Alternative Health vs mainstream medicine and Scn

[shadow]

"FDA has not sanctioned health claims for omega-3s and the diseases enumerated on Diamond's
website.
Diamond's information panel instructs consumers to check its website "for recipes or
information." It therefore constitutes labeling. In a case involving claims made by Ocean Spray
on that company's website, FDA concluded that the reference to additional information on the
website caused the Internet material to be "labeling" subject to FDA's jurisdiction." Because
the statements on Diamond's website are false and misleading, the product is misbranded.
IV. Conclusion
We urge the Agency to take prompt action to ensure that nuts are no longer marketed with
unapproved and deceptive health claims."

Hmmmm.

"FDA has not sanctioned health claims for omega-3s and the diseases enumerated on Diamond's
website."

Best I know that such contents of various fatty acids are universally
recognised. They fall under vitamin F.

Seems to me that the FDA are being anal about their objectives. They are
operating in one of the most controversial areas of science and nutrition.

So to expect them to be omnipotent and as rational as Emma is a long wish.

There is another big problem. There is ENORMOUS lobbying pressure from
big Pharma. See the movie “Love and Other Drugs” .

There is clearly much scope for corruption.

Have a friend who dealt in vits and in particular substances to improve cognative ability. Nootropics. He was raided by the UK equivalent of the FDA.
They took all his supplies.

His partner was a former drug rep. He detailed examples of bribery he was involved in.

The US is currently battling to be able to buy vits in larger quantity.

Numbered because I feel like it (no real reason):
1. There is a list of acceptable claims that anyone can access on the FDA web site and they will talk to you about what you might want to claim and how to go about it. For claims someone would like to have considered, they can fill out the forms and submit the supporting studies.

2. The science is not so controversial, the interpretation can be, especially when trying to fit the data to support the product you are trying to sell. The "universal recognition of fatty acids" is not so simplistic. Studies have shown differences between fish and plant derived fatty acids and you cannot use fish studies to support plant derived fatty acids because of these differences.

3. How about a re-dirrect for your re-dirrect, and ask about Big Herbal successfully lobbying congress to get a pass on most of the regulation that Big Pharma has to put up with rather than addressing the issues brought up.

4. Bribery is bad. Bribery should be investigated and those on both ends prosecuted. This does not justify the rest of the statements. This is a strawman argument and is like saying since I know someone who was abused by Scn, every aspect of Scn and all "wins" anyone thinks they got are not valid.

 

[programmer_guy]

That is the first I've heard of anyone having any reaction. Now, my bet would be that it could be the additives in the pills.

I am very careful about purchasing only the best quality supplements.

Most over the counter supplements, and especially the name brand ones you see advertised have all kinds of things added to them - some of which are harmful substances.

Also, there are different methods of extracting and different sources of these supplements.

Choosing one that is pure, with no additives or fillers - in a gel or vegi-cap could make a huge difference.

Marina

You just might be correct. I don't know.

Here is one news article of what you are talking about:

Lawsuit Raises Fish Oil Supplement Concerns
Could You Be Getting PCBs With Your Omega-3 Fatty Acids?
By ELISABETH LEAMY
March 3, 2010
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/ConsumerNews/truth-fish-oil-concerns/story?id=9994049

Fish oil supplements are constantly touted for their seemingly miraculous health benefits because they contain omega 3 fatty acids. But a new lawsuit contends they may contain something else, too: PCBs, industrial chemicals that were banned back in the 1970s because they cause cancer and birth defects.

 

[programmer_guy]

Maybe an important but missing dietary item for men was pointed out at the end of the cult classic movie "A Boy and His Dog" (starring a very young Don Johnson of TV "Miami Vice" fame.) <snicker>

 

[Type4_PTS]

They also referenced claims that omegas from fish treat disease, leaving the conclusion that the omegas in walnuts were equivalent (no proof).

Hi Shadow,
Later when I get time I will respond to other points of your post I quoted this sentence from. But for now I would just say that I would agree with your point that the omegas in walnuts are not proven to be equivalent, and don't take issue with that aspect of the original complaint that CSPI filed on this. (in the link that Madhair put in his post):
www.cspinet.org/reports/fda_diamond.pdf

What I do take issue with is that the FDA considers walnuts to be "unapproved drugs" when they are accompanied by truthful scientific descriptions about their benefits for heart health. FDA has censored many valid claims about many foods including walnuts, and yet has allowed other claims that are pretty questionable, such as Frito-Lays potato chips being "heart healthy".

Here is a link to an interview with Dr. Frank Sacks,Professor of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention, Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health.
He gives his opinion on the health benefits of ALA, the type of Omega 3 found in walnuts.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hsph.harvard.edu%2Fnutritionsource%2Fquestions%2Fomega-3%2Findex.html&ei=kQVBTYmLLMKBlAfE2qHAAw&usg=AFQjCNER9xQ0yj1GNQBKGrs9D-DfYVsCJg

He does say this:

".......the body partially converts ALA to EPA and DHA; it is not known if ALA has substantial health benefits as is, or whether it must be converted to EPA and DHA to produce most of the benefits. My current interpretation of the science is that ALA has direct health benefits, through its role in reducing inflammation and protecting the heart against arrhythmias, and it also has indirect health benefits, through its conversion to EPA and DHA."


NO claims are legal of course unless approved by the FDA, regardless of how strong the science is behind them backing them up. This has contributed to a state of affairs where the American population are to a large degree nutritionally illiterate. We spend more money on healthcare (per capita) than any other country and yet we are not so healthy. Many foods could help prevent many diseases in the first place but it is illegal for the grocery stores to tell you the truth about them and label them with scientifically valid health claims, so millions of Americans walk by them every week, oblivious to this fact.

 

[nessa]

Omega3 is really good for you, as its really good for bones and calcium is too

 

[programmer_guy]

Omega3 is really good for you, as its really good for bones and calcium is too

Yes it is. But the problems for the capsulated form are in the process of getting it into that form without unwanted additives like PCBs which are carcinogens.

Did you read the news article that I posted above about this subject?

 

[nessa]

No programmer_guy i never read the link in your post, but i have now. At least cod liver oils are low in these PCB's. I can eat pilchards which are high in omega 3, although alot of people i know can't eat pilchards

 

[Terril park]

I am totally with you on the benefits of proper diet and the supporting science for reducing disease risk, and for keeping the body strong during disease treatment (note: I do not include supplements because this is a different and more nuanced topic, and supplements can interfere with some treatments). There are also a lot of new studies in the works to further define what proper nutrition is, and the benefits. When my sis-in-law developed breast cancer, we looked into all of the treatment and prevention info on the NCI web site including exercise and nutrition to reduce recurrence.

Another important aspect of this is to have accurate data on what nutrition and exercise can and cannot do in the area of disease prevention. I have seen people beating themselves up because they developed cancer and were told by some ignorant person that if only they had followed XX-diet, the cancer would have never occurred. To me this is as destructive as telling someone the cancer must be because they "pulled it in" or is proof that some SP is in their life.----Hey, I think I just tied it back to Scn again-Yeay!

In more ways than one. In HCOB 25 Mar 1975 DIET. THEORY OF A
NATURAL DIET Hubbard gives a method of discovering a correct diet.

 

[Terril park]

Numbered because I feel like it (no real reason):
1. There is a list of acceptable claims that anyone can access on the FDA web site and they will talk to you about what you might want to claim and how to go about it. For claims someone would like to have considered, they can fill out the forms and submit the supporting studies.

2. The science is not so controversial, the interpretation can be, especially when trying to fit the data to support the product you are trying to sell. The "universal recognition of fatty acids" is not so simplistic. Studies have shown differences between fish and plant derived fatty acids and you cannot use fish studies to support plant derived fatty acids because of these differences.

3. How about a re-dirrect for your re-dirrect, and ask about Big Herbal successfully lobbying congress to get a pass on most of the regulation that Big Pharma has to put up with rather than addressing the issues brought up.

4. Bribery is bad. Bribery should be investigated and those on both ends prosecuted. This does not justify the rest of the statements. This is a strawman argument and is like saying since I know someone who was abused by Scn, every aspect of Scn and all "wins" anyone thinks they got are not valid.

