That herbal supplement may not be what you think it is, scientists find

[HuckleB]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/that-herbal-supplement-may-not-be-what-you-think-it-is/article14825662/#dashboard/follows/?cmpid=tgc

"DNA doesn’t lie.

And when scientists from the University of Guelph scoured the DNA in a number of herbal products, they found that many times the labels on the merchandise didn’t accurately reflect what was in the container.

Some products contained fillers like wheat or rice that were not listed on the label. Some were contaminated with other plant species that could have caused toxicity or triggered allergic reactions. And still others contained no trace of the substance the bottle purported to contain.

“It says gingko biloba ... and we didn’t find any gingko DNA at all in the bottle,” said Steve Newmaster, an integrative biology professor at the university who was the first author on the paper.

..."


Regulation needed. Badly.

[Th1onein]

1. The pharma industry has been pushing for regulation for decades. NOT a good idea.

Unless, that is, you want to have to go to a doctor and pay prescription prices for your supplements. I, personally, don't want to go there.

Watch out for what you wish for.

If you simply use your head, and look for a company that does HPLC (high performance liquid chromatography) on it's product, thereby guaranteeing you're going to get a certain percentage of the actual supplement ingredient in your supplement, you won't get screwed.

[jberryhill]

2. Lol

Thanks for the tip. I'll be sure to put that on the label of my fake product.

You might think, under normal labeling regulations, that if something says "Ginko Biloba" on the label, THAT would be the "guarantee" of what is in the bottle.

But you are telling me that someone who lies about what is in the bottle is prevented - by some voodoo force - from lying about how they test the product?

Hey, do you need to buy a car? I have some GREAT ones to sell you.

[Th1onein]

67. Why would you buy from someone who lies about what's in their product?

And, if you did, why would you expect anything other than another lie? You really aren't making much sense.

Are you saying that they all lie? That simply is not true. And if a company has HPLC results from an independent testing company, why would that also be a lie? Once again, you make no sense.

[HuckleB]

70. There is no regulation, and, yes, they all lie about the evidence of the benefits.

As far as we can know, they all lie about everything, since they don't want regulation to show 'em to be clean.

If you don't know that, then you really need to stop and go find out more.

[Th1onein]

72. You are just flat out wrong.

And, really? If you think giving the FDA the right to regulate this industry is a good idea, then you need to go and get an education on the topic. You are woefully ignorant.

[HuckleB]

74. Oh, so you think the FDA should just cut and run on Big Pharma?

If so, at least you're being consistent. If not... HMMMMMMM.

No, I'm not wrong. You are. The question is why. What is your motivation here?

[Th1onein]

81. My motivation is FACTS.

Not sure what yours is.

The FDA does little anymore except rubber stamp drugs. They are virtually useless anymore, except to keep truly new drugs, something other than copy cats, from surfacing and making it onto your pharmacy shelves. I told you before: they are bought and paid for by the pharma industry.

[HuckleB]

83. You have a reputation for not caring about the science of most things.

You claim otherwise, but your posts show that you're full of it.

[Th1onein]

85. No, honey, quite the contrary. Unlike you, I do my homework.

And I have for many years. Perhaps that's why I head a not-for-profit research foundation.

And what is your involvement in scientific research? Oh! None, right?

[HuckleB]

87. You make a lot claims, but you offer no evidence.

Thus, you have no credibility. This is not hard. Try to be honest for once.

[Th1onein]

96. See the first article on that page? That's my research.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

See the book on this page? I wrote Chapter 7: https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=10310

I have spent over a decade working in this field, and you pull up one article on a freaking blog, and you call it a "consensus." You have no idea how science operates, or what constitutes a scientific consensus.

Read the article that you, yourself, are quoting--even the authors admit that the sample size is too small to generalize from.

Try not to resort to insults; they really do nothing to further your argument.

[GeorgeGist]

104. the pubmed link comes up as the Blank search page.

the 2nd link identifies you as a member of Share International which describes itself as:

Share International is a worldwide network of individuals and groups whose purpose is to make known the fact that Maitreya ― the World Teacher for the coming age ― and his group, the Masters of Wisdom, are now among us, emerging into the public arena ― gradually, so as not to infringe human free will.

I'm convinced.

[Th1onein]

122. Are you kidding or lying? Here's the links again; I tested them myself, before posting.

https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=10310

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16934416

And, by the way, I just clicked on the links, myself, that I previously posted, and they go to the book that I cited, and yes, to a blank page in PubMed.

I corrected the blank page with a link to the actual article, and I reposted the book link. I don't know what's up with your computer, but that "Share" thing you say the link goes to? Not happening, buddy.

[StrayKat]

301. The Nova publishers link does go to a listing for a book on cystic fibrosis,

but the info for chapter 7 is given as:

Chapter 7. Effects of the lack of transport of thiocyanate in cystic fibrosis lung disease, pp.137-142
(Melanie Childers, Alan Himmel, Jim Caldwell, Share International Foundation Sequim, WA)

What is Share International Foundation? When you look it up, you get the info that GeorgeGist posted.

[HuckleB]

105. Try not to make claims that you can't support.

You have to support a single claim, much less to turn the consensus of science around. Much less show that there shouldn't be more regulation on supplement companies.

[Th1onein]

147. It's funny how the regulations you want are the same ones Big Pharma wants.

How much would you like to pay for your Vitamin C? Seven hundred a month? Fifteen hundred a month? Big Pharmas can name their price.

[HuckleB]

172. It's funny how you use these tired libertarian baloney excuses.

Consumers want protection, and should get protection. Why are you so vehemently supporting BIG SUPPLEMENT?

[Th1onein]

177. I support CONSUMERS who don't want to pay $750 a month for their Vitamin C.

Which is what would happen if you subject vitamins and supplements to the same processes that drugs have to go through. And you know this, HuckleB. You're calling it regulation, and "protection." It's more like a protection racket.

[HuckleB]

179. Hogwash. You support BILLION DOLLAR SCUMBAG SUPPLEMENT COMPANIES!

[Th1onein]

188. Even YOUR OP states that two of the companies tested (and they didn't test many)

were PERFECT. PERFECT. And, the study that you cite even says that the sample size was too small to generalize to all supplement companies! And you really expect everyone to take this one study as evidence that all supplement companies are crooked? Get real. The study's own authors caution against that conclusion!

[HuckleB]

189. My OP is about one study.

It's not the first study to show this. Some companies having a perfect record is not a justification for fighting against needed regulation. Cut the libertarian BS. Consumers deserve better.

[Th1onein]

195. WHERE ARE THE OTHERS? WHERE'S YOUR SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS?

Where's the peer review? Where's the context? OH! THAT'S RIGHT! They're only BLOG POSTS!

[HuckleB]

208. Oh, that's right those blog posts by science address, cover and link to studies.

Why do continue to be so dishonest? It's very telling.

[Th1onein]

201. Is that really all you got? Personal attacks?

if these vitamins and supplements are subjected to the same processes drugs are subjected to, what is to keep them from charging those prices? Hmm? Explain that, HuckleB. Instead of calling "Hogwash" and insulting people, make your argument. Right now, you don't seem to have one.

[HuckleB]

209. I've got the clear consensus of science behind me.

You have nothing but personal attacks, and ugly behavior to offer.

[Th1onein]

227. You keep saying that, but you post NOTHING to support it.

Blog posts are NOT evidence. They do not constitute a scientific consensus, no matter how many of them you post!

[HuckleB]

230. You have lied about that repeatedly.

You have misrepresented what I have posted over and over again.

We know you lie. You don't have to keep proving it.

[Th1onein]

232. Everyone here can see what you posted, HuckleB.

There is no misrepresentation. You even posted an article that you SAID was written by a medical researcher, and it was written by a MEDICAL REPORTER.

Good grief.

[HuckleB]

234. You are lying again. Everyone can see that.

One article was by a reporter. Others were by researchers, and you screamed "BLOG!"

You are lying. Stop.

[Th1onein]

240. I see not one article that can be referenced on any scientific indice; not ONE.

Where are they, HuckleB? Where's that consensus?

[HuckleB]

242. And you lie again.

What is wrong with you?

[Th1onein]

245. Really? Then why don't you post the indices where they are referenced?

Why don't you do that? I did. I posted the PubMed references to the abstracts. Why can't you do that?

Is it because they don't index BLOG POSTS?

[HuckleB]

274. You are only playing games.

You posted a few, select, cherry picked items, none of which support your ranting and raving.

You know the evidence is against you, yet you're so dishonest that want others to spend their time doing what you should have done years ago. Since you have not even paid attention to the research, it is clear how limited your knowledge is.

Goodbye.

[Bill USA]

307. I think you missed the turn for the site more to your liking

http://www.sesamestreet.org/games#media/game_9bb48196-14e4-11dd-83fd-1ff2199def8e



Seriously, this site is really for grown-ups.

[HuckleB]

309. Kids are certainly better at science and integrity than you are, Bill.

Stop working to screw over consumers.

[carla]

308. Proper diet

and consistent exercise eliminate the "need" for supplements. (Organic farmer with a background in healthcare and a mother who was a nurse.) Proper diet generally provides the human body with all it needs to survive and grow healthy. It is the effect of monoculture on food crops that produces deficiencies in nutrients for uptake by the body. The best argument for organics...

[HuckleB]

310. Proper diet is all most people need.

"Monoculture" is not the problem, however. Science has been very clear that people who eat a good diet don't need supplements, period. It doesn't matter if the food is organic or otherwise.

[WCLinolVir]

253. If you think the FDA keeps us safe from big pharma, I have some swamp land to sell you.

The FDA cut and run on Big Pharma?!!! Hahahahahah. My sides are aching. That was funny. The FDA was run over by the pharma industry long ago. What is your
motivation?

[Th1onein]

257. Absolutely correct, WCLinolVir. The FDA is hand in hand with Big Pharma.

They could care less if we live or die. The only thing that keeps Big Pharma in line is big lawsuits and that's fast being taken from the consumer, as well.

[WCLinolVir]

260. Yep. It never ceases to amaze me just how vulnerable the public is thanks to the FDA.

[HuckleB]

275. Big Pharma needs more regulation.

That does not change the fact that BIG SUPPLEMENT needs more regulation.

Now, stop the red herring BS.

[wercal]

145. Just curious

Are you opposed the FDA regulation of food?

This knee jerk opposition to FDA is not based in reality...last I checked I don't need to get a prescription to buy peanut butter. So apparently they have devised a way to regulate a product that is ingested into our bodies without requiring a prescription, right?

[Th1onein]

148. Absolutely not. And it's not knee jerk.

But the "regulation" that HuckleB is talking about is regulating supplements exactly the same way that drugs are regulated. To get new drug application costs $1 million, unless it qualifies for orphan drug status (and that's not going to happen with a supplement, as you might guess). That means that you're going to have to get a new drug application for every vitamin, every herb, etc., that you want to market, AND you're going to have to engage in clinical trials for each one. Prohibitively expensive. How would you like to pay $750 or $1500 or MORE a month for your Vitamin C? THAT'S what would happen if you impose these kinds of "regulations" on supplements.

[wercal]

150. How many 'new' supplement applications

Could there be? Once vitamin c is approved once, it should be available for use in all supplements, right?

[Th1onein]

153. How many supplements are there? How does this system work now for drugs out of patent?

I want to ask you something: How many compounds are there out there, right now, that are out of patent, that could help people suffering from different ailments? There are a LOT. Millions, in fact. But they are not subjected to clinical trials and no one wants to file a new drug application on them because it is prohibitively expensive, and once they do ALL of that work and spend ALL of that money, guess what? NOW, they have competition.

Let me give you an example: 3-bromopyruvate. A scientist, Young Ko, from Johns Hopkins, found this compound to kill cancer. And it doesn't hurt normal cells. It works miraculously. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15465013
"Advanced cancers: eradication in all cases using 3-bromopyruvate therapy to deplete ATP." You think anyone has filed a new drug application for this compound? NO. Why is that?

Because it is an old compound, out of patent, and no one is going to spend the money for the new drug application ($1 million) and the clinical trials, just so that when it passes the FDA, they have competition from everyone who can make it and sell it. Instead, the scientists at Johns Hopkins are trying to make a drug like it, that has the same efficacy and the same lack of toxicity.

The same thing will happen with vitamins and supplements, for the same reasons.

[wercal]

156. What other government regulation are you

opposed to. Its not meant as a snarky question....but the FDA exists to precent some harm, right? Surely there is more than pure downside to this agency?

[Th1onein]

158. I'm not against any government regulation, per se. But this law? No. It will devastate consumers.

You understand that this law is going to require that vitamins and supplements be subjected to the same clinical trials, new drug applications, etc., that actual drugs are subjected to, right? Can you imagine what that will do to the cost of these compounds? To say nothing of the effect that it will have on their availability.

[wercal]

160. Well I don't see any bill being sponsored

Or voted on. This thread started out with tests that showed some vitamin companies are selling snake oil. Surely a law can be crafted to protect consumers while stopping short of the armededdon scenario.

[Th1onein]

169. They try to slip them in tacked onto other bills, AND pass them by themselves.

Constantly. There's at least one bill every session, and many attempts to tack them onto other bills.

There's some BIG MONEY behind this. And it's BIG PHARMA money. They want that market, and they want those patients. The same people that are against legalizing marijuana for medical reasons are the ones pushing these bills.

[wercal]

183. I'd like to see an example of one of these bills.

[HuckleB]

192. Don't worry. Big Supplement has plenty of sway with Congress.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/big-supp-resists-giving-consumers-safety-and-effectiveness-information/

[Th1onein]

193. Dietary Supplement Labeling Act (S 1310) - 2011

Durbin (D) sponsored this bill and then also tried to slip it onto another bill - S 3187, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, in 2012.

The March 2013 GAO Dietary Supplements report actually showed how incredibly safe supplements really are—particularly when compared to drugs and vaccines.

[wercal]

264. Well I read the bill here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1310/text

As far as I can tell:

1) Sponsored by two democrats

2) Mentions nothing about clinical trials or anything like that.

[Th1onein]

265. It subjects supplement ingredients to the same testing that drugs are tested with.

It's not necessarily going to say "clinical trials," but that's how drugs are tested. In fact, they go through a series of clinical trials, as we all know.

And, yes, it's sponsored by Democrats. That doesn't mean it's okay, though, as you well know.

[wercal]

267. Well the entire text of that bill is at the link I listed

I couldn't find anything like that...other than a requirement that ingredients be listed.

If you can find anything in the text that indicates a requirement that each supplement will be subject to testing and trials at $1 million a pop, I will have been proven wrong.

[Th1onein]

268. Sorry, might have posted the wrong one. I think this is it.

http://www.house.gov/legcoun/Comps/FDA_CMD.pdf

[wercal]

270. Ok, it looks like this is already law, originally passed in 1938

As far as I can tell, your link is to a change, which involves preparedness for pandemics, availability of vaccines, etc.

I don't see any language about requiring testing of supplements, or anything like that.

[HuckleB]

163. +1000

[Bill USA]

263. you can find quality suppliers with a little effort

a total of 12 companies products were checked. OF the twelve companies whose products were reviewed (4 from each company) "two of the companies provided authentic products without substitutions, contaminants or fillers". Nothing was mentioned about the selection process, random or was their a heavy weighting of known suspicious characters (from complaints received).

There definitely are companies involved in 'herbal supplements' industry which are sloppy or engage in questionable practices. But, really, I think the results show that if you make an effort to find reputable companies who do care about thier reputation you can find them.

I wonder what percentage of problems come from "diet" products. People will take anything from anybody based on the wildest and completely unsupported claims if they think it will enable them to lose weight without giving up their sweets or fried foods and without any additional exercise. I also wonder how much, on a dollar basis of the sales in the "herbal products" industry is in diet products. I wouldn't be suprised in diet products represented half the entire 'herbal supplement' industry.

People who buy products over the phone, advertized on tv, by loud-mouthed fast talkers are pigeons weighting to be shot down.

The Pharmaceutical companies really run FDA and they would like to put supplement manufacturers out of business. Pharmaceutical industry is predicated on providing pharmaceuticals (often based on natural products with proprietary modifications to the molecules) to sick people. They are scared of people taking products BEFORE they get sick with an eye to preventing sickness or significantly reducing the likelyhood or seriousness of a given disorder.

Life Extension Foundation

A company which does not make any herbal supplements itself, but is a buyers club which offers for sale products by manufacturers whose products they have tested and continually monitor for quality (what is in the bottle is exactly what the label says is in the bottle) is Life Extension Foundation.

LEF has a team of experts who are continually monitoring current research into natural products to see what the latest, verifiable developments are in the enhancement of human health in many areas such as cardiovascular, brain and nervous system health and longevity. IF research shows certain substances provide consistent benefits to human health, if the product (as demonstrated effective in research) is not available on the market - in the concentrations or formulation used in the research, being a large buyers club, LEF goes to trusted natural product suppliers to get them to supply a product which is consistent with the concentration/formulation used in the research studies showing verifiable, consistent, beneficial results. Thus, LEF has been instrumental in bringing products to market that provide solid benefits to people - if the product is used as prescribed. (LEF always advises customers to check with their doctors before taking products which may affect the action of any prescribed pharmaceuticals they may be taking). NOte most natural supplements are meant to be taken bfore you get sick


LEF Scientific Advisory Board
http://www.lef.org/featured-articles/advisory.htm?source=search&key=advisory%20board

Medical advosry board
http://www.lef.org/featured-articles/medadv.html?source=search&key=advisory%20board

http://www.lef.org/featured-articles/track.htm

The Life Extension Foundation is helping to fund the development of stem cell technologies designed to eliminate atherosclerosis, which will prevent many premature deaths caused by occlusive arterial disease (coronary atherosclerosis and ischemic stroke).

Pluripotent stem cells (cells capable of creating any type of cell) will be used to differentiate into endothelial progenitor cells that will replace the aged, damaged, and plaque-laden cells on the walls of blood vessels. These new cells will not only be young, but may remain young indefinitely by the use of the telomere-lengthening enzyme telomerase.

When perfected, this technology may enable doctors to inject progenitor cells that will regenerate every tissue in the body, thus restoring aging humans to youthful health and vigor.

The Life Extension Foundation is also providing funding to create and differentiate pluripotent stem cells into immune system cells that could treat patients afflicted with certain cancers and HIV. This technology has the potential to rejuvenate everyone’s immune system.

A grant was made in January 2013 to researchers working at the State University of New York – Upstate Medical University to fund research into developing immune system blood stem cells (hematopoetic stem cells or HSCs) from undifferentiated stem cells. The primary challenge of this project will be to make undifferentiated stem cells develop into the specific HSC stem cell type. Once that objective has been achieved, the second objective will be to get the HSCs to multiply into large numbers of HSCs.
(more)

Scientific Research Supported by The Life Extension Foundation
http://www.lef.org/research/index.htm

[font size="3"]On September 4, 2001, the world found out it is possible to successfully challenge some aspects of aging in old mice, as measured by changes in gene expression. Articles about this breakthrough appeared in the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Washington Post, and on major television networks. What gave the study credibility was its publication by the National Academy of Sciences. It was the Life Extension Foundation that funded this pioneering age-reversal study.[/font]

The Life Extension Foundation is funding genetic aging research because we think we can develop techniques to challenge the aging process. Our latest discovery, published by the National Academy of Sciences, is evidence that we are on the right track. Our mission is to conquer aging and death within the next 20 years. The reason for our sense of urgency is that we may be the last generation to face death as individuals based upon our genetic limitations. In other words, it may become possible to reprogram our genes to enable us to grow younger biologically, instead of suffering the devastating consequences of aging.

The Life Extension Foundation is an influential source of funding in the world for lifespan studies in mice to determine the effects on aging and life span of potential antiaging therapies. These studies are being conducted by gerontologists at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, the University of California in Riverside, and the University of Arkansas in Little Rock. Researchers are testing the anti-aging potential of vitamins, drugs and hormones now being used by life extensionists.

Through Life Extension Foundation-funding, scientists have found ways to support healthy cardiovascular and neurological function as well as many other anti-aging strategies. These types of discoveries can to improve the quality of life for all of us as we grow older.
(more)

[HuckleB]

299. You've got to be kidding me.

Your entire post shows everything that is wrong with these scumbag corporations.

They are pushing worthless products upon the public. Stop.

[Bill USA]

302. yes, keep on making sweeping, entirely unsupported statements & maybe they will magically come true

Your sweeping statement about my post is frankly, worthless.

Nothing of any meaning or value can be gained from your outburst. You talk like a TeaBagger, loaded with opinions but lacking in any basis for them. Perhaps the basis for you opinion is an economic one. That is, perhaps you work for a pharmaceutical firm (I would say this is a safe bet), or have relatives who do. The supplements industry has the pharmaceutical firms concerned as they are beginning to supply people with good products which help keep people healthier longer.

But, as I said in my comment. These supplements are really for taking BEFORE you get sick - to reduce the likelihood of getting andor the severity of a given chronic conditions (arthrerosclerosis, osteoarthritis to name a couple). If you are seriously ill you must see a competent Physician (BTW, it is also the case that you have to use care in selecting a physician as their quality is not assured and varies too) and it is likely you will need to take some pharmaceutical products to get better. Once you are in the acute stage of an illness, you probably will need pharmaceuticals and perhaps, in some cases, even surgery to get better.


[font size="3"]I pointed out that the study you referred to found that two out of twelve companies passed their tests: [font size="3"] "two of the companies provided authentic products without substitutions, contaminants or fillers"[/font]. I stated that therefor one can conclude that there are quality suppliers out there, but you have to be discerning in picking who you buy from.

BTW twelve isn't exactly a large sample, plus we don't know if it was a random sample or did the pick some obvious suspects and added in a couple quality suppliers so as to not be too obvious re bias in sample selection. I said there certainly are bad players in that industry but the presence of the two companies which "provided authentic products without substitutions, contaminants or fillers" shows that if you look for them, there are quality companies you can buy from.

[HuckleB]

304. First, you are misrepresenting this study.

Second, you fail to acknowledge all the other studies that have shown similar results. Many of them linked on this thread.

Why are you pushing lies?

[Bill USA]

306. HOW AM I MISREPRESENTING TH STUDY U REFERRED TO? I QUOTED FROM THE ARTICLE ON UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH

[font size="3"] "two of the companies provided authentic products without substitutions, contaminants or fillers."[/font]

http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2013/10/study_herbal_pr.html


Can you NOT find the quote at the link on the University of Guelph website?

I mentioned that they sampled products from twelve companies,.. is that not an accurate representation of what they did in the study?


If you are going to make assertions, you have to back them up.

[HuckleB]

312. You quote out of context.

It's a classic pseudoscience move. Sorry, but you're not fooling anyone.

Can you be intellectually honest? If not, why not?

[Bill USA]

313. I gave a link to the article on the Univ of Guelph website. anybody can click on it and read what

is said there.

the quote is accurate. or are you saying they did not find that two out of twelve provided samples that were free of contiminates and fillers? Is the quote not accurate?

My quote is accurate. Just because you can type words you have seen somewhere doessn't mean you 'arguments' or claims - that I have misrepresented the study you referred to - is valid. I did not misrepresent the study at all.

Just parrroting words you likee to hear or see iin print doesn't mean you are making anysense with them, because you are not. You really shold goto the sesame street site. Thats more your speed.

[HuckleB]

316. You have yet to offer anything that is accurate or intellectually honest.

You can keep pretending all you want, but that won't change reality.

Regulation is needed. Denying that reality puts you in a bind at DU.

[Bill USA]

317. the information I quoted is from the conclusions of the study you referred to in OP

your words are consistently show you have no connection to reality.

When I catch you out in contradicting the study you referred to (not difficult at all to do) you say you were referring to "another" study... without mentioning or giving a link to this mysterious "other study". Obviously, there was no "other study" you were thinking of.. you made it up to have a response and to slip out of being shown to be a nonsense peddlar.

You put words in you comments like you are putting together a mosaic of cool sounding words - but the words as put together make no sense with regard to your point or your ensuing comments.

Just dreaming up 'cool' (to you) sounding statements is no substitute for making some sense. Your behavior is properly identified as out of touch with reality and therefor functionally insane.

the study you referred to (inOP) showed that two supplement suppliers [font color="red"] "provided authentic products without substitutions, contaminants or fillers." [/font]

that's a quote from the article about the study on the University of Guelph site. So I guess then you are saying the study you posted about is not accurate or intellecutally honest"

THe reality is, as the study you posted about showed, there are suppliers of supplements who do provide quality products "without substitutions, contaminants or fillers." That's why I said that you can find quality suppliers if you make a moderate effort to.

Your comments fail to make any sense whatsoever. You are just throwing words together that you have seen and heard and liked but you have to be able to put them together in a sensible sentence with respect to the point you are trying to make. Your statements fail the most basic test of meaningfulness. This you don't seem to be capable of doing.

[HuckleB]

325. You seem to think that quoting out of context is ok.

Yeah, NOPE. It's time for you to grow up. Why are so adamant in your support of scumbag corporations?

[Bill USA]

305. Now why would you claim something the study you posted about does not make?

The study you posted about found that

"two of the companies provided authentic products without substitutions, contaminants or fillers."

http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2013/10/study_herbal_pr.html

Therefor your statement that "they ALL Lie about the evidence of the benefits" is contradicted by the very study you posted about.


You make claims ignoring facts that are stated in your own source material.

[HuckleB]

311. I wasn't talking about the study in that post.

Perhaps you should try something new: It's call HONESTY.

Cut the crap. BIG SUPPLEMENT might love you, but consumers don't need your ugly propaganda.

[Bill USA]

314. OH, you weren't talking about the study you started this thread about, the one you refer to in th OP

... but of course, you didn't think you needed to refer to this additional study in you comment 70 or in your response to me.

Well, that's something you started a thread pointing out a study you felt was significant and now you say your comment (70) you were referring to another study.

LOL,. Really, this forum and site is really for adults not children.

[HuckleB]

315. Then act like an adult.

Intellectual honesty is part of that. Try again.

[Bill USA]

318. you're making noises without making any sense. I guess you feel you don't have to be constrained by

reality and the rules of logic. You use words any way you want to. But they don't make sense to anybody else.

[HuckleB]

321. That would be you.

Grow up, and stop defending scumbags.

[Bill USA]

322. Hoping if you say it enough times, it will magically become true?

This is your idea of "defending scumbags"??:

"The manufacturers found in the study you referred to who clearly substituted one substance for another can and should be turned in and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

[HuckleB]

326. "Magic" is all you have to justify your ugly, corporate crap.

[jberryhill]

102. Are you that naive, or do you think I am?

Yeah, and the guys who sell 5 Hour Energy have a big "report by independent physicians" you can download from their site.

I'm sure the herbal penis pill people have them too.

[Th1onein]

131. People need education about supplements; not more regulation.

What these companies do is take one study, from a reputable source, about one ingredient in some natural food, and they generalize from it, that this ingredient works wonders for this or that malady. Then, they grind up the natural food and sell it as a supplement. I'll give you an example:

There's a company that sells a supplement that's supposed to stop you from metabolizing carbs into glucose. This is supposed to allow dieters to eat as many carbs as possible, without gaining weight. I don't remember what the compound is, or what the natural product is, except that it comes from some kind of lima beans.

They post the link to the abstract on the site where they are marketing their product, knowing that most people won't even click on it, and even if they do, they'll go to an abstract with only partial information in it, and most of that they can't understand. This particular product, that I'm using as an example, posted a link to a study of this compound in mice. And, it does work in those mice. But when you pull up the full article, you see that those mice also had anal ruptures!

Does that mean that all of our vitamins should be prescribed by a physician, and be subject to the same testing that our drugs are subjected to (remember, to file for a new drug application costs $1 million)? Does it mean that people who take this supplement are going to have ruptured anuses?

No, and no. It means that people, consumers like you and me, who HAVE the wherewithal, and the ability, to research these things, need to do so. The rest of us should not have to pay for the willful ignorance of a few by paying thousands of dollars for our vitamins and supplements.

[HuckleB]

190. This is libertarian hogwash.

[Th1onein]

196. Really? Is that why the FDA agrees with me? And the GAO, too!

Wow, HuckleB! Seems only you and Big Pharma are lobbying for more regulation.

[HuckleB]

206. The GAO does not agree with you.

The FDA is not an outfit that agrees or disagrees with such matters. They follow the law, and their hands are tied right now.

You're ugly attacks only continue to show that you lost!

[Th1onein]

210. Sorry, HuckleB, they DO agree with me. So does the FDA.

This is not an ugly attack. This is simply the truth. And, apparently, one that you cannot dispute.

[HuckleB]

214. All of your nonsense is an ugly attack. You have lied repeatedly. Including here.

[Th1onein]

225. Stop with the personal attacks, HuckleB. I've posted links to PubMed. Do they lie?

I don't think so. And, I do believe, they carry much more weight than the blog posts that you've posted here.

[HuckleB]

228. How many times do I have to explain the value of preliminary studies and even small, single reviews?

That's not the full story. You want to pretend that it is, because you can cherry pick.

Cherry picking is not good science.

You lose again. Can you stop? You've lost.

[Th1onein]

236. Did you read the REVIEWS, HuckleB?

Let me get this straight--we're supposed to take one blog post that talks about an article, wherein even the scientists who did the study caution the reader not to extrapolate the results on a larger scale, BECAUSE THE SAMPLE SIZE IS TOO SMALL, but what you call "preliminary" (because it's not done in a clinical setting, so you say, although clinical settings and trials are USUALLY the setting in which these studies are done) studies, are not to be taken seriously?

