First Vioxx, Now Celebrex?

[BEST45CAL]

Pfizer Defends Celebrex Against Charge of Heart Risk (Update1)
Oct. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Pfizer Inc., the world's biggest drugmaker, defended its painkiller Celebrex after a researcher's suggestion the medication may be linked to heart risks sent the stock down as much as 8.3 percent.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=assRncisY06o&refer=top_world_news

[Chap]

It's all suspicious. I try to avoid medications. Everytime I see my doctor about anything, he prescribes a pill. I have throw more prescriptions away. There are more natural remedies available than can be imagined. However, it takes a little time to investigate and learn about them, hence the American quick fix.


Of course, I kept the Viagra.

[BEST45CAL]

The drugs that took years and years to get FDA approval seem to be much, much safer.

It's only been lately that we've started to see disclaimers of seizures, heart attacks, liver and kidney disease with these new drugs.

They get pushed through so fast that they don't do enough testing.

My first experience with a drug that was rushed through the system was that awful Zyrtec. It made me violent. Severe mood swings and palpitations to boot. Needless to say, I don't take the stuff anymore.

I took it because it was what the doc was hawking that day. Some drug rep came by and dumped a bunch of samples in his lap and the doc passed 'em out like Halloween candy.

[Bob_Arctor]

This is an interesting issue, because both drugs have the same mechanism of action. It is entirely possible Celebrex will have similar side effects as Vioxx. It's ironic that it took a long term study (the point of which was to prove Vioxx would shrink/prevent polyps, which can become cancerous) to bring out the heart attack risk, as the whole point of the study was to increase sales.

Pfizer is now saying studies show Celebrex has no risk...just as Merck was saying about Vioxx for the last two years.

Unfortunately just about any drug will have bad effects to go along with the good - our biochemistry is so complex that it is very unlikely to come up with something that is ONLY good.

The FDA is very strict (it is the most restrictive of all drug agencies on the planet) and it takes years to get a drug approved. (Even a drug that is "fast-tracked" still takes a long time.) So if we want new drugs, there will be risks...and how long should the FDA require a drug to be studied before approval? Sometimes, as in the case of Vioxx, problems may not show up until a person has been taking it for years. Also, it is easier to stop selling a drug like Vioxx (from the consumer's point of view, not Merck's!) when there are competitors that have not been shown to be dangerous, and when the COX-2 inhibitor class of drugs has been under fire anyway (because they only have the same pain-relieving effect of ibuprofen, but cost ten to fifteen times more).

[Wyatt_Junker]

Unfortunately just about any drug will have bad effects to go along with the good - our biochemistry is so complex that it is very unlikely to come up with something that is ONLY good.


Herbs. The only scare in the last decade was Ephedra and that was hyped by people with congenital conditions.

I remember trying Paxil, Prozac, Remerin, Trazadone etc. which put me into near coma states. I was a shell of what I once was on those. Psychotropics rip out your sense of humor and flatten you into an even middle of boring Vulcan talk.

Now, if I have a case of Filbert's disease flaring up, middle ear congestion, and the symptoms associated with it(gnarly vertigo, nausea etc.) I take niacin, Ginko Biloba, grape seed extract and magnesium and its gone in as little as 2 to 5 minutes. Drug companies don't like easy fixes and neither do doctors. At least the ones I've dealt with...

[BEST45CAL]

Drug companies don't like easy fixes...
Plus, they can't patent something natural.

[Rink]

Exactly, thats the reason why some effective Natural remedies have been demonized and criminalized.

[Chap]

I would love to see a "Health' or "Natural Remedy" section on this forum. There is a wealth of knowledge within our ranks just in nutrition.


Leave the drugs to the Libs..they all seem to be stoned anyway

[Rink]

On these Freeconservatives forums there is a section titled "Earth & Health Sciences (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=33)"

That might be a good start if any for some natural remedies ideas :)

[dajoga]

Plus, they can't patent something natural.

But the only thing that's natural is if it's raw. If it's processed in some way, then it's not totally natural and can be patented. If you notice, medical questionaires now ask if you take any "natural" or "herbal" remedies b/c if you do they can react with other medications seriously. They're chemicals just like many drugs and can react with other chemicals.

I know a family that takes all those "natural and herbal" remedies and they have a lot of physical problems.

Let's face it, living is hazardous to your health. :rotfl:

[BEST45CAL]

But the only thing that's natural is if it's raw. If it's processed in some way, then it's not totally natural and can be patented. If you notice, medical questionaires now ask if you take any "natural" or "herbal" remedies b/c if you do they can react with other medications seriously. They're chemicals just like many drugs and can react with other chemicals.

I know a family that takes all those "natural and herbal" remedies and they have a lot of physical problems.

Let's face it, living is hazardous to your health. :rotfl:
I take probably 30+ supplements a day. Maybe more. If I don't take 'em, then I really notice a difference. There are some things that I won't take, such as L-Phenylalanine. That crap gives me a damn headache. LOL:blush:

[Chap]

I have an herbal regime too. When I go off it I notice a difference. I mix it up sometimes just for variety. Could be the chemist in me left over from the late 60's.

[BEST45CAL]

I have an herbal regime too. When I go off it I notice a difference. I mix it up sometimes just for variety. Could be the chemist in me left over from the late 60's.
I am a DMAE/Alpha Lipoic Acid/Gamma Tocopherol/CoQ10/Theanine freak! LOL

[Chap]

I am a DMAE/Alpha Lipoic Acid/Gamma Tocopherol/CoQ10/Theanine freak! LOL
Far out dude!