I've never heard of big herbal. What is it exactly?

 

[Terril park]

You just might be correct. I don't know.

Here is one news article of what you are talking about:

Lawsuit Raises Fish Oil Supplement Concerns
Could You Be Getting PCBs With Your Omega-3 Fatty Acids?
By ELISABETH LEAMY
March 3, 2010
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/ConsumerNews/truth-fish-oil-concerns/story?id=9994049

This is a problematic area. Pregnant women are advised to eat little
or no oily fish because of various contaminations, mercury being another
one. Fish is otherwise a really beneficial food. The air soil and water just about everywhere is contaminated. In London water is recycled 7 times,
and they can't eliminate substances from birth control pills!

Health span say their Cod liver oil is sourced from uncontaminated icelandic waters. Not sure how uncontaminated these waters can be.


http://www.healthspan.co.uk/joint-care/cod-liver-oil-1000mg/productdetail-p234-c124.aspx

 

[Type4_PTS]

Not sure how uncontaminated these waters can be.

Does it really matter? After all the water in the Gulf of Mexico is contaminated after the BP Oil spill but much of the seafood is safe to eat.

I know this to be a fact because the FDA has declared it as safe.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnbc.msn.com%2Fid%2F38529484%2Fns%2Fhealth-food_safety%2F&ei=l5tBTd6WAYLGlQf2wLka&usg=AFQjCNGM9VJc7mkA3-HqCZEpZWCb7tPvgQ


This of course includes new species discovered in the gulf recently.

 

[shadow]

No programmer_guy i never read the link in your post, but i have now. At least cod liver oils are low in these PCB's. I can eat pilchards which are high in omega 3, although alot of people i know can't eat pilchards

The problem with cod liver oil is that it is very high in vitamin A, so should not be overdone as vitamin A is toxic in moderate doses. There are versions that claim to be low in Vitamin A that might be a good option but I have never checked.

 

[shadow]

This of course includes new species discovered in the gulf recently.

I want some of those. It looks tasty!

 

[themadhair]

Seems to me that the FDA are being anal about their objectives.

The complaint was not filed by the FDA. I note that you didn’t respond to any of the scientific points made in the letter, deciding instead to rant about the FDA. I find that extraordinarily curious and bemusing that you did that.

2. The science is not so controversial, the interpretation can be, especially when trying to fit the data to support the product you are trying to sell. The "universal recognition of fatty acids" is not so simplistic. Studies have shown differences between fish and plant derived fatty acids and you cannot use fish studies to support plant derived fatty acids because of these differences.

Pretty much. Not all fatty acids are equal, and referring to the health benefits of a fatty acid type that differs to that in your product is fraud no matter what way you slice it.

But for now I would just say that I would agree with your point that the omegas in walnuts are not proven to be equivalent, and don't take issue with that aspect of the original complaint that CSPI filed on this. (in the link that Madhair put in his post):
www.cspinet.org/reports/fda_diamond.pdf

What I do take issue with is that the FDA considers walnuts to be "unapproved drugs" when they are accompanied by truthful scientific descriptions about their benefits for heart health.

The blue comment is contradicted by the red comment. It is pretty sad that this needed to be pointed out imo. The complaint rightly called out Diamond Foods for making claims unsupported by the science. How can you not take issue with the complaint, but still have a problem with the FDA action that is completely harmonious with that complaint????

NO claims are legal of course unless approved by the FDA, regardless of how strong the science is behind them backing them up.

Care to lay out the ‘strong science’ behind the claim Diamonds Foods got called out for? Specifically cite the research. Or better yet, refute the claims made in the complaint by referencing conflicting research. It is put up or shut up time.

What you are doing is taking a comment by an actual academic and then stretching it beyond what the science actually says. You are then proceeding to use this platform to bash the FDA, all the while appearing to blissfully ignorant of what the actual science really says. Unfortunately it is muppets like your good self that, through spreading such misinformation, help contribute to making people “nutritionally illiterate”.

 

[nessa]

I want some of those. It looks tasty!

