unique thought in the medical field is someone with an MD. Everyone else is just a copy-cat. Totally outdated POV.
I'm cutting you off Community Scold just like CCC.
If you think you got what it takes, go on over to Dr. Dach's post and work your FDA excuse magic there. I notice you haven't peeped there once you big chicken.
Do you have the balls?
If you think you got what it takes, go on over to Dr. Dach's post and work your FDA excuse magic there. I notice you haven't peeped there once you big chicken.
Do you have the balls?
I did some checking on our Docs licenses -
Doc Dach has alink to his license in Florida listed on his website.
Doc Teuter's it seems expired in 2003.
However, you apparently don't have to be licensed to act as a medical consultant - so it seems there's no legal issue. However, I am wondering if Doc Teuter is presenting herself as a practicing physician? If so, I would find that to be troubling.
Quite honestly, I haven't a clue . I find her unwavering hard line uninteresting, and her hubristic attitude toxic. So, I don't read her posts unless the OS community seems to get overtly upset. Then I may give them a scan to see what the uproar is about - again.
Doc Dach has alink to his license in Florida listed on his website.
Doc Teuter's it seems expired in 2003.
However, you apparently don't have to be licensed to act as a medical consultant - so it seems there's no legal issue. However, I am wondering if Doc Teuter is presenting herself as a practicing physician? If so, I would find that to be troubling.
Quite honestly, I haven't a clue . I find her unwavering hard line uninteresting, and her hubristic attitude toxic. So, I don't read her posts unless the OS community seems to get overtly upset. Then I may give them a scan to see what the uproar is about - again.
Fishy, I linked to Dr Dach's credential status with the state of Florida in the comment to CCC. Maybe he'll check it before making a fool of himself over on the doc's blog. Dr Dach's license is good until 2011.
You are right about The Doctor Who Could Not Be Wrong™, but her calling Dr. Dach a quack deserved special treatment.
You are right about The Doctor Who Could Not Be Wrong™, but her calling Dr. Dach a quack deserved special treatment.
hollycomesalive, that's classic narcissist behavior.
Oops, that should have the words "I agree" at the beginning. Sheesh, what's with comments being all squirrely?
BBE... hot damn. This thread has given me a whole new look at you and I like.
Mishima66... RE:A quick web search reveals that treatment of scurvy in an adult might require 1000 mg of ascorbic acid per day, and that the typical orange has around 100 mg. So that means 10 oranges per day. But then the person would also be consuming 210 grams of carbohydrate per day, not appropriate for diabetics...
If you look up James Lind (1716 - 1794), you'll find that he was a Scottish doctor and pioneer in the treatment of scurvy in the days when sailors suffered from it regularly. In 1747 he conducted several experiments using various foods and discovered that 2 oranges and 1 lemon were sufficient to "cure" scurvy in men afflicted with it. He also discovered that consuming "normal" quantities of food with vitamin C would "prevent" scurvy.
So either the estimates (10 oranges) are way off base, or we have to wonder why a person would have to eat 10 oranges today to get what 3 pieces of citrus fruit would accomplish in 1747.
But I digress. Because back in 1747, they knew that "normal" consumption of fresh fruit containing vitamin c was enough to "prevent" scurvy - but today farmers are not allowed to SAY that unless they go through "due process" -- which, I might add, is NOT free.
Since you like to find the facts, here's a question. Let's say a small cherry farmer wanted to state the health properties of cherries. What would be the COST to file the appropriate petitions, get the appropriate testing done and receive FDA authorization to make those claims? Total cost from application to approval for labeling. It's not free, that I already know. Care to find us a price?
Mishima66... RE:A quick web search reveals that treatment of scurvy in an adult might require 1000 mg of ascorbic acid per day, and that the typical orange has around 100 mg. So that means 10 oranges per day. But then the person would also be consuming 210 grams of carbohydrate per day, not appropriate for diabetics...