[Wyatt_Junker]

I am a DMAE/Alpha Lipoic Acid/Gamma Tocopherol/CoQ10/Theanine freak! LOL
I'm with you on the Alpha Lipoic Acid, CoQ10. Everyday I'm popping that shit like candy, along with essential oils, all the B's, magnesium, Larch Tree extract(flu season is coming), Gingko, Flaxseed, and an adrenal support compound with Chinese licorice 5X a week(on weightroom days only).

But give me a run-down on the DMAE, Gamma Tocopherol & Theanine. I don't want to Google know. I want your take.

[BEST45CAL]

I'm with you on the Alpha Lipoic Acid, CoQ10. Everyday I'm popping that shit like candy, along with essential oils, all the B's, magnesium, Larch Tree extract(flu season is coming), Gingko, Flaxseed, and an adrenal support compound with Chinese licorice 5X a week(on weightroom days only).

But give me a run-down on the DMAE, Gamma Tocopherol & Theanine. I don't want to Google know. I want your take.DMAE: Natural, found in fish. Was used in the '60s and '70s as a remedy for ADHD before Pfizer came along and made some crap that turned kids into zombies. DMAE is good for short and long term memory and enhances facial skin glow and firmness. Can be poured it into smoothies or shakes. LOL. Improves concentration, mental clarity and sleep.

Gamma Tocopherol is another form of the natural antioxidant vitamin E, however, it is a much less stable form of vitamin E because it is extremely sensitive to heat, light, and air. Despite it being much less stable, it is much more effective than Alpha Tocopherol or synthetic forms of vitamin E. Gamma Tocopherol is much more expensive to process than Alpha Tocopherol.

Theanine: an amino acid. It negates the negative effects of caffeine and can be somewhat calming. It enhances brain function and promotes a feeling of well-being without ambiguity or diminished alertness. Theanine can be found in green tea. Known for it's cancer fighting ability.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Thanks, a lot.

For relaxation and sleep I try sulphurs which work pretty good, they're also good detoxifiers. One garlic clove, diced, straight.

I also do Gabba, an amino acid, which has a reliable soporific effect by shutting down thoughts. Gabba also helps restore and stabilize growth hormone production, which can increase muscle mass while reducing belly fat.

I only do these when I've got a lot on my mind.

Bible reading also works and puts me out, especially the boring parts. But, it also has a tremendous calming effect, knowing you're are beloved of God, accepted by His grace and nothing of your own. It takes the human element of 'trying' right out and knocks you out. Then you can just not care, and, sleep like a baby.

Niacin also works great as well as a combo of calcium and magnesium(in a citrus base). If you can take them sublingually, the better the effect.

Thanks for the heads up on those three. I'm gonna try 'em. Especially the DMAE. I experience something similar whenever I eat a salmon steak, especially if its a large steak that last 2 to 3 days. My brain and sleep seem to work better.

If anybody's reading this, Larch Tree extract is incredible as we enter the cold season. Its much more powerful than Goldenseal w/o the habituation and doesn't raise blood pressure. I also take a thumbnail size of straight Oregano and chew it into the cud, same with olive leaf.

I'm thinking my next lil' experiment is going to be growth hormone segretagogues. I want my 18 year old muscles back, plus better sleep and healing and repair capabilities. Any thoughts on a brand on those? Risks? Waste of money?

[Wyatt_Junker]

As far as foods go, I have found my own personal arsenal through discovery which I call "happy" food. All mental support food.

Blueberries: I eat them year round. They seem to help balance my mood. Typically, I put a fistful on my morning yogurt. Winter season I buy frozen ones and in spring I buy fresh.

Turkey: The tryptophan is a natural sedative. You can't buy plain tryptophan anymore due to government restriction which sucks. I go buy a bird whenever I'm having a stressful stretch in life. The increase in serotonin production helps to stablizie mood. Gobble gobble.

Cashews: I like them. But they also seem to help reduce my appetite. Fat is great for the metabolism and it helps ward off fatigue and stress. It helps you endure.

About fat. Anyone remember the scene in Saving Private Ryan when the men finally got on the beach? I thought it was interesting the way Spielberg showed what the men ate after all that stress. To ward off shell shock, the men were served hot coffee and given pastrami sammiches. The pastrami was thick and marbled with fat. That animal fat, I am certain, helped to save lives that day by reducing the body's tendency to go into shock.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Although, re DMAE, this is kind of scary...


http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=36603

[BEST45CAL]

I don't know what other problems that fellow had besides sleep deprivation. I wonder what else he was taking? Was his DMAE laced with acid? LOL

Yeah, the DMAE could affect you in large enough dosages. That guys results certanly were not typical. If anything, the effects of taking too much DMAE are mostly physical. Large doses can make your muscles tense, can cause headaches, or just make you sleepy.

Salmon is probably the best source for DMAE! I'm glad you like salmon.

The best way to take DMAE supplement is gradually. Smart with a small amount, say 100mg/day w/food, then work your way up if you want. I take 200mg/day, but could do just fine with 100mg. I wouldn't take more than 200mg/day.

It's not good to shock your system with huge doses of some supplements, especially when beginning a daily DMAE regime.

[Bob_Arctor]

Herbs. The only scare in the last decade was Ephedra and that was hyped by people with congenital conditions.

It's an unregulated industry, and there would surely be more scares of this type if most of the herbs and supplements sold actually had any effect, which most don't. Some do, of course, but even that is tricky because the supplement manufacturers don't really have quality control and the levels of herb present vary wildly.


I remember trying Paxil, Prozac, Remerin, Trazadone etc. which put me into near coma states. I was a shell of what I once was on those. Psychotropics rip out your sense of humor and flatten you into an even middle of boring Vulcan talk.

I agree on these types of drugs - if you're suicidally depressed they're good, but too many people with milder depression also take them. You're right, they seem to turn you into a robot. They suppress happiness along with the sadness. A friend of mine in college started taking one of them, and he became a different person, a boring one who never laughed. He stopped taking it soon after.