Yeah it looks tasty and hopefully healthy, but is it edible

 

[Terril park]

The complaint was not filed by the FDA. I note that you didn’t respond to any of the scientific points made in the letter, deciding instead to rant about the FDA. I find that extraordinarily curious and bemusing that you did that.

I admire your knowledge and smarts. And concur that I was loose and sloppy in my comments.

I have no knowledge before this thread re walnuts and fatty acids and FDA.

Wasn't commenting on them specifically. You quoted:=

"1.099 g DHA, for a total of 1.704 g of 0me~a - 3 s .S~o , it is technically true that walnuts contain
as much omega-3s as salmon. But the health benefits for omega-3s have been demonstrated
primarily for DHA and EPA, and humans are thought to convert little ALA into DHA and EPA.
Thus, it is misleading to let consumers think that a food high in ALA has the health benefits of a
food rich in DHA and EPA.~"

What this states is that crucial nutritional data is not known. As is the case in many areas.

There is no money to be made stating vitamins or products made by the body are usefull or even essential. Broadly speaking.

" But the health benefits for omega-3s have been demonstrated
primarily for DHA and EPA, and humans are thought to convert little ALA into DHA and EPA."

So how do those kinsmen in, lets say Mongolia which has no sea access
going to get DHA and EPA ? Must confess have little idea of their access to river fish. Or even if river fish have such content.

Its my opinion that the regulatory departments are in thrall to big business.

See Monsanto.

 

[programmer_guy]

Dangerous supplements
What you don't know about these 12 ingredients could hurt you
Last reviewed: September 2010
http://www.consumerreports.org/health/natural-health/dietary-supplements/overview/index.htm

Because of inadequate quality control and inspection, supplements contaminated with heavy metals, pesticides, or prescription drugs have been sold to unsuspecting consumers. And FDA rules covering manufacturing quality don't apply to the companies that supply herbs, vitamins, and other raw ingredients.

 

[nessa]

Dangerous supplements
What you don't know about these 12 ingredients could hurt you
Last reviewed: September 2010
http://www.consumerreports.org/health/natural-health/dietary-supplements/overview/index.htm

Thats alot of supplements to avoid, i always thought it were alot of pharmacy tablets that require perscription that had a lot of side effects. At least we're being warned about them. It could be worse, ALL supplements could be dangerous for us. It sounds daft that all would, but i'm just trying to make it seem more positive, than negative

 

[programmer_guy]

Article from the Mayo Clinic website:


Herbal supplements: What to know before you buy
Herbal supplements aren't right for everyone. Get the facts before you buy.
By Mayo Clinic staff
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/herbal-supplements/SA00044

Manufacturers must follow good manufacturing practices (GMPs) to ensure that supplements are processed consistently and meet quality standards. GMPs are intended to keep the wrong ingredients and contaminants, such as pesticides and lead, out of supplements, as well as make sure that the right ingredients are included in appropriate amounts.

Look for scientific research findings. Two good sources include the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) and the Office of Dietary Supplements. Both have Web sites that provide information to help consumers make informed choices about dietary supplements.

 

[themadhair]

What this states is that crucial nutritional data is not known. As is the case in many areas.

This would be one of the reasons the FDA classed them as drugs – “because they are not generally recognized as safe and effective for the above referenced conditions”.

Its my opinion that the regulatory departments are in thrall to big business.

Can you see how advocating a position, even if true, is sorely undermined when people jump on crap data as a support?

Now I can’t get toasters and crystal meth out of my head….

ETA:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/docs/ir_gregory_smith_080807.pdf
This is simply the best example of regulatory corruption evar:

The RIK employee recalled that on one occasion in late 2004, Smith telephoned her repeatedly asking for drugs. She said she provided cocaine to him early that evening, but he continued to call her. Eventually, she said, Smith traveled to her house and wanted her to have sex with him. She said he also asked her if she had more cocaine, and she stated that she did not but that someone who was staying with her might. She said Smith obtained crystal methamphetamine from one of these individuals and she watched him snort it off the toaster oven in her kitchen. The RIK employee also said she and Smith engaged in oral sex that evening.​