If you look up James Lind (1716 - 1794), you'll find that he was a Scottish doctor and pioneer in the treatment of scurvy in the days when sailors suffered from it regularly. In 1747 he conducted several experiments using various foods and discovered that 2 oranges and 1 lemon were sufficient to "cure" scurvy in men afflicted with it. He also discovered that consuming "normal" quantities of food with vitamin C would "prevent" scurvy.
So either the estimates (10 oranges) are way off base, or we have to wonder why a person would have to eat 10 oranges today to get what 3 pieces of citrus fruit would accomplish in 1747.
But I digress. Because back in 1747, they knew that "normal" consumption of fresh fruit containing vitamin c was enough to "prevent" scurvy - but today farmers are not allowed to SAY that unless they go through "due process" -- which, I might add, is NOT free.
Since you like to find the facts, here's a question. Let's say a small cherry farmer wanted to state the health properties of cherries. What would be the COST to file the appropriate petitions, get the appropriate testing done and receive FDA authorization to make those claims? Total cost from application to approval for labeling. It's not free, that I already know. Care to find us a price?
BoomBoom, Just remember I am the scorpion, not the frog.
BBE.... well - at least scorpions don't initiate sex by ripping their partners head off like some other critters do. I'll duck now. lol
BBE writes: "f you think you got what it takes, go on over to Dr. Dach's post and work your FDA excuse magic there. I notice you haven't peeped there once you big chicken. Do you have the balls?
Everything I have to say is already over here. Feel free to invite him here. He might find the links informative. I would be happy to see his responses, even though apparently I would not be allowed to respond here. Such is life. But thanks for the opportunity to discuss thus far.
Ranting Boomer writes: "Let's say a small cherry farmer wanted to state the health properties of cherries. What would be the COST to file the appropriate petitions," etc.
I don't know the exact cost. But what you'd want to do is have an industry trade group get the approval, probably working with an attorney who specializes in FDA issues. The approval would cover any "eligible product," however that was defined -- perhaps type of cherry, juice or whole fruit, and so on. The cost would probably be prohibitive for a small grower, but reasonable for an industry group. Believe me, I don't have anything against cherries, and if growers are able to advertise reasonable claims within FDA guidelines I have no problem with that.
Everything I have to say is already over here. Feel free to invite him here. He might find the links informative. I would be happy to see his responses, even though apparently I would not be allowed to respond here. Such is life. But thanks for the opportunity to discuss thus far.
Ranting Boomer writes: "Let's say a small cherry farmer wanted to state the health properties of cherries. What would be the COST to file the appropriate petitions," etc.
I don't know the exact cost. But what you'd want to do is have an industry trade group get the approval, probably working with an attorney who specializes in FDA issues. The approval would cover any "eligible product," however that was defined -- perhaps type of cherry, juice or whole fruit, and so on. The cost would probably be prohibitive for a small grower, but reasonable for an industry group. Believe me, I don't have anything against cherries, and if growers are able to advertise reasonable claims within FDA guidelines I have no problem with that.
Scold, Dr. Dach may or may not stop by but as your beef is with his post you should take your beef there. I'm not going to delete you now or in the future, but think it cowardly that you haven't typed word one over at Dach's.
The produce people don't have the $$$ to advertise a la McDonald's or Viagra and they sure don't have the $$$ to pay off the FDA like pharma does. All well and good to tell people to play a game knowing the rules and fees are stacked against them.
Go say hello to Dr. Dach. What you afraid of? His middle name is "Love." You could always refer him to your links here.
The produce people don't have the $$$ to advertise a la McDonald's or Viagra and they sure don't have the $$$ to pay off the FDA like pharma does. All well and good to tell people to play a game knowing the rules and fees are stacked against them.
Go say hello to Dr. Dach. What you afraid of? His middle name is "Love." You could always refer him to your links here.
OS is indeed a business for Amy...when she's not disparaging somebody as uninformed and stupid she's censoring them as uniformed and stupid.
As I've preached in the past...STOP FEEDING THE MONSTER!
She is an attention whore who will take whatever she can get...no doubt she was delighted with this post.
As I've preached in the past...STOP FEEDING THE MONSTER!
She is an attention whore who will take whatever she can get...no doubt she was delighted with this post.
BBE writes: "The produce people don't have the $$$ to advertise a la McDonald's or Viagra and they sure don't have the $$$ to pay off the FDA like pharma does. All well and good to tell people to play a game knowing the rules and fees are stacked against them."
Well no, the small growers can't play the game but the trade groups can. For example, here's news release from the U.S. Canola Association:
"The U.S. Canola Association (USCA) filed a petition for a qualified health claim (QHC) for canola oil and reduced risk of coronary heart disease on Jan. 9, 2006 with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. The petition was authorized by the agency on Oct. 6, 2006."
I'm not saying it's easy. Qualified health claims also go through a scientific review. Not easy, but possible for a trade group. And it appears that this is exactly what is happening with cherries. I just came across this web site for the Cherry Marketing Institute:
http://www.choosecherries.com/
Note the request for research proposals. My guess is that they intend to go the Qualified Health Claim route, which is exactly what they need to do.
Concerning Dr. Dach -- I originally learned of his post here. So I started commenting here. There were responses to my comment and I responded to those, and so it went. I don't want to cross-post everything from here to there, but again, I would be happy to see his response here, if he has time and inclination.
Well no, the small growers can't play the game but the trade groups can. For example, here's news release from the U.S. Canola Association:
"The U.S. Canola Association (USCA) filed a petition for a qualified health claim (QHC) for canola oil and reduced risk of coronary heart disease on Jan. 9, 2006 with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. The petition was authorized by the agency on Oct. 6, 2006."
I'm not saying it's easy. Qualified health claims also go through a scientific review. Not easy, but possible for a trade group. And it appears that this is exactly what is happening with cherries. I just came across this web site for the Cherry Marketing Institute:
http://www.choosecherries.com/
Note the request for research proposals. My guess is that they intend to go the Qualified Health Claim route, which is exactly what they need to do.
Concerning Dr. Dach -- I originally learned of his post here. So I started commenting here. There were responses to my comment and I responded to those, and so it went. I don't want to cross-post everything from here to there, but again, I would be happy to see his response here, if he has time and inclination.
I have some tangential experience in this area having written copy and infomercial scripts for a company that made a fortune peddling a nutritional product billed as an HGH stimulant and that branched out into other overpriced nutritional supplements. For obvious reasons, I'm not naming names.
The one name I will name is Kevin Trudeau, who was a former business associate of my boss. Kevin is familiar to many in the business for his infomercials for his miracle cure products and his cease and desist orders from the FDA -- plus some heavy fines for ignoring those orders. His reputation is not good.
What I can tell you is that nutritional supplements in general - note the in general, please - are over-hyped and over-priced and much of their efficacy is due to the placebo effect. Claims are routinely made that are unsubstantiated and highly suspect; one of the most difficult parts of my job was trying to make these claims without exposing the firm to FDA inquiry - I assure you, it is a delicate task trying to color inside the lines (or as far outside them as you think you can get away with).
Research indicates that some products such as melatonin due have a beneficial effect in promoting sound sleep, particularly with older people, as well as in countering the effects of jet lag. Resveratrol does have some limited effect on cholesterol. Hoodia is a proven appetite suppressant.
However, as Mishima points out, whatever beneficial effects these products may have is effected greatly by the quality/concentration of the active agent(s) in the products and water soluble supplements frequently pass thru the system with no effect whatsoever -- except on the wallet. For example, it is virtual impossible to find Hoodia commercially available in a form that promotes appetite reduction, and yet you can find a hundred sites on the Internet selling Hoodia supplements.
ON THE OTHER HAND, the FDA has some 'splaining to do. First and foremost, it is an absolute scandal that Big Pharma is allowed to advertise prescription drugs directly to consumers. There's a prof at UNC who has done extensive work exposing the nefarious trickery used in those ads as well as in non-prescription products.