Now, if I have a case of Filbert's disease flaring up, middle ear congestion, and the symptoms associated with it(gnarly vertigo, nausea etc.) I take niacin, Ginko Biloba, grape seed extract and magnesium and its gone in as little as 2 to 5 minutes. Drug companies don't like easy fixes and neither do doctors. At least the ones I've dealt with...
I'm sure doctors would love to provide you with a quick fix, but they know things tend to be a lot more complex than most proponents of herbs and supplements will admit. Just because something is "natural" has no bearing on whether it'll actually do anything for you, and is definitely no indication of whether it can harm you or not. Many people have this bizarre belief that if something is "natural" it #1 cannot hurt you, #2 will have no side effects and #3 will not interact with other drugs. This is pure nonsense, and can be dangerous. (Many of the most dangerous poisons out there are all natural!) Luckily, since the supplement industry is completely unregulated, a good portion of what's sold has little or none of the ingredient listed on the label. If an herb or supplement has enough of a active agent (drug) in it, it can cause trouble just as any pharmaceutical drug can. And, of course, pharmaceutical drugs tend to be far more powerful than any effective herb (there are a few), which will make side effects that much greater as well.

Drug companies would like to come up with quick fixes as well, but the nature of regulation prevents it. Contrast this to supplement manufacturers, who can put anything in that bottle they feel like, have no testing requirements, no safety requirements, don't have to prove it works, and are allowed to make any health claims they want to. I always find it amusing to see an ad for some 'natural remedy' that'll supposedly cure just about anything - and then the disclaimer that it's not intended to treat any disease.

Of course many people claim success with this sort of self-medication, but I believe much of that is due to the placebo effect. And yes herbs, though natural, will have side effects if the active ingredient is present in large enough quantities (often it is not, so there is no effect at all except for the psychological). A molecule doesn't care, so to speak, if it came from a plant or from a lab. Herbs aren't automatically harmless any more than a synthetic drug is automatically dangerous.

Bob Arctor

[Bob_Arctor]

Plus, they can't patent something natural.
This is one of the great myths of our time.

Many, many of the drugs we have today have botanical origin - I can't remember the exact number, but it is somewhere from 25 to 50%. If there is some plant that seems to have a positive effect, the active ingredient can be determined. Then many very similar molecules are synthesized and assayed - and usually some of them will have higher activity. Because these are different componds, they can be patented (even one atom in a different place means it's new).

The cancer drug Taxol is derived from the Pacific yew tree. Aspirin is from willow bark. Antibiotics are naturally produced by all kinds of bacteria. There are many more like them.

[Bob_Arctor]

Gamma Tocopherol is another form of the natural antioxidant vitamin E, however, it is a much less stable form of vitamin E because it is extremely sensitive to heat, light, and air. Despite it being much less stable, it is much more effective than Alpha Tocopherol or synthetic forms of vitamin E. Gamma Tocopherol is much more expensive to process than Alpha Tocopherol.
You may want to stop spending the extra cash for gamma tocopherol. One of my medicinal chemistry books notes that it is biologically inactive...it says alpha is most active, followed by beta (and at any rate, they function mainly as antioxidants, rather than part of a pathway). And if it's so sensitive to heat, light and air, how do you store it? How would you know if it's degraded? Since there is a mix of the different isomers (six or eight) of vitamin E in vitamin E containing foods, why not eat them and get a balanced mix and save a few bucks? Finally, who is telling you it's the best kind of vitamin E?

Bob Arctor

[Wyatt_Junker]

If we wanted a nanny, we would vote democrat, then listen to Pink Floyd's Comfortably Numb.

But I'm sure the FDA agrees with you, chewing on its bit to sink its canines into the supplement industry like a pitbull. And maybe they'll get their chance thanks to Senator Dick Durbin's Senate Bill 722 (http://www.hsrmagazine.com/hotnews/33h28152842.html). And ephedra, thanks to shows like Dateline, is the PR tool to do just that, regulate you to death(& I mean that quite literally).

Let's take epehedra as an example, but before I do, let's also understand that the overt regulation to which the FDA wishes to subject us to poses more risks to us than a mom & pop health food store run by ex-hippies.(sheesh) There are many hundreds of deaths each year associated with aspirin and acetaminophen, manufactured by many companies like Bayer and J&J, both of whom have deep pockets to host testosterone-laced lobbying efforts in DC.

And what's ephedra's death toll? 117. Not per annum either. En total, one hundred and seventeen! And those were caused and/or related not to ephedra per se as much as its synthetic form(a drug OTOH), ephedrine, which health food stores don't even traffic in, let alone peddle.

And that's all that mommy democrat wants. A good little foot in the door, putting their best crutch forward into our lives and prying into our world for more control...Momeeeeee, Dadeeeee I'm s, s, s, scared.

I know I can't think for myself. I need Doctor Sayso's help, fer sure. And now it appears Hillary wants in on the action, I'm assuming, as a way to launch a National Healthcare Program. Take all the minerals, supplements & herbs and forcibly channel them through a white lab jacket's ego.

BTW, there Arctor, anybody tell you that you sound just like another do-gooder with a chip on his shoulder? No?

You heard it here first (even though I doubt it; those other folks were just being polite).

[BEST45CAL]

You may want to stop spending the extra cash for gamma tocopherol. One of my medicinal chemistry books notes that it is biologically inactive...it says alpha is most active, followed by beta (and at any rate, they function mainly as antioxidants, rather than part of a pathway). And if it's so sensitive to heat, light and air, how do you store it? How would you know if it's degraded? Since there is a mix of the different isomers (six or eight) of vitamin E in vitamin E containing foods, why not eat them and get a balanced mix and save a few bucks? Finally, who is telling you it's the best kind of vitamin E?

Bob Arctor
Gamma tocopherol can be made stable by putting it in a nitrogen environment and keeping it out of prolonged direct sunlight. The capsules are made out of medical grade material and manufactured by Pfizer. They are not gelcaps. They are two pieces that are put together like a regular capsule. The finished product looks like a clear capsule with a drop of honey and a bubble inside of it.

Each capsule has over 375mg of the complete family of all four (alpha, beta, delta, gamma) naturally occurring tocopherol isomers of Vitamin E.

Gamma is special because it offers even greater protection from some forms of oxidative damage than alpha tocopherol.

Andrew Lessman's twenty-five years of research enables him to make such claims.

http://www.naturalmd.com/NaturalMD/content/Index/Concern.html

[BEST45CAL]

This is one of the great myths of our time.

Many, many of the drugs we have today have botanical origin - I can't remember the exact number, but it is somewhere from 25 to 50%. If there is some plant that seems to have a positive effect, the active ingredient can be determined. Then many very similar molecules are synthesized and assayed - and usually some of them will have higher activity. Because these are different componds, they can be patented (even one atom in a different place means it's new).

The cancer drug Taxol is derived from the Pacific yew tree. Aspirin is from willow bark. Antibiotics are naturally produced by all kinds of bacteria. There are many more like them.
You cannot patent a specific natural ingredient, such as vitamin e, but you can patent proprietary blends of certain supplements or the way they are manufactured. That's my understanding.

[Bob_Arctor]

You cannot patent a specific natural ingredient, such as vitamin e, but you can patent proprietary blends of certain supplements or the way they are manufactured. That's my understanding.
I was referring to the process for the pharmaceutical industry. I don't know how it works for supplements, but what you said sounds reasonable. So for the supplement maker to patent and market an herb formulation, it just chooses the ingredients in whatever ratio. The pharmaceutical company has to identify the actual active molecules and find variations on them. The supplement maker doesn't have to prove anything about their product, while the drugmaker must spend hundreds of millions of dollars and many years to prove to the FDA their molecule is safe and effective.

Of course this bit of extra effort on the drugmaker's part allows it to claim product X is effective for treating problem Y, while the supplement maker is not - though they sure come close!

[Bob_Arctor]

Each capsule has over 375mg of the complete family of all four (alpha, beta, delta, gamma) naturally occurring tocopherol isomers of Vitamin E.
Oh, I had the impression you were taking gamma specifically! That's why I asked all the questions.

So natural vitamin E would have all the isomers, but gamma would degrade - so your brand preserves it with the special manufacturing process.

Gamma is special because it offers even greater protection from some forms of oxidative damage than alpha tocopherol.
Andrew Lessman's twenty-five years of research enables him to make such claims.
http://www.naturalmd.com/NaturalMD/content/Index/Concern.html I went to the site, but it didn't have much to say about the gamma form, and I didn't find anything on the good doctor himself. Do you have any more information on it and him? I'd love to see it!

My biochem book says alpha is by far the most powerful isomer as an antioxidant. Again, my medicinal chemistry shows alpha as the most powerful, beta as less active, and gamma as inactive. Inactive! It goes on to say there is no known enzyme related role for vitamin E, and animals can be raised normally on an E-free diet, so long as some other antioxidant is added. Furthermore no vitamin E deficiency disease is recognized in humans. So vitamin E does its job by serving as an antioxidant, and the gamma form is inactive as an antioxidant.

Keep in mind that a supplement maker is just as happy to take your money as a pharmaceutical company, and they have the advantage of being able to make outrageous claims with no requirement of proof. Buyer beware.

By the way - have you seen the studies showing that taking antioxidants in large amounts can actually increase your cancer risk? The hypothesis is that the huge amounts of antioxidants prevent apoptosis (cell death) of cells that have problems that are normally destroyed. I wonder if a happy medium of antioxidants can be determined.

[BEST45CAL]

Andrew Lessman is a biochemist and lawyer with a medical background. He is not a medical doctor. He came within one year of becoming a doctor but opted to become a lawyer. After passing the bar and six years as a successful food and drug lawyer, he shut down his practice to become a fitness trainer. He hated being a lawyer.

Just before he shut down his successful law practice in 1988, he began to aggressively advertise his vitamins, targeting professional athletes with his unique line of supplements--supplements with no additives and packaged in foil packets.

In 1989, he approached the Sharper Image company and his vitamins were that catalog's best selling item for a few years afterward.

In 1991, he made a pitch to the people at QVC and was successful for a few years with them, but the growth of the business was limited. Thats' when Barry Diller (HSN) came calling and made Lessman a very good offer. Lessman has been with HSN since November 1996.

Lessman was originally based out of California, but the humid coastal weather in the southern part of the state made it difficult for him to manufacture his vitamins in large quantities. So he packed up and moved to the dry Henderson, Nevada desert, the home of ProCaps Laboratory since 1997.

Lessman has a bachelor of science degree from the University of Pennsylvania and a law degree from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. He also spent three years at medical school at University of Hawaii.

Lessman has been selling his own vitamins since 1979.

As for those reports about large doses of antioxidants causing cancer, I haven't heard of such a thing.

[Bob_Arctor]

Andrew Lessman is a biochemist and lawyer with a medical background. He is not a medical doctor. He came within one year of becoming a doctor but opted to become a lawyer. After passing the bar and six years as a successful food and drug lawyer, he shut down his practice to become a fitness trainer. He hated being a lawyer.

Just before he shut down his successful law practice in 1988, he began to aggressively advertise his vitamins, targeting professional athletes with his unique line of supplements--supplements with no additives and packaged in foil packets.

Lessman has a bachelor of science degree from the University of Pennsylvania and a law degree from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. He also spent three years at medical school at University of Hawaii.
Thanks, I couldn't find any information on him at that site. So what does he have to say specifically about gamma tocopherol?

Lessman has been selling his own vitamins since 1979.
Wow, so it's been a business for him since he was in college.

As for those reports about large doses of antioxidants causing cancer, I haven't heard of such a thing.
Oh yes. You imply that the vitamin makers don't tell you about this - do you find that honest or ethical? I don't.

Lancet. 2004 Oct 2;364(9441):1219-28

Antioxidant supplements for prevention of gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Simonetti RG, Gluud C.
The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Copenhagen University Hospital, H:S Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. goranb@junis.ni.ac.yu <dl> <>BACKGROUND: Oxidative stress can cause cancer. Our aim was to establish whether antioxidant supplements reduce the incidence of gastrointestinal cancer and mortality. METHODS: With the Cochrane Collaboration methodology, we reviewed all randomised trials comparing antioxidant supplements with placebo for prevention of gastrointestinal cancers. We searched electronic databases and reference lists (February, 2003). Outcome measures were incidence of gastrointestinal cancers, overall mortality, and adverse effects. Outcomes were analysed with fixed-effect and random-effects model meta-analyses and were reported as relative risk with 95% CIs. FINDINGS: We identified 14 randomised trials (n=170,525). Trial quality was generally high. Heterogeneity of results was low to moderate. Neither the fixed-effect (relative risk 0.96, 95% CI 0.88-1.04) nor random-effects meta-analyses (0.90, 0.77-1.05) showed significant effects of supplementation with beta-carotene, vitamins A, C, E, and selenium (alone or in combination) versus placebo on oesophageal, gastric, colorectal, pancreatic, and liver cancer incidences. In seven high-quality trials (n=131727), the fixed-effect model showed that antioxidant significantly increased mortality (1.06, 1.02-1.10), unlike the random-effects meta-analysis (1.06, 0.98-1.15). Low-quality trials showed no significant effect of antioxidant supplementation on mortality. The difference between the mortality estimates in high-quality and low-quality trials was significant (Z=2.10, p=0.04 by test of interaction). beta-carotene and vitamin A (1.29, 1.14-1.45) and beta-carotene and vitamin E (1.10, 1.01-1.20) significantly increased mortality, whereas beta-carotene alone only tended to increase mortality (1.05, 0.99-1.11). In four trials (three with unclear or inadequate methodology), selenium showed significant beneficial effect on the incidence of gastrointestinal cancer.

INTERPRETATION: We could not find evidence that antioxidant supplements can prevent gastrointestinal cancers; on the contrary, they seem to increase overall mortality. The potential preventive effect of selenium should be studied in adequate randomised trials.

This study is brand-new, but there are plenty of others out there, and you could use google to find news reports about vitamins increasing some cancer risk.

Very interesting that selenium is shown to have beneficial effects while the combinations of vitamins E, A and beta-carotene are damaging. Go to www.pubmed.com which has most all medical and science journals online and search for antioxidants and cancer risk and related words. There's a lot out there - lots of good, some bad. The abstracts are free, and some have full text for free as well.
</> </dl>

[BEST45CAL]

As for what Lessman says about gamma tocopherol: "Alpha tocopherol is viewed as the family member delivering the greatest activity as a Vitamin E coenzyme. Gamma tocopherol is by far the most abundant in nature and although not as active a coenzyme form of Vitamin E, it has recently been shown to potentially offer even greater protection from some forms of oxidative damage than alpha tocopherol."

You'd have to ask him where he gets his information. Since he's the biochemist, I don't question what he's got to say, especially when I read the same things about gamma tocopherol.
************************************************** *******
gamma-tocopherol, the major form of vitamin E in the US diet, deserves more attention.

Jiang Q, Christen S, Shigenaga MK, Ames BN.

University of California, the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, Berkeley, USA.

gamma-tocopherol is the major form of vitamin E in many plant seeds and in the US diet, but has drawn little attention compared with alpha-tocopherol, the predominant form of vitamin E in tissues and the primary form in supplements. However, recent studies indicate that gamma-tocopherol may be important to human health and that it possesses unique features that distinguish it from alpha-tocopherol. gamma-Tocopherol appears to be a more effective trap for lipophilic electrophiles than is alpha-tocopherol. gamma-Tocopherol is well absorbed and accumulates to a significant degree in some human tissues; it is metabolized, however, largely to 2,7,8-trimethyl-2-(beta-carboxyethyl)-6-hydroxychroman (gamma-CEHC), which is mainly excreted in the urine. gamma-CEHC, but not the corresponding metabolite derived from alpha-tocopherol, has natriuretic activity that may be of physiologic importance. Both gamma-tocopherol and gamma-CEHC, but not alpha-tocopherol, inhibit cyclooxygenase activity and, thus, possess antiinflammatory properties. Some human and animal studies indicate that plasma concentrations of gamma-tocopherol are inversely associated with the incidence of cardiovascular disease and prostate cancer. These distinguishing features of gamma-tocopherol and its metabolite suggest that gamma-tocopherol may contribute significantly to human health in ways not recognized previously. This possibility should be further evaluated, especially considering that high doses of alpha-tocopherol deplete plasma and tissue gamma-tocopherol, in contrast with supplementation with gamma-tocopherol, which increases both. We review current information on the bioavailability, metabolism, chemistry, and nonantioxidant activities of gamma-tocopherol and epidemiologic data concerning the relation between gamma-tocopherol and cardiovascular disease and cancer.

Publication Types:

Review
Review, Tutorial
PMID: 11722951 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] ************************************************** *******

Development of gamma (gamma)-tocopherol as a colorectal cancer chemopreventive agent.

Campbell S, Stone W, Whaley S, Krishnan K.

Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, James H. Quillen College of Medicine, East Tennessee State University, Box 70622, Johnson City, TN 37614, USA.

Nutritional factors play an important role in the prevention and promotion of colorectal cancer. Vitamin E is a generic term that describes a group of lipid-soluble chain-breaking antioxidants that includes tocopherols and tocotrienols. Vitamin E occurs in nature as eight structurally related forms that include four tocopherols and four tocotrienols. Vitamin E is a potent membrane-soluble antioxidant. Antioxidants like vitamin E (tocopherols) may prevent colon cancer through several different cellular and molecular mechanisms. Vitamin E in the American diet is primarily available in plant-oil rich foods such as vegetable oils, seeds and nuts and these foods vary widely in their content of alpha-tocopherol and gamma-tocopherol. Vitamin E may help prevent colon cancer by decreasing the formation of mutagens arising from the oxidation of fecal lipids, by decreasing oxidative stress in the epithelial cells of the colon and by molecular mechanisms that influence cell death, cell cycle and transcriptional events. Most epidemiological, experimental and clinical studies have evaluated the alpha-isoform and not the gamma-isoform of vitamin E. Recent epidemiological, experimental and mechanistic evidence suggests that gamma-tocopherol may be a more potent cancer chemopreventive agent than alpha-tocopherol. The differences in chemical reactivity, metabolism and biological activity may contribute to these differences in the effects of gamma-tocopherol when compared with alpha-tocopherol. The rationale supporting the development of gamma-tocopherol as a colorectal cancer preventive agent is reviewed here.

Publication Types:

Review
Review, Tutorial

PMID: 12962899 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
************************************************** *******

etc., etc., etc., etc.
************************************************** *******
Your information is dated October 2, 2004. That was 13 days ago.

Well, I have a hard time blaming vitamin manufacturers for having a lack of honesty or ethics based on a Lancet report that's not even two weeks old.

I don't think you could ever get people to stop taking supplements, especially if they make you feel better. I know they make me feel a lot better. So, I'm not one to get excited over one report. In order for what the Danish found to be accepted as fact, don't their findings have to be replicated by other laboratories? The Lancet has put out good things to say about supplementation in the past, especially for patients who are about to have heart surgery.

One of the reasons for supplementation in general, is that they are needed by the body and we don't have the ability to manufacture them.

Another is to help improve the quality of life by helping to reduce the possibility of disease later on down the road; not so much to cure anything catastrophic that's going on right now.

Supplements can help the body's immune system do what it does naturally.

There is nothing wrong with supplementation, however, I do believe the government RDAs are much too low.

Supplements are just that: Supplements.

Moderation seems to be the key to everything.

[Bob_Arctor]

As for what Lessman says about gamma tocopherol: "Alpha tocopherol is viewed as the family member delivering the greatest activity as a Vitamin E coenzyme. Gamma tocopherol is by far the most abundant in nature and although not as active a coenzyme form of Vitamin E, it has recently been shown to potentially offer even greater protection from some forms of oxidative damage than alpha tocopherol."
You'd have to ask him where he gets his information. Since he's the biochemist, I don't question what he's got to say, especially when I read the same things about gamma tocopherol.
It seems to be newer information - that's what I get for using a medicinal chem book that's probably ten years old! gamma-tocopherol's activity has been more recently found because it is a metabolite of gamma that is the antioxidant, not gamma itself - so in vitro studies have shown it as inactive, while newer in vivo research says is is quite active.

Very good though - I'll have to start eating vitamin E containing food more often. Thanks for the references.

By the way thought I though Lessman was a lawyer who completed part of med school - did he also go to grad school for biochemistry?
...
gamma-tocopherol, the major form of vitamin E in the US diet, deserves more attention.
....
Development of gamma (gamma)-tocopherol as a colorectal cancer chemopreventive agent.



Your information is dated October 2, 2004. That was 13 days ago.
Well, I have a hard time blaming vitamin manufacturers for having a lack of honesty or ethics based on a Lancet report that's not even two weeks old.


My reference was a review of many other studies from years past - this is not new information. At any rate, I'll rephrase the question - how long would you give the supplement makers to include this warning before you'd consider their omission of fact deceptive? Six months? A year? What do you say?

<>
I don't think you could ever get people to stop taking supplements, especially if they make you feel better. I know they make me feel a lot better. </>I know they make many people feel better, and I have little doubt that most of that is due to placebo effect. (I'm speaking here more of herb type products than straight vitamins.) I'm going to be quite skeptical until studies come out supporting their use.
<>
So, I'm not one to get excited over one report. In order for what the Danish found to be accepted as fact, don't their findings have to be replicated by other laboratories? The Lancet has put out good things to say about supplementation in the past, especially for patients who are about to have heart surgery. </> That article was a review of many other studies - it was basically an intense statistical analysis rather than an experiment.


Keep in mind that any study of a vitamin or supplement will use high-quality controlled materials. This has been one of my points - you have no idea what you're getting, because the industry is completely unregulated. If you buy herb X you don't actually know if there's any in the bottle, and if there is, how much. May be a little bit, maybe none, maybe the amount they say, maybe ten times as much. Who knows? Studies of supplements show that quality, quantity, potency and identity vary wildly.


One of the reasons for supplementation in general, is that they are needed by the body and we don't have the ability to manufacture them.
As far as I know this is only true for certain vitamins, like C, which are usually provided by diet. I suppose I see a distinction between vitamins and herb products like St John's Wort or Ephedra. I'm not aware of any biological need for any herb product, but if I'm wrong fill me in.


Another is to help improve the quality of life by helping to reduce the possibility of disease later on down the road; not so much to cure anything catastrophic that's going on right now. Maybe, maybe not - the supplement makers can tell you whatever they feel like. I hear ads all the time to the effect "Product X is great for losing weight, lowering cholesterol and blood pressure, immune system, heart health, fighting cancer, etc etc etc..." followed by "this product is not intended to treat or prevent any disease". You can say anything you want with that caveat.


I suspect that if these wonder-drug claims (and there are SO many) held water the pharmaceutical companies would jump on the molecules involved immediately.



Supplements can help the body's immune system do what it does naturally.

Maybe...which ones? In what dosages?


There is nothing wrong with supplementation, however, I do believe the government RDAs are much too low.


Where have you heard this? I was under the impression the opposite was true, but could easily be wrong.

Supplements are just that: Supplements.
Moderation seems to be the key to everything.
"Supplement" is just a word. It doesn't mean a whole lot to the molecules involved. The reason all this stuff is identified as such and legally considered "food" is because the industry lobbied to have it classified as such. It is very expensive to have quality control at pharmaceutical standards - that cuts into profits. So, because of their lobbying efforts, you'll just have to take the word of these companies that you're actually getting what they say. Sadly, when these products are tested, the results suggest their word in general is worthless. Luckily their products also tend to be harmless.

[Bob_Arctor]

But I'm sure the FDA agrees with you, chewing on its bit to sink its canines into the supplement industry like a pitbull. And maybe they'll get their chance thanks to Senator Dick Durbin's Senate Bill 722 (http://www.hsrmagazine.com/hotnews/33h28152842.html). And ephedra, thanks to shows like Dateline, is the PR tool to do just that, regulate you to death(& I mean that quite literally).
What is the agency that handles consmer fraud? The FTC? I think they would be of more value in dealing with the supplement industry than the FDA. The FDA regulates products that are actually proven to work. Furthermore they require these products be shown safe (though they are going to start requiring more long-term safety studies of new drugs following Vioxx)...you remember the thalidomide disaster, right? Strangely we Americans weren't among the victims of that tragedy - because the evil FDA didn't consider it proven safe.

Let's take epehedra as an example, but before I do, let's also understand that the overt regulation to which the FDA wishes to subject us to poses more risks to us than a mom & pop health food store run by ex-hippies.(sheesh) Maybe, maybe not - first I ask that the stuff they're selling there actually be shown to have value by evidence other than worthless anecdotes.

There are many hundreds of deaths each year associated with aspirin and acetaminophen, manufactured by many companies like Bayer and J&J, both of whom have deep pockets to host testosterone-laced lobbying efforts in DC. Indeed - and these drugs are very well studied, and their many benefits far outweigh their dangers. Don't you realize that supplement makers also lobby? How do you think they've been escaping regulation for so long? It's amusing that you distrust the FDA and pharmaceutical industry, yet trust the word of the supplement makers...when you have absolutely no idea of what you're getting in that bottle, if it's safe, or if it works. They make their claims, but that is all they are - empty words, defended by a whispered disclaimer "this is not intended to cure or treat any disease". The supplement makers are just as happy to take your money as any pharmaceutical company, and likely have a higher profit margin.

The pharmaceutical industry has to prove their products safe and effective and manufacture them under the scrutiny of the FDA. They have to convince physicians who understand the science that new drug X is worth prescribing. Drug X must stand up in study after study and prove its worth to experts.

The supplement industry, on the other hand, relies on a complete lack of oversight, the ignorance of the consumer, and many people's desire to self-medicate. I'm sure it's a profitable mix.

And what's ephedra's death toll? 117. Not per annum either. En total, one hundred and seventeen! And those were caused and/or related not to ephedra per se as much as its synthetic form(a drug OTOH), ephedrine, which health food stores don't even traffic in, let alone peddle.
Ephedra contains ephedrine. It doesn't matter if ephedrine is synthsized by a plant or a lab - it's the same thing. So yes, health food stores absolutely peddled ephedrine. That you don't understand this, as a supplement user, is disturbing.

And that's all that mommy democrat wants. A good little foot in the door, putting their best crutch forward into our lives and prying into our world for more control...Momeeeeee, Dadeeeee I'm s, s, s, scared.
I know I can't think for myself. I need Doctor Sayso's help, fer sure. And now it appears Hillary wants in on the action, I'm assuming, as a way to launch a National Healthcare Program. Take all the minerals, supplements & herbs and forcibly channel them through a white lab jacket's ego.
Your bizzare shift of focus to the evils of Democrats isn't helping your case much. It's irrelevant.

It's not that you can't think for yourself - it's that you have no idea of what you're actually getting in those bottles from the health food shop. It's hard to make good descisions when the facts you need to make them are hazy or missing. Unfortunately most homes don't have QC labs in the basement, and most people have little to no understanding of biochemistry and physiology. So you just have to trust them. This is foolish, though usually the penalty is that you're out some cash because what they're selling tends to be ineffective.

I questioned a vitamin BEST45CAL is using, and he (she?) gave me excellent information on the effects. I'm ready to believe that gamma-tocopherol is good - because there are facts involved. Until studies of that quality are performed on "supplements" I will remain skeptical.

Anyway, don't you think a drug should be proven safe and effective before sale? If a drug is in plant form, it's still a drug, and whether the origin is natural or not has no bearing on anything.

BTW, there Arctor, anybody tell you that you sound just like another do-gooder with a chip on his shoulder? No?
I could comment on your character and motivation as well if it actually meant anything, but I see it as a waste of time. I prefer to deal with facts.

Until we meet again
Bob Arctor

[BEST45CAL]

Vitamins and minerals are needed by the body. Supplements (such as St. John's Wort, passionflower, hops, chamomile, gingko, guarana, yohimbe, etc.) are not. Each can affect the quality of certain body functions and systems, positively or otherwise.

Before I bought Lessman's vitamins and supplements, I would only buy brand name stuff...Centrum, etc., or whatever other name brand I could get my hands on. I have been taking vitamins since I was a kid and have only just recently got into taking supplements.

As for their quality, Lessman uses no preservatives and only manufactures his supplements in relatively small batches. His vitamins and supplements are either in powder or liquid form. No hard pills. The only "additive" (if you can call it that) is the two piece gelatin capsule. I have every reason to believe that his products are superior to what everyone else out there has.

Fillers and artificial colors in a product is usually an indication of a low quality product. Granted these fillers and colorings are GRAS, the last time I checked, people don't have a cellulose, silica, or food coloring deficiency.

As for warnings and interactions, they are clearly labeled on all of Lessman's products. I know there's another company out there, "Puritan's Pride," that also puts warnings on its vitamins and supplements. For example, the celery seed supplement that they sell has a warning for people who have had or have kidney disorders.

The warnings on Lessman's supplements inform the consumer of any ingredient that could possibly cause negative interactions with prescription drugs or physical ailments, such as high blood pressure, kidney or heart disease.

Quality supplements these days come with warnings that state they should be taken under recommendation by your family doctor. This is also what Lessman recommends. I don't know about other people, but I run everything past my doctor. If he says it's OK, then fine. I know most people don't do that.

Placebos do not reduce bad cholesterol or raise good cholesterol. Nor do they cause a thickening of the hair, skin, or nails. They do nothing to aid with the rapid transfer of fat cells to be used as energy. Placebos will not raise low levels of minerals in the body, either.

Knowing that I am doing something good for my body makes me feel better, but I do notice a difference if I don't supplement my diet.

As for the physical aspect of supplementation, I know there is a difference because my friends and family members who haven't seen me in a few years, tell me that they have noticed an incredible difference. I have two younger siblings, plus friends that I went to grade school with. They do not take any supplements or vitamins, and they look a lot older than I do. They have thin, graying hair, dull, blotchy skin, slightly yellow tinted eyes, and facial wrinkles.

I have no gray hair or wrinkles. My hair is thick. My eyes are white and my skin is flawless. I also sleep like a baby every night for at least 7 hours. My friends, siblings, and I, do not drink or smoke.

This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Any statement or claim that has not been evaluated by the FDA will get this slapped on it. It doesn't mean that a particular vitamin, mineral or supplement cannot diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The last I heard, Vitamin C cures periungual hemorrhage (scurvy).

Some supplements are prescribed by doctors in Europe.

[Wyatt_Junker]

It's amusing that you distrust the FDA and pharmaceutical industry, yet trust the word of the supplement makers...when you have absolutely no idea of what you're getting in that bottle, if it's safe, or if it works. They make their claims, but that is all they are - empty words...And its even more amusing that you trust the very industry that just got its ass handed to them first with Vioxx and then with Celebrex within a week's time of that. Not to mention that just last week, antidepressants got curbed, blackboxed right back into high risk category for suicidal ideation. Talk about one rather Sequioa-sized contraindication.

Oh yeah, Phen Phen anyone? I'd rather shoot coke into my eyeball.

The pharmaceutical industry has to prove their products safe and effective and manufacture them under the scrutiny of the FDA. They have to convince physicians who understand the science that new drug X is worth prescribing. Drug X must stand up in study after study and prove its worth to experts.The farm & sue tickle industry only has to prove that their drugs will sell...to the stockholders. The FDA is like Ray Charles at a shooting range when it comes to little brown bottles. If I only had a penny for every teenager who had Ritalin shoved down their throat by an over eager Psych coming off an internship by trying to prove their ego on the backs of his confused parent...

We're talking about an industry that bilks the fears of a geezer baby boomer demographic by using commercials of grey haired couples paddling down a placid stream to lute music. An industry that shows commercials of guys who can't get it up anymore because of too much swilled beer and cigs, suddenly popping a pill and throwing a football through a tire swing. Meanwhile, the wife watches him through the window as he turns to her and mouths the word 'bullseye'.

It wasn't like that in the fifties when my grandmother popped so much valium her feet felt like helium balloons. Where were the commercials then? 'Xanax... when you just want to chill and let it all hang out, including your privates...in public.'

And then there's my favorite. The speed reader at the end of every commercial. You know the guy. He has the auctioneer's voice, Mr. Disclaimer, reading off all the mideval legalese, rifling off all those side effects until it turns into one long blur.

The supplement industry, on the other hand, relies on a complete lack of oversight, the ignorance of the consumer, and many people's desire to self-medicate. I'm sure it's a profitable mix.You know what's profitable? The HMOs. Talk about trying to role reverse by turning little David's health food store into Rx's Goliath. Let's get just a smidgeon of clarity here. Western medicine has never been adequately trained in basic nutrition. They prescribe women with osteosporosis calcium supplementation when that's the last thing they need. Little crappy oyster shell derivatives that neither absorb nor are ferried to the desired destination. In fact, they cause more harm by slowing the body's oxydative rate of metabolism at the cellular level making it worse and yes, harder, for the skeleton to get the calcium it so desperately needs.

But the HMO gets its money all the same, if she lives or dies. Meanwhile, all she had to do was practice some preventable life medicine that comes in natural forms and behaviors.

I've learned long ago that you are your own advocate. I don't need a laison nor an advocate for most things in life; not a real estate agent, nor a priest, not a travel agent nor a doctor. I mortar-n-pestle most of my herbs straight from a garden. As for minerals, I don't overdo it or take a shotgun approach. I've been hair sampling now for over 3 years. I had heart palpitations and my copper was low. I took the copper, the heart palpitations are gone. I had issues with my equilibrium and successfullly fought it with magnesium and niacin as well as a few herbs. Works like a charm.

I've tried the psychotropics. Now I advocate against them, highly. I nearly died from Remeron, Paxil and Prozac. Never again. Never ****ing again will I outsource my life to uncaring bearded Freudian wannabes.

Ephedra contains ephedrