Re: Blatant CDC lie (pharma shill)

From: Bob LeChevalier (lojbab_at_lojban.org)
Date: 10/20/04 

Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:00:31 -0400

"Byron Canfield" <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:l2kdd.10139$5b1.8592@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> In article <3A%cd.151162$He1.31864@attbi_s01>,
>> Byron Canfield <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>> >The AMA is now lobbying with others to make over-the-counter vitamin
>> >supplements illegal. If that isn't suppression, the word "suppression"
>> >doesn't exist.
>>
>> As someone else pointed out, that story is decades old.
>
>How about something more recent then:
>
>http://www.supplementquality.com/editorials/archives_biased.html
>
>"Supplement Study In AMA Journal Shows Bias And Misunderstanding
>12 August 2001
>by Wyn Snow, Managing Editor
>I. INTRODUCTION
>
>A recently published article in the Archives of Internal Medicine (AoIM)
>suggests that consumers in the US are of mixed opinion regarding the use and
>benefits of dietary supplements. Entitled "Americans' Views on the Use and
>Regulation of Dietary Supplements," the article appeared in the 26 March
>2001 issue. AoIM is published by the American Medical Association, the
>leading professional society for physicians in the US."

Why is a report on the opinions of consumers relevant?

>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_245/ai_111496960
>
>" In the March 26, 2003 issue of the Journal of the American Medical
>Association, the AMA published an editorial entitled, "The Need for
>Regulation of Dietary Supplements--Lessons From Ephedra." (7) The AMA was,
>in effect, warning that it no longer would abide the tentative truce between
>them legislated by Congress in the form of the 1994 DSHEA."

This is interpretation. Why don't you cite the JAMA article itself?

Note that regulating dietary supplements is NOT the same as "making
them illegal", which was your claim above.

"Over the counter" medications are regulated, but are not illegal.

>And:
>
>http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7143
>
>"January 17, 2002
>Michael D. Maves, MD, MBA
>Executive Vice President
>American Medical Association
>515 N. State Street
>Chicago, IL 60610
>312-464-5000
>
>Dear Dr. Maves,
>
> On September 28th, 2000 your predecessor, Dr. E. Ratcliffe
>Anderson, Jr., called upon the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to
>initiate proceedings to remove dietary supplements containing ephedrine
>alkaloids from the United States market. [1] Citing §402 (f)(1)(A)(i) of the
>Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, the American Medical Association (AMA) sought to
>have ephedrine alkaloid dietary supplements deemed adulterated due to their
>significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury. [2]

That is arguing for a PARTICULAR supplement to be removed from the
market, because it contains an regulated drug.

> [1] Anderson, E, Ratcliffe. AMA Letter to the Food & Drug Administration
>re: Dietary Supplements Containing Ephedrine Alkaloids. September 28, 2000.
>
>[2] 21 USC 331(a), and 342(f) "
>
>Now, any more cavalier and unsupported dismissals of this supposedly 10-year
>old issue?

Seems worthy of dismissal to me. I am sure that the AMA has positions
on several drugs, but lobbying for their regulation, or even for their
removal from the marketplace is not the same as lobbying for making
all supplements illegal or regulated (though I for one would like to
see them regulated as a consumer, I am not associated with the AMA)

Your claim, as yet unsupported, is
>The AMA is now lobbying with others to make over-the-counter vitamin
>supplements illegal

Not specific ones, but all of them. Not regulated, but "illegal".
Strong claims require strong support.

(not that it matters what the AMA supports - they don't run the
government)

lojbab 

-- 
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Blatant CDC lie (pharma shill)
    ... >"Supplement Study In AMA Journal Shows Bias And Misunderstanding ... >Regulation of Dietary Supplements," the article appeared in the 26 March ... AoIM is published by the American Medical Association, ...
    (sci.med)
  • Re: FDA wants to regulate nutritional supplements
    ... CSPI supports the right of consumers to purchase ... safe, high quality, and appropriately labeled dietary supplements ... There are two aspects to FDA regulation, and this thread seems to be ...
    (rec.food.cooking)
  • Re: Regulating acupuncturists etc
    ... a remedy's ingredients have been in use for so long that the dangers are ... believe in, unusual medications or supplements. ... EU interference and regulation. ... strangulation of our domestic divergent experiments will help them in the ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Greater Regulation of Nutritional Supplements Is Not Justified
    ... Greater Regulation of Nutritional Supplements Is Not Justified ... be reigned in for the sake of consumer safety, ... busting and control of markets on behalf of the drug makers. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Nutritional Supplements and Diabetes
    ... Third, many studies have found beneficial effects of the particular supplements under discussion here. ... Are you proposing that because regulation of drugs allows so many bad ones to slip into the marketplace where they are found to be harmful and/or lethal, Or that because medical journal reviewers and publishers feel that drug research results are perverted by financial stakes the investigators have in the products that we shouldn't have rx drugs? ... Anyone whois had REAL studies would get a USP label, and actually be subject to regulation - it is not that hard CELERY is subject to regulation, bottled WATER is subject to regulation ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)