Furthermore, I've worked several conventions when I lived in Orlando and have seen upclose and personal the scandalous marketing (read bribes) that goes on between Big Pharma and physicians, while the FDA looks the other way.
As for the relative quackery of the docs in question, I think I'll dach that question. I've got my own sins to answer for.
The one name I will name is Kevin Trudeau, who was a former business associate of my boss. Kevin is familiar to many in the business for his infomercials for his miracle cure products and his cease and desist orders from the FDA -- plus some heavy fines for ignoring those orders. His reputation is not good.
What I can tell you is that nutritional supplements in general - note the in general, please - are over-hyped and over-priced and much of their efficacy is due to the placebo effect. Claims are routinely made that are unsubstantiated and highly suspect; one of the most difficult parts of my job was trying to make these claims without exposing the firm to FDA inquiry - I assure you, it is a delicate task trying to color inside the lines (or as far outside them as you think you can get away with).
Research indicates that some products such as melatonin due have a beneficial effect in promoting sound sleep, particularly with older people, as well as in countering the effects of jet lag. Resveratrol does have some limited effect on cholesterol. Hoodia is a proven appetite suppressant.
However, as Mishima points out, whatever beneficial effects these products may have is effected greatly by the quality/concentration of the active agent(s) in the products and water soluble supplements frequently pass thru the system with no effect whatsoever -- except on the wallet. For example, it is virtual impossible to find Hoodia commercially available in a form that promotes appetite reduction, and yet you can find a hundred sites on the Internet selling Hoodia supplements.
ON THE OTHER HAND, the FDA has some 'splaining to do. First and foremost, it is an absolute scandal that Big Pharma is allowed to advertise prescription drugs directly to consumers. There's a prof at UNC who has done extensive work exposing the nefarious trickery used in those ads as well as in non-prescription products.
Furthermore, I've worked several conventions when I lived in Orlando and have seen upclose and personal the scandalous marketing (read bribes) that goes on between Big Pharma and physicians, while the FDA looks the other way.
As for the relative quackery of the docs in question, I think I'll dach that question. I've got my own sins to answer for.
CCC - wouldn't that just mean that he is only in private practice and not on staff at a hospital?
"This practitioner does not currently hold staff privileges at any hospital/medical/health institution in Florida."
That only means he's not currently using those facilities for his practice. It doesn't mean he's not practicing.
That only means he's not currently using those facilities for his practice. It doesn't mean he's not practicing.
Hey Tom, I agree with you on the drug advertizing, it makes me sick.
If I see ONE MORE ad for Cialis I'll poke my eyes out with a fork! LOL
If I see ONE MORE ad for Cialis I'll poke my eyes out with a fork! LOL
Amen to that. Quack Amy is one of the yuckiest people on OS, and as I learned just today, that's some stiff competition...
CCC is obviously confused and senile in addition to being a coward.
No sign of CCC the ball-less wonder over at Dr. Dach's blog.
Go on you lily liver, go over there and accuse the doctor of not being licensed.
No sign of CCC the ball-less wonder over at Dr. Dach's blog.
Go on you lily liver, go over there and accuse the doctor of not being licensed.
To encourage CCC and the Community Scold to visit Dr. Dach who has an excellent post today about the FDA's approval of dangerous drugs, I am closing the comments.
Go on cowards. Stop hiding here and stabbing him in the back in this comment thread he is unlikely to read. Go defend the FDA and attack Dr Dach's credentials on his turf where he will see your feeble efforts and respond accordingly.
Go on cowards. Stop hiding here and stabbing him in the back in this comment thread he is unlikely to read. Go defend the FDA and attack Dr Dach's credentials on his turf where he will see your feeble efforts and respond accordingly.
She Who Must Not Be Questioned is frequently put on the cover of OS, granting credibility to her narrow opinions and agenda. While she is prolific on other sites, she has achieved quite a bit of visibility on OS, which is the big league, comparatively. Can we flag her as advertising? Do we have any other options? I promise never to argue with her again. I will also stop reading / commenting on her posts, and never, never rate her. That is the most I can do.
No comments:
Post a Comment