Good grief.

[HuckleB]

237. Let me get this straight, we're supposed to by into your cherry picked nothingness?

Meanwhile, I have posted pieces that cover multiple, long-term studies, and you pretend that it's a single piece.

Why are you so dishonest? Seriously. Something is wrong here.

[Th1onein]

243. You have posted blog posts, on varying topics, and called that a consensus on one topic.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly.

[HuckleB]

244. And you lie yet again.

I have posted articles in blogs and in mainstream sources, most of which discuss multiple studies.

You know this. You are lying. Goodbye.

[Th1onein]

249. Your posts speak for themselves. Everyone here can see them.

[HuckleB]

276. Yes, they can.

And that's good.

[HuckleB]

6. Big Pharma would love to regulate itself.

Why should we allow these scammers to go around unregulated?

It's despicable.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

11. FDA regulates both finished dietary supplement products and dietary ingredients.

FDA regulates both finished dietary supplement products and dietary ingredients. FDA regulates dietary supplements under a different set of regulations than those covering "conventional" foods and drug products. Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA):

The manufacturer of a dietary supplement or dietary ingredient is responsible for ensuring that the product is safe before it is marketed.
FDA is responsible for taking action against any unsafe dietary supplement product after it reaches the market.

This section provides detailed information about:

Q&A on Dietary Supplements
Frequently asked questions about dietary supplements, including definitions, labeling requirements, and regulatory roles and responsibilities.

Using Dietary Supplements
Tips for dietary supplement users, including older supplement users.

Report an Adverse Event
Learn how consumers, health care providers, and others can report a complaint, concern, or problem related to dietary supplements. Includes links to guidance for dietary supplement manufacturers, packers, and distributors.

New Dietary Ingredients Notification Process
Background information for industry, instructions for submitting premarket notifications, and links to relevant guidance and Federal Register documents.

Ensuring the Safety of Dietary Supplements

Generally, manufacturers do not need to register their products with FDA or get FDA approval before producing or selling dietary supplements.* Manufacturers must make sure that product label information is truthful and not misleading.

Under FDA regulations at 21 CFR part 111, all domestic and foreign companies that manufacture, package, label or hold dietary supplement, including those involved with testing, quality control, and dietary supplement distribution in the U.S., must comply with the Dietary Supplement Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs) for quality control.

In addition, the manufacturer, packer, or distributor whose name appears on the label of a dietary supplement marketed in the United States is required to submit to FDA all serious adverse event reports associated with use of the dietary supplement in the United States.

FDA's responsibilities include product information, such as labeling, claims, package inserts, and accompanying literature. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulates dietary supplement advertising.

[HuckleB]

12. Now you're spamming this nonsense.

You've pushed supplements on other pages. You might want to think about how this looks.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/big-supp-resists-giving-consumers-safety-and-effectiveness-information/

[SoLeftIAmRight]

15. I am not PUSHING anything.

I just am curious why some people go out of their way to support a topic that I feel is a waste of time.

I never get an answer.

Care to enlighten me?

[HuckleB]

17. Your history is not good.

More than half your posts at DU are to me. You have failed to be intellectually honest, repeatedly. The only questions I don't answer are ones that have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. You push red herrings in attempts to distract from the content of my posts. That's nothing short of despicable, when it's repeated over and over again, as has been done.

PS: The GAO Report on Supplement Regulation http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-gao-report-on-supplement-regulation/

"The GAO report brings to light many of the current shortcomings of FDA regulations of supplements. The FDA is underfunded and does not have the authority to properly regulate supplements and as a result, the GAO concludes, the public is insufficiently protected."

[SoLeftIAmRight]

22. The Science Based Medicine website is a joke. Try, life extension foundation

The GAO has concerns about many subjects.

Their concerns about the supplement industry are in line with their mission.

There are no "hair on fire issues."

Are you having problems finding good vitamins?

[HuckleB]

23. "Life extension" is a supplement seller, pushing bad science. It is not legitimate.

SBM is one of the most accurate sites on the Internet.

Do you not understand this? Really? WOW!

[HuckleB]

19. The GAO Report on Supplement Regulation

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-gao-report-on-supplement-regulation/

"The GAO report brings to light many of the current shortcomings of FDA regulations of supplements. The FDA is underfunded and does not have the authority to properly regulate supplements and as a result, the GAO concludes, the public is insufficiently protected."

[SoLeftIAmRight]

26. WHAT SUPPLIMENTS DO YOU USE???

I will help you find quality.

[HuckleB]

27. You're the same guy pushing a supplement seller as a good source of information.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

30. There it is. Been waiting for the mocking emoticon. You were slow today.

Do you take any supplements?

YES OR NO?

If not , why the big concern?

[HuckleB]

31. All of those questions have been answered long ago.

Why are you so obsessed, and why do you keep asking the same questions even though they've been answered?

That seem VERY odd.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

33. This board is not just for you and me. Let other know where you stand.

Do not hide behind the smoke.

Answer the question.

What supplements do you take?

[HuckleB]

37. You're pushing red herring because the evidence is against you.

You might want to realize that.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

42. How do you feel about Vitamin D

Rickets (weak bones) develop in children with vitamin D deficiency due to a vitamin D-deficient diet, a lack of sunlight, or both. Infants fed only breast milk (without supplemental vitamin D) may also develop rickets. Although now rare, partially due to the availability of vitamin D-fortified milk, there has been a recent increase in rickets among children in latitudes with periodic, seasonal lack of sunlight.

[HuckleB]

47. Everyone needs vitamin D.

Most people don't need it in vitamin supplementation. Some do.

[darkangel218]

36. and you push blogs as source of information.

LMAO!!!

[HuckleB]

40. And I push accurate sources of information.

Those blogs are run by MDs and researchers. They are actual scientists, with links to the actual science.

Pay attention next time.

[Th1onein]

142. You post crap from blogs and call it a "scientific consensus." It's laughable.

[HuckleB]

164. What's laughable is that you are incapable of understanding reality.

[Th1onein]

200. Personal attack. You lose.

[HuckleB]

217. Derp.

[Th1onein]

197. You neglect to say that the GAO concluded that supplements were safe.

Much more so than drugs. And yet, according to you, and Big Pharma, these supplements should be subjected to even more rigorous regulation than drugs.

Wonder whose bread that butters?

[HuckleB]

218. There are multiple studies showing problems with supplements.

Further, safety should not be the only question. Are they actually providing what they say they provide? That's been shown to be a BIG problem, over and over again. Also, pushing claims that are not supported by science is despicable.

You are trying to ignore all of that. It doesn't work.

[Th1onein]

229. So, NOW, you admit that they are safe, but only because you HAD to.

How much credibility do you think that lends your OTHER claims?

[HuckleB]

231. I never said they were or weren't safe. You are lying, again.

Safety wasn't even a part of the question until you brought it up as a distraction.

[Th1onein]

246. QUOTE: "218. There are multiple studies showing problems with supplements."

[HuckleB]

277. Are you saying there aren't?

If so, you really should do some of that research you claim to have done.

[valerief]

29. What FDA???? There is no FDA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/11/fda-shutdown_n_4086299.html

[leftyohiolib]

3. but duece bigalo said that regulations are what's killing his suplemental biz

[SoLeftIAmRight]

4. The world's most dangerous moment is upon us (Fukushima)

Oh - sorry. I was thinking of important things.

THE MOST IMPORTANT QUOTE FROM THE LINK!!!
"But two of the companies came through with a perfect record – all their products were what they claimed to be. Conversely, all the products of two other companies either contained contaminants or undisclosed fillers or were not the product they were supposed to be."

If you buy cheap crap from cheap places, some say that you get what you pay for.
It is easy to find quality.

It is heart warming that you show so much compassion for the gullible. I commend you.

1) How many illnesses can you name that are caused by lack of vitamins or minerals???

2) Do you think there are any supplements that are of value???



How do you feel about people eating and drinking the stuff from....
McDonald's?
Taco Bell?
Coke?
Kentucky Fried Chicken?

Can you name any places that one should avoid???



In 2008, more than 36,000 people died from drug overdoses, and most of these deaths were caused by prescription drugs.

Where is the outrage???
We need regulation. Badly.



"Your food has to reach "Food Defect Action Levels" that have been created by the FDA before the regulator will take action against products with foreign matter. In other words, there is a level of grossness food has to get to before they do anything about it.

Simply put, there has to be a certain amount of bugs or bug parts in your food before it's deemed unsafe, but a little bit is totally fine. For example, manufacturers can't allow more than 225 bug parts in 225 grams of pasta. Any less than 225 parts in that batch is ok for the FDA.

Most of the time, this does not mean these foods are unsafe and in order to be on the list of these foods, the "defects" (what the FDA calls bugs and rodents) have to have been found to cause no health hazards.

Realistically it's impossible to eliminate all bugs from food grown outdoors, no matter how small the manufacturer -- but there is a certain ick-factor involved with the idea that there could be maggots in your food in any amount or form."

Where is the outrage???
We need regulation. Badly.

1) How many illnesses can you name that are caused by lack of vitamins or minerals???

2) Do you think there are any supplements that are of value???

[HuckleB]

5. Regulation should include companies proving the claims they make for their products.

I have posted the clear consensus on supplements. I will not repeat a discussion with you. Your bias is clear, and the usual red herrings offered up in your post continue to make that clear. It obvious that evidence is not something you care about.

Goodbye.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

7. Again you fail to discuss your post.

You post biased material and fail to answer any questions.

Your intent is clear.

[HuckleB]

8. I posted an article about a study. To call it biased material is simply ludicrous.

You then ran through the classic run of nonsensical red herrings that have NOTHING to do with the study.

Do you have an honest bone in your body? If so, show it now.

If not, I will be blocking you. Your posts are ridiculous, and you clearly have an obsession with me.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

9. FDA regulates both finished dietary supplement products and dietary ingredients.

FDA regulates both finished dietary supplement products and dietary ingredients. FDA regulates dietary supplements under a different set of regulations than those covering "conventional" foods and drug products. Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA):

The manufacturer of a dietary supplement or dietary ingredient is responsible for ensuring that the product is safe before it is marketed.
FDA is responsible for taking action against any unsafe dietary supplement product after it reaches the market.

This section provides detailed information about:

Q&A on Dietary Supplements
Frequently asked questions about dietary supplements, including definitions, labeling requirements, and regulatory roles and responsibilities.

Using Dietary Supplements
Tips for dietary supplement users, including older supplement users.

Report an Adverse Event
Learn how consumers, health care providers, and others can report a complaint, concern, or problem related to dietary supplements. Includes links to guidance for dietary supplement manufacturers, packers, and distributors.

New Dietary Ingredients Notification Process
Background information for industry, instructions for submitting premarket notifications, and links to relevant guidance and Federal Register documents.

Ensuring the Safety of Dietary Supplements

Generally, manufacturers do not need to register their products with FDA or get FDA approval before producing or selling dietary supplements.* Manufacturers must make sure that product label information is truthful and not misleading.

Under FDA regulations at 21 CFR part 111, all domestic and foreign companies that manufacture, package, label or hold dietary supplement, including those involved with testing, quality control, and dietary supplement distribution in the U.S., must comply with the Dietary Supplement Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs) for quality control.

In addition, the manufacturer, packer, or distributor whose name appears on the label of a dietary supplement marketed in the United States is required to submit to FDA all serious adverse event reports associated with use of the dietary supplement in the United States.

FDA's responsibilities include product information, such as labeling, claims, package inserts, and accompanying literature. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulates dietary supplement advertising.

[HuckleB]

10. Not really, and you know it.

You ranted when the reality was shown here, and showed us all that you don't want actual regulation.

You are not honest. BLOCKING!

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/big-supp-resists-giving-consumers-safety-and-effectiveness-information/

[SoLeftIAmRight]

13. I do not care. There are many more serious issues to consider.

Why make a big fuss over something so small???

[HuckleB]

16. There may be "bigger" issues, but this is not a small one.

Not if you care about health and consumer rights.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

18. Can YOU tell me your deepest concern?

Please, I want to know.

There are plenty of regulations.

There are good and bad companies.

What do you really want???

[HuckleB]

20. It is quite clear that there are nowhere near enough regulations.

The fact that you would pretend that there are in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is just bizarre.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

24. DO YOU HAVE TROUBLE FINDING GOOD SUPPLIMENTS?

The questions is do you use supplements?

YES or NO?

[HuckleB]

25. And another red herring is offered up.

Funny thing is that this has been answered to you before.

WOW!

http://chriskresser.com/throw-away-your-multivitamins-and-antioxidants

[SoLeftIAmRight]

28. No. Suppliments can not tie your shoes.

The argument presented is not valid.

It is the classic straw-man.

[HuckleB]

32. So you think the clear consensus of the science is a straw man.

Got it.

That explains a lot to everyone. THANKS!

[Th1onein]

68. I don't think so, HuckleB.

I don't think we need to regulate ,supplements. Not anymore than we already do. The pharmas would LOVE to have them regulated more strenuously, under the FDA, but then again, the pharmas OWN the FDA and have for quite some time.

You're spouting a corporatist line.

[HuckleB]

69. No, you are spouting a corporatist, anti-regulation line.

It is wrongheaded, and against what the evidence shows. These companies are powerful in Congress, and that is why they have avoided regulation. To pretend otherwise, is pure fantasy.

FDA versus Big Supp: Rep. Burton to the Rescue (Again)
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/fda-versus-big-supp-rep-burton-to-the-rescue-again/

Utah Senator Orrin Hatch: A pit bull in defense of the supplement industry
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/utahs-senator-orrin-hatch-defender-of-the-supplement-industry/

[Th1onein]

73. Sorry, but you are ignorant. I am not.

I took the time, years ago, to inform myself regarding this issue. I work, in my spare time, in the scientific field, and I know what I'm talking about when it comes to this topic. You, very apparently, do not. You can spout your political hash all you want to, but this is an issue where the facts stand against you.

[HuckleB]

75. You don't seem to be able to support any of your claims.

Meanwhile, all of your claims so far are easily debunked.

Hmm....

Oh, and we both know that you don't care about the science. Please don't pretend. That's beyond the pale.

[Th1onein]

80. Oh, because YOU say they're debunked, then they must be debunked. Load of crap.

Look, it's none of your business, but I've studied science since 1994 or 1995, a few years before my son died of cystic fibrosis. I'm a published scientist, and I also collaborate with a National Institutes of Health scientist. I'm self-taught, because I HAD to be. When you have a kid with CF, you learn these things because you HAVE to, in order to keep your kid alive.

Don't go there.

[HuckleB]

82. And you continue with your logical fallacy.

Claim something that debunks the OP. Support with evidence that is in line with the scientific consensus.

Can you do it?

I'm waiting.

[Th1onein]

84. I'm not going to waste my time with you.

You apparently don't know what the consensus is, but you are demanding that the consensus debunk the OP. You expect me and everyone else to believe that every single company that sells supplements sells fake ones. And, that every single company that claims that their product is tested by HPLC to be of a certain quantity of the compound that it is selling, is also lying. Those are pretty wild claims.

And, by the way, do you think you can get these ingredients that these supplement companies sell, ONLY from supplement companies? Where do you think they come from, hmmm? A reputable supplement company has to BUY most of these compounds from a chemical company. (And if you ask them where they buy them from, they'll ususally tell you.) You think the chemical company is lying, as well, and just selling fake shit? That's one grand conspiracy you got going there, kiddo.

[HuckleB]

88. I do know what the consensus is, AND I've shown it.

You have obsessed upon my posts, as usual. Yet, you are incapable of proving any of your nonsensical assertions.

Stop believing in fantasy. That will help you.

[Th1onein]

91. ONE article, wherein even the AUTHORS admit that the sample size is too small to generalize,

does NOT a consensus make! Are you kidding me?

Why should I waste my time proving anything to you when you have not made a case for anything? One article? Tiny sample size? Surely, you are not THAT ignorant? You gotta have a CASE, in order to justify a rebuttal.

And you come here expecting everyone to just swallow this whole as an argument for regulation of the supplement industry? THAT'S fantasy, kiddo.

[HuckleB]

107. Why do you pretend the consensus is based on one study?

That's just dishonest.

[Th1onein]

94. ONE ARTICLE IS NOT A CONSENSUS. What is it about that, that you don't get?

You are being willfully ignorant.

[HuckleB]

106. Multiple studies.

Try again.

[Th1onein]

120. If there are multiple studies, POST THEM.

You post ONE STUDY and call it a consensus. It's laughable.

[HuckleB]

124. You know that some of them have been posted on this thread already.

And you have whined about all the others over the years.

Why do you pretend they don't exist?

[Th1onein]

140. It's very simple. POST THEM.

Post them in response to this post. Simple and easy. But the REASON you won't post them is because they are not articles. You don't have any real science to post. You're posting crap from blogs. You have no articles, or you'd post them.

[HuckleB]

165. It's very simple. I've posted some already.

It would be simpler if you were intellectually honest.

[Th1onein]

185. Yeah, I saw those blog posts. Wow, what a "scientific consensus" you got there!

[HuckleB]

191. Your dishonesty is out of this world.

[Th1onein]

194. Why rely on what I say? How about the GAO report on supplements?

The March 2013 GAO Dietary Supplements report actually showed how incredibly safe they really are—particularly when compared to drugs and vaccines.

So we should take YOUR word for this over the GAO's? I think not. And, even the FDA says that supplements are already regulated well enough.

[HuckleB]

213. The GAO is calling for more regulation.

Why do you ignore that?

[Th1onein]

248. BUT NOT THE REGULATION THAT YOU ARE CALLING FOR! YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING THE FACTS!

In fact, here are the GAO's recommendations: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-244

[HuckleB]

278. Those are not all the GAO's recommendations.

You seem to have one goal here: To confuse people who might read about this. That's a lot like what Fox News does.

[HuckleB]

298. You misrepresent them, as I'd already shown in post 14.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-gao-report-on-supplement-regulation/

[HuckleB]

14. The GAO Report on Supplement Regulation

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-gao-report-on-supplement-regulation/

"The GAO report brings to light many of the current shortcomings of FDA regulations of supplements. The FDA is underfunded and does not have the authority to properly regulate supplements and as a result, the GAO concludes, the public is insufficiently protected."

[SoLeftIAmRight]

45. Life Extension Foundation - check it out.

If you are having trouble finding safe supplements - I am sure that

Life Extension Foundation

can help you.

[HuckleB]

53. They are pushing the same non-science based BS as the rest of them.

Anyone who pushed that outfit on others is not connecting the dots. They are as bad as the worst corporation around.

[truedelphi]

63. However, over the past two decades, our

Wonderful and glorious FDA has attempted on several occasions to shut them down.

Of course, meanwhile,k they allow for GM foods and crops, having issued a "statement" that all is well inside the GM industry. And that is what passes for science in our nation these days - statements!

We are the only industrialized nation on earth that fails to utilize the international protocols on data selection and study methods utilized by scientists in other nations. (When our nation's agencies say something here is "safe," scientists elsewhere are ROTFL!!) We are the only nation on earth that allows a Corporation to "tell" the FDA and the EPA what happens to be inside their products. Other nations use gas spectometry and other modern methods to find out what is contained inside a product, before their government approves it. Not us.

[HuckleB]

64. You're justification for supplement company shenanigans is to offer up a red herring?

That's not a justification. Regulate NOW!

[truedelphi]

152. Over my dead body.

Supplements have kept me alive. And if people read the works of scientists back in the 1930's, they would understand how very valuable these supplements are.

[HuckleB]

166. Hogwash.

You've wasted a bunch of money on crap. Don't push others to make the same mistakes.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

[Th1onein]

99. Day-um! EVERYBODY seems to have this obsession with you, HuckleB!

My oh my! Must make a person feel really important!

[HuckleB]

110. Only the usual anti-vaccine, big supplement loving suspects.

[fitman]

44. I am in the body building hobby

take lot's of supps.

You get what you pay for.. and the good/proven supps stay around and word of mouth does wonders and the worthless ones go away pretty quick..

I'm kinda torn on regulating supps...see both sides of the aisle.

[HuckleB]

55. Since the evidence says most of them do nothing, although some may cause harm...

... it seems like it's time to stop allowing all the BS claims and regulate what's actually in each item.

[Th1onein]

100. Funny you would say that, HuckleB. Because that's EXACTLY what Big Pharma is pushing for.

Do you work for a pharma company, HuckleB? Sounds like you might have a little stake in this argument.

[HuckleB]

108. Ah, the shill gambit.

Why do you want BIG SUPPLEMENT to continue to scam people?

[Th1onein]

144. Why do you want BIG PHARMA to screw people?

[HuckleB]

167. I don't. Why do you think putting words in the mouths of others is ok?

[Th1onein]

181. Big Pharma words are coming out of your mouth.

You quote them. You want what they want. You want vitamins and supplements regulated like drugs are regulated. This would mean that one consumer's Vitamin C cost for a month would be in the hundreds of dollars.

Deny that, HuckleB.

[HuckleB]

184. And the baseless personal attacks continue.

[Th1onein]

199. I've attacked your information, not you. I can't say that you've done the same with me, HuckleB.

[HuckleB]

220. You have not attacked my information in any way.

It's all personal attacks and "I don't believe it!" "Is that all you've got!"

Dude. It's clear that you don't understand any of this.

[Th1onein]

238. Over and over again, I've attacked your information.

Your "scientific consensus" is non-existent. Your blog posts are not scientific articles. You can't generalize from a small sample size. etc, etc. etc.

[HuckleB]

241. The scientific consensus is astoundingly clear.

Yes, you don't want to believe that. But you've offered nothing that is going change the scientific consensus that few people need supplements of any kind.

[Th1onein]

250. It's astoundingly clear that there is no scientific consensus.

[HuckleB]

279. Only in your fantasy world.

[Th1onein]

93. ONE ARTICLE DOES NOT MAKE A CONSENSUS!

Stop saying things that are not true. You know better than that. You have posted nothing even remotely close to a "clear consensus."

And how much do you think it will cost us, as consumers, when these supplement companies are held to the same standard of "proof" as a pharma company? And, have you ever READ what the definition of a drug is, under the FDA? A drug has to be CLAIMED to do certain things. That's why it's a DRUG.

Have you ever noticed that supplement companies always couch their language in terms of "helps to....." and other vague phrases? There's a REASON for that. The reason is that they can't make the same claims that drug manufacturers make about their products. And, yet, here you are, demanding that they do the TESTS that support their being able to make these claims.

You really do need to go and educate yourself about this topic before you post such idiocy.

[HuckleB]

109. The consensus that most supplements are worthless is based on multiple studies.

You ranted and raved against each one over the years, so don't pretend you don't know about them.

[Th1onein]

123. What are you talking about? WHERE ARE THE STUDIES TO WHICH YOU REFER?

It's obvious that you want Big Pharma in charge of the supplement industry. In fact, you've quoted some parts of the law that is up for vote on this topic. Then you come on here, post one article, and call it a scientific consensus. I'm sorry, but it's obvious that you have an agenda in regards to this topic, and that agenda is not protecting people, but rather giving Big Pharma a paycheck.

Shame.

[HuckleB]

125. You're ignoring them.

Of course, you've whined about them all over the years.

[Th1onein]

134. Now you're resorting to posting things that are simply not true.

POST THE ARTICLES THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Stop talking about what they say and give people a chance to see for themselves.

You have no credibility if you don't.

[HuckleB]

135. You've responded to a link that contains links to several studies.

You're ignoring others.

It's quite sad that you keep repeating your nonsense.

[Th1onein]

139. WHERE ARE THE STUDIES THAT YOU SAY EXIST?

WHERE ARE THEY?

[HuckleB]

168. You know where they are.

You claim to be a scientist, but you don't know about them?

Now that's funny.

[Th1onein]

202. Blog posts do not equal scientific articles.

[HuckleB]

205. Blog posts by scientists that link to and discuss studies are quite legitimate.

You lose.

[Th1onein]

212. LOL! You gotta actually read the studies, HuckleB.

[HuckleB]

216. The only thing you've ever read is a summary.

I've read them. I spend time every week in a health science library. Now, please stop pretending. You lose.

[Th1onein]

251. You mean an abstract? Because that's what they're called, you know?

I actually get full articles sent to me as PDF files on a very regular basis. That's what scientists do, you know? They read scientific articles. We have subscriptions to databases for these articles that we pay for every year.

[HuckleB]

280. No, you don't.

Your lack of knowledge is clear. Why do you lies so repeatedly?

[HuckleB]

21. Dietary supplements: Scary substances manufactured under scary conditions

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/07/02/dietary-supplements-scary-substances-manufactured-under-scary-conditions/

[darkangel218]

34. BS.

And good luck.

[HuckleB]

39. You think evidence is BS.

Got it.

[darkangel218]

41. Evidence in your mind only.

And the blogger you quoted

[HuckleB]

50. Wow!

That is some delusion you're pushing.

[darkangel218]

51. Im not pushing anything. You are.

[HuckleB]

52. I'm sorry that you prefer fictions and misinformation.

Don't pretend that others are pushing something because they find that to be wrongheaded.

[darkangel218]

54. Youre talking about yourself.

You are the one posting links to private blogs. Anyone who knows anything about reliable sources knows you're not being serious.

LoL!

[HuckleB]

56. You are the one ignoring the content of good information.

You clearly don't know how to evaluate such things. Either that, or your being dishonest. Either way...

[darkangel218]

57. Good information??

As in, all Hail Big Pharma??

Spare me.

[HuckleB]

58. The sites I used criticize big pharma as well as anything.

BTW, why are you pushing a red herring that has nothing to do with this topic?

Oh, that's right. The evidence is against you.


http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/07/the-vitamin-myth-why-we-think-we-need-supplements/277947/

[darkangel218]

61. Like i said, good luck. No one is buying it.

Keep trying though.

[HuckleB]

65. I appreciate the kicks.

More people are learning to follow the science of the matter every day.

Apparently you think that's bad. That's just plain old odd. Of course, the way you go about it is also just plain old wrong.

Please stop pushing unjustifiable nonsense.

[darkangel218]

103. "Please stop pushing unjustifiable nonsense. "

That would be you doing it, not me.

[HuckleB]

133. Prove it, using the scientific consensus.

Herbal Supplement Sellers Dispense Dangerous Advice, False Claims
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=herbal-supplement-dangers

[darkangel218]

143. Lol same links

[Th1onein]

146. He's into Big Pharma, that's for sure.

[HuckleB]

171. You are putting words in the mouths of others because you have no justification for your stance.

Cut the crap.

[darkangel218]

173. Yah no kidding.

I'm not going to "kick" this thread anymore. And the OP is going on iggy.

[HuckleB]

170. Nope.

[Th1onein]

95. He's calling everyone else deluded, but he quotes as a "consensus" ONE ARTICLE,

where even the AUTHORS admit that the sample size is too small to generalize from, as his "evidence" that all supplement companies lie. The authors of the article even state that two of the companies had a perfect score.

Amazingly obtuse.

[HuckleB]

187. I've posted several articles that link to multiple studies.

The consensus is as clear as that for global warming. Why would you deny that?

[darkangel218]

35. BTW, Information literacy 101:

Blogs are NOT reliable sources.

[HuckleB]

38. You haven't spent any time at that blog.

You'll have a very hard time finding a better, more accurate source on the internet.

[Th1onein]

161. HEY, HUCKLEB, WHERE'S THE PEER REVIEW? OH THAT'S RIGHT! IT'S A BLOG!

This is rich, I tell ya! Here you are, demanding peer review and "context" from everyone else, and you post crap from a BLOG and try to pass it off as a "scientific consensus"!

Do you REALLY think people are that stupid?

[HuckleB]

162. A blog written by a research MD.

Who links to actual evidence and studies.

Whoops. You lost again.

[Th1onein]

247. THAT'S peer review? Wahahaha!

[HuckleB]

295. Someone doesn't know much about the full peer review process.

Thanks for proving that over and over again.

[Jackpine Radical]

43. Try Consumer Lab for independent analyses. They seem pretty legit.

http://www.consumerlab.com/

[ellenfl]

46. that's who i use. i wish the articles in the op named the good company. it helps. eom

[HuckleB]

49. Why?

There's no guarantee that company is actually good. This was one study, among many. Without regulation, you can't trust any of them.

[ellenfl]

76. i disagree. finding that both products from one manufacturer contained 100% of the dna they

claimed, tells me they are probably reputable. even though it was a small sample, it was a small random sample. i'd rather know than not, since i DO take supplements.

[HuckleB]

77. Regulation can help solve such problems.

Should we let BIG PHARMA have the same lack of regulation, and tell people they have to find a "legitimate" company to make their medication?

We both know the answer to that, and that's why BIG SUPPLEMENT needs to be regulated. PERIOD!

These are libertarian scam artists from the word go. They are anything but progressive.

[ellenfl]

78. i'm absolutely in favor of regulation, but until then, i want to know what non-industry

(read non-agenda) testing shows. also, fair or not, i tend to be more trusting of canadian testing because canada cares more about the health of their citizens than america does.

[HuckleB]

79. It shows that we really don't need most supplements.

There are several links on this OP that lead to the studies.

Here's another: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/many-supplements-worse-than-useless.html

[Th1onein]

98. We really don't need most supplements? Scientists beg to differ:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19796883 postmenopausal hot flushes
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11441326 heart disease
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24103818 post op breast cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24091055 bariatric surgery patients
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24069873 chronic heart failure
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24038412 patients taking warfarin
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24102340 Crohn's Disease
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24100599 osteoporosis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24099722 Parkinson's Disease
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23997931 Type 2 Diabetes

So, should we wait to get really sick before we begin supplements? Should we let the pharma industry take these over so we can pay really high prices for them? We don't need most supplements? MANY PEOPLE DO.

[HuckleB]

111. In other words, you think small, individual studies change the actual consensus?

You do not understand how science is done. You are using the crap techniques used by BIG SUPPLEMENT to push things that are not proven.

[Th1onein]

119. Did you even READ the abstracts that I posted? Of course you didn't.

These are straight from PubMed. Straight from scientists, whose job it is to consider these things. You talk about scientific consensus; THERE you have consensus. And, on some topics, these things have been known for decades. Doctors, in their practices, particularly cardiac specialists, have been using supplements for decades, to keep their patients healthy. With your plan, these patients would not only have to pay a hefty price for their medications, but they'd also have to pay a hefty price for their supplements, too!

[HuckleB]

126. Again, you think preliminary studies lead to a clinical determination.

That's not how science works. Try to learn. It will help.

[Th1onein]

141. ONE is a preliminary study. Some of the others are ACTUALLY REVIEWS!

You DO know the worth of reviews in science, right? You are aware that reviews quote actual settled science, right?

I would put you on Ignore, but then you would be posting your lying drivel without being countered.

[HuckleB]

178. Nothing there offers a justification for clinical use.

They are all preliminary. NOTHING THERE JUSTIFIES CLINICAL USE OF ANY SUPPLEMENT.

You do not understand any of this. Stop pretending that you do.

[Th1onein]

204. Do you even know the difference between a review and a study?

Reviews are usually about SETTLED science, HuckleB. You see those reviews? That's SETTLED SCIENCE, HuckleB. That's stuff that scientists AGREE on. You know, what you call SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS.

OMG, I can't believe I'm having this argument. It's like explaining algebra to my cat.

[HuckleB]

233. No, reviews are not settled science, FFS.

The breadth of reviews can vary dramatically. You are out to lunch with you ignorance.

[Th1onein]

252. Yeah, actually that's one of the main places you're going to find settled science.

"You are out to lunch with you ignorance"? I suppose that's not a personal attack, huh?

[HuckleB]

281. It's the truth.

You don't understand any of this, but you pretend to do so. It's outlandish.

[chervilant]

269. Your cat is much more intelligent... n/t

[Th1onein]

86. USP

[HuckleB]

89. Derp!

[Th1onein]

92. Talking about obsessing on someone's posts?

Really, what a joke.

[HuckleB]

114. Derp!

[HuckleB]

48. Where's the context? Where's the peer review?

What does this response have to do with the study in the OP?

[HuckleB]

59. The Vitamin Myth: Why We Think We Need Supplements

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/07/the-vitamin-myth-why-we-think-we-need-supplements/277947/

[truedelphi]

60. Meanwhile, Sixty Mintues reported that the very expensive pharmaceuticals we

Americans are needing, and buying, often contain many things other than what we think we are buying.

One Sixty Minutes report focused on a woman who had tried to serve as Quality Analysis specialist at a US Pharmaceutical manufacturing plant in Mexico,. The antibiotics were being intermixed with psych meds, and vice a versa. For her efforts at trying to see the situation was improved, she was of course, fired.

And then there is the fact that although having any sort of "vitamins" is now considered weird, food manufacturers are allowed by the FDA to put anything they want into our food. Want to know what a natural favoring might be? It could be an extract of beaver anal gland mush. (Something that another Sixty Minutes report dealt with, but in a pleasant way -- as if our having food with "beaver musk anal gland secretions" is really all wonderful and healthy and good.)

[darkangel218]

62. +1000

[HuckleB]

66. No one is justifying pharmaceutical concerns.

And bringing them up does not justify supplement company shenanigans.

[Th1onein]

97. It's the pharmas that want supplement regulation, HuckleB. Surely, you are not unaware of this?

Last edited Sun Oct 13, 2013, 12:14 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.examiner.com/article/dietary-supplements-under-fire-from-the-usda

[HuckleB]

113. It's people who care about science, and people who care about consumers.

If big pharma wants it too, that doesn't make it the wrong thing to do.

Why are you so big corporation? Why are you anti-consumer protection?

[Th1onein]

118. I am as anticorporate as they come; and I am a scientist.

People should have the right to buy and consume supplements. Especially in this day and age where we have the internet and PubMed is available to everyone who wants to educate themselves. Big Pharma wants to take away these rights so that they can make more money.

[HuckleB]

127. Hogwash.

You are pushing pro corporate nonsense full tilt here. Also, it is very clear that you do not understand the first thing about how science works.

[Th1onein]

136. So someone like you, who wants Big Pharma to sell us vitamins, isn't pro corporate?

Who do you think you're kidding here?

[HuckleB]

138. Big Pharma already sells vitamins. It is part of BIG SUPPLEMENT.

You are pushing irresponsible, pro-corporate, anti-regulation BS.

Who do you think you're kidding here?

You are on the wrong side. And you're tactics are despicable.

[Th1onein]

149. You need to stop insulting people. It doesn't help your argument.

It makes you look really bad.

Big Pharma makes it's money off of selling drugs. That's why you see all those commercials on teevee for their drugs.

Who do you think you're kidding here? You want supplements, including vitamins, to undergo the same testing that drugs undergo. The cost to the consumer would be enormous, and prohibitively expensive, and you know that. This is a law that is a boon to Big Pharma, and you know that, too.

[HuckleB]

182. You've done plenty of insulting here.

Your entire scheme, and all the ad hominem attacks are out of this world.

Don't pretend to be offended. You lose.

[Th1onein]

207. Let's talk about your pro-GMO history, HuckleB.

You've spent a lot of time here attacking other people's "histories," let's talk about yours. Seems like you're pretty pro-corporate to me, particularly in your support of Monsanto GMO crops. What say you?

[HuckleB]

221. Let's talk about the consensus of science on GMOs.

Are you always anti-science?

[Th1onein]

254. I wonder why you don't want to discuss this topic? I'm pro-science, not pro-Monsanto.

Can't say the same of you. You are, apparently, pro-science, when it comes to anything but GMO crops, and then you're anti-science. Or, at least, anyone who disagrees with you just can't know anything about science.

[HuckleB]

282. You're not pro-science in any way, shape or form.

You don't even know the first thing about how science works, and you push anti-science nonsense.

Cut the crap.

[HuckleB]

71. Why are the usual anti-vaccine, pro big supplements suspects so adamant?

Despite the fact that the evidence against their beliefs is amazingly clear cut?

[Th1onein]

90. You are quoting ONE ARTICLE and the evidence is "amazingly clear cut"?

OMG, that's laughable! You know NOTHING about the scientific method. Where is the methods section? Where are the other studies that replicate the results of this one? And, even the authors of this piece admit that the sample size is too small to generalize.

Good grief.

[HuckleB]

115. You know nothing about the scientific method.

You proved that with your silly post above.

There are multiple studies, over time, showing that supplement companies are not putting what they claim to put in their products.

There are multiple studies, over times, showing that most supplements are worthless, and possibly harmful.

WHY ARE YOU LYING ABOUT THESE THINGS?

[Th1onein]

117. Show me the multiple studies. Prove what you are selling.

I just posted, downthread, multiple studies from PubMed, showing that supplements are not only good, but NECESSARY, in many, many cases, to maintain health. You don't know this? Are you kidding?

[HuckleB]

129. You posted a list of preliminary studies on single items.

None of those studies show anything about a need for additional supplementation, and they are extremely pre-clinical. You don't understand science. Stop pretending that you do.

I've posted more than one link that leads to more than one study on this page. Why I should have to repost things that you have cried about over the years is beyond me. It's dishonesty on your part.

[Th1onein]

151. THAT is factually incorrect. I invite everyone to click on the PubMed links I posted.

They will see, for themselves, that you do not tell the truth.

For the fifth time, if you have the articles, POST THEM.

[HuckleB]

180. I do tell the truth. You do not.

You are pushing preliminary BS. It is not clinical evidence. You and I both know this. You think you can ignore the actual evidence of the matter. You can. You're doing it. MOST OTHER PEOPLE wouldn't do that.

Why is that?

[Th1onein]

223. Like I said, I invite everyone to click on the links I've provided to REAL SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES.

From PubMed. I don't think you can get much more evidence than that.

[HuckleB]

226. This is the usual anti-science routine, as I've already explained.

You're not fooling anyone who understands the value of different types of studies, and who is honest enough to know what is in other discussions, that also link to the actual studies.

You are not a scientist. You are not honest. You have not offered anything of content.

[Th1onein]

255. Sorry, but I've offered the evidence for people to actually see for themselves. As opposed

to you, who have offered freaking blog posts.

Good grief.

[HuckleB]

283. I have provided a far larger body of evidence. You can't handle that...

... so you lie repeatedly. You are dishonest.

[napi21]

101. I'm sure there are some mfgs. who fudge the ingredients, but I can tell you

without question that GNC, Sundown, Ciba list EVERYTHING on their labels (except fillers). Their ingredients are all tested, as are the finished products in processes almost identical to ethical drug houses. I worked for GNC and with those other mfgs. for 15 years. All of them have well equipped labs and highly educated and trained employees who WILL NOT OK any formulations or finished products that don't meet published standards, and they ARE inspected by the FDA.

[HuckleB]

112. No, you can't.

You cannot make that claim. The evidence is not there, because the regulation is not there.

[Th1onein]

294. I would suggest you put a certain someone on Ignore, napi21. I have.

Otherwise, they will spam this thread with insults directed towards you.

Ahhh! So much more pleasant here!

Thank you for your post!

[HuckleB]

296. Woo hoo!

The supplement selling spam king finally stops spamming my threads!!!! Awesome beans!

[HuckleB]

297. So you sell this crap, and you want us to believe you?

[napi21]

300. I wasn't in sales. If they had done anything unethical, I would tell everyone!

I'm not a vitamin person. I believe, if you eat a proper diet, you shouldn't need them. But I won't let lies be spread about the ethical manufacturers of them either!

[HuckleB]

303. Those manufacturers are not ethical.

They lie about the evidence base for the crap they sell, and they have all been caught selling things that contained stuff was not on the label. Pay attention.

[HuckleB]

116. News Keeps Getting Worse for Vitamins

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/news-keeps-getting-worse-for-vitamins/?_r=0

[Th1onein]

121. Yeah, it'll get worse until the Big Pharmas have control, then all of a sudden vitamins are great!

And necessary. AND COSTLY.

[HuckleB]

128. BS.

You are full of it on all accounts. You now cannot pretend what you already knew. There are multiple studies. The consensus is clear. You can deny it, but that would be even more silly than what you've offered up so far.

[Th1onein]

154. Where are the studies? Where is the consensus you continually refer to?

I'm sorry, but you are clearly wrong.

[HuckleB]

186. I am quite right. You even know I'm right.

Why you keep pushing your nonsense, despite that, is quite curious.

[HuckleB]

130. Billion-Dollar Scam In a Bottle: Why Vitamins Could Be Useless—or Even Shorten Your Lifespan

http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/are-vitamins-useless

[Th1onein]

159. HuckleB calls this a "scientific consensus." It's laughable.

Here you are, HuckleB, throwing around insults, telling people they don't know anything about science, and you post this kind of crap and try to pass it off as "scientific consensus"? OMG, this is pitiful.

[HuckleB]

176. I'm sorry. You know you lost. The evidence was always there.

You can laugh all you want, but you lose.

[HuckleB]

132. Herbal Supplement Sellers Dispense Dangerous Advice, False Claims

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=herbal-supplement-dangers

[Th1onein]

157. If you think you're going to pass this off as a scientific study, you're sadly mistaken.

So much for your consensus.

[HuckleB]

175. So the piece doesn't discuss scientific studies?

You are making a fool of yourself.

[HuckleB]

137. Women Taking Diet Supplements Should

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/vitamin-mineral-diet-supplements-harm-older-women-study/story?id=14706684

[Th1onein]

155. "The authors noted that their data can't distinguish whether the women they studied were taking

supplements to fight diseases or simply to maintain health."

THIS is your scientific consensus? NO WONDER you were loathe to post them! HAHAHA! This is laughable, HuckleB!

You are expecting people to generalize from this study, WHICH ADMITTEDLY DID NOT EXCLUDE OLDER WOMEN WHO WERE ILL? Are you serious?

[HuckleB]

174. This is one piece of many.

You clearly don't understand how science works. You lose. You have been shown the door over and over again. Oh, you won't leave, but you are embarrassing yourself.

[stewert]

198. HuckleB...........

No matter what you think, you need to be more respectful to people here, if I did not know better I would think you were talking to a Republican. You can disagree and do it in a nice way.

I do not know much about the issue, but I do know how to disagree with someone and be respectful about it, maybe you should be shown the door.

[HuckleB]

211. Stewart...

You have no credibility when you attack the way I talk while ignoring the ugly personal attacks against me.

Get a clue.

[Th1onein]

219. NO one has attacked you personally, HuckleB. But you're not going to get away with attacking others

or spreading untruths. It's not going to go unchallenged. You are posting blog articles and calling them scientific articles. You are claiming a scientific consensus when there is none. You are attacking others simply because they disagree with you.

You are also making comments about people's "histories," when yours shows you to be pro-Monsanto and pro-GMO, and that you make a habit of calling anyone that disagrees with you anti-science or "pseudo-scientific." It's not the way arguments are won, and it's certainly not how they are supposed to be engaged in in this forum.

[HuckleB]

222. That's just pitiful.

You have attacked me personally, and repeatedly. Why do you lie in such a vehement and ugly manner? I have met some nasty people in my life, but you are among the worst.

[Th1onein]

266. I have not attacked you. And I will not attack you. It is not necessary in order for me to make my

argument.

[HuckleB]

284. You have attacked me repeatedly.

And then you have lied about it repeatedly. It is despicable. Do you have any sense of shame?

[Th1onein]

203. I am a scientist, HuckleB. You are not. Blog posts are NOT scientific articles.

I'm sorry, but you can't take a blog post and call it a scientific article. And, when you read the ACTUAL article, you have to take in ALL of it, and consider ALL of it. When the author of a scientific article states that the sample size is too small to generalize, then you must know that you can't take the data in the article and extrapolate to an entire industry.

And you can't take several blog posts, no matter who wrote them, and call that a "scientific consensus." It's just not done.

I think if we took a vote here, we would know who was embarrassing who. I'm not going to leave here and let you spread these untruths.

[HuckleB]

215. You don't even understand the most basic beginnings of science.

You have shown that. To ignore scientists blogs discussing the actual studies in question, and to pretend those studies aren't being discussed, is to show how despicable your routine is. And it is despicable.

[Th1onein]

259. Oh really? Where are your bonafides, HuckleB? I mean, aside from blog posts.

I've been in this field for over a decade. When did you enter into it?

[HuckleB]

286. You've been pretending to be a scientist for a decade.

That's about what I'd expect. You have shown that you know NOTHING about science. Stop lying.

[HuckleB]

224. So now we know that anti-science folks will scream and yell when their pets are shown to be awful.

[HuckleB]

235. Diet Supplements or Nutritional Supplements: A Ruse by Any Other Name is Still a Ruse

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/diet-supplements-or-nutritional-supplements-a-ruse-by-any-other-name-is-still-a-ruse/

[Th1onein]

261. You do realize that this is an anti-supplement site? Hardly a non-biased source.

Good grief. Another freaking blog.

[HuckleB]

287. It is an incredibly accurate, honest pro-science site.

The fact that you don't understand that, and that you actually think that is bad shows that you don't understand science.

HELLO!!!!!! Sheesh.

[HuckleB]

239. What’s in your supplement?

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/whats-in-your-supplement/

[Th1onein]

262. Same anti-supplement blog. Yawn.

This is getting old. Do you have ANY actual research articles that we can source?

[HuckleB]

285. And you ignore the science by ignoring the evidence AGAIN!

Yes, you are a liar. And you have got to get out of that habit. You are pushing fictions upon the world. That causes harm. Stop causing harm.

[WCLinolVir]

256. Given the rest of the authors comments I can't support this.

especially since the FDA is notorious about not being aggressive with big pharma to protect the public. The record is horrible. The testing was apparently Canadian.
Big pharma would just love you to have go through them to get any supplements. And forget about testing. I mean since big pharma lies about the garbage they sell you now, what hope do we have??

[Th1onein]

258. They want you to have to pay Big Pharma for your supplements. How about $750 a month for some

Vitamin C? That's "protection." More like a protection racket.

You're absolutely on the money on this one, WCLinolVir.

[HuckleB]

273. You arguing for less regulation for one scummy industry because another one also needs more?

Say what?

[Doctor_J]

271. Yes but Klee Irwin's infomercials are must-see TV

"I saw my 4-year-old daughter's turd in the toilet and it literally scared me".

[HuckleB]

272. +1

[HuckleB]

288. Consumers 'Flying Blind' When Purchasing Dietary Supplements, Expert Says

http://www.livescience.com/28736-dietary-supplements-recall.html

[HuckleB]

289. Cleveland Clinic: Herbal Supplements:Helpful or Harmful?

http://my.clevelandclinic.org/heart/prevention/alternative/herbals_theheart.aspx

[HuckleB]

290. When Supplements Become Dangerous

http://www.aarp.org/health/drugs-supplements/info-04-2012/supplements-interfere-with-prescription-drugs.html

[HuckleB]

291. Vitamin supplements 'do us no good and may be harmful'

Vitamin supplements 'do us no good and may be harmful'
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/vitamin-supplements-do-us-no-good-and-may-be-harmful-809607.html

[HuckleB]

292. A Good Read On The Dangers Of Supplements And Supplement Shills

http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/15877514.php

[HuckleB]

293. What’s really in your supplement?

http://sciencebasedpharmacy.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/whats-really-in-your-supplement/

[Bill USA]

319. there are laws already on the books underwhich any company claiming a product they manufacture and

offer for sale has certain properties or ingredients, which does not contain the ingredients or properties they claim it does, or not in the concentrations they claim, can be prosecuted. It's called Truth in advertizing. the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration monitor claims made by manufacturers of products for deceptive or misleading statements made about the manufacturers products. They can be prosecuted for making false or misleading statements about their product.

Anybody can alert the appropriate agency of a company guilty of false or misleading statements about or claims made for their products.

The manufacturers found in the study you referred to who clearly substituted one substance for another can and should be turned in and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. As far as additional substances - for prosecution this gets into the questions of how much of unrelated ingredients constitutes an actionable offense and are these extraneous substances harmful in the amounts found in the product.

All food products sold in the U.S. have some impurities and 'foriegn matter' in them. It's a question of how much is too much - to be actionable.

[HuckleB]

320. It's toothless as all get out, and you know it.

Stop defending crap corporations. REGULATE NOW!

[Bill USA]

323. Hoping if you say it enough times it will magically become true???

this is your idea of "defending scumbags"??:

"The manufacturers found in the study you referred to who clearly substituted one substance for another can and should be turned in and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

again you throw words together for effect, without any effort to make sense.

[HuckleB]

324. It is true, on multiple fronts.

Supplements often don't contain what they claim they contain.

Further, they almost always don't do what the company claims they do.

This is ugly malpractice. It is a scam. And supporting is despicable.

Oh, and that's being kind. There is simply no justification for your ugly attacks against consumers.

[HuckleB]

327. Vitamin Supplements Dangerous But Government Can’t Tell You

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/vitamin-supplements-dangerous-but-government-cant-tell-you/

[HuckleB]

328. The problem with taking too many vitamins

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24563590?utm_content=buffer9bef8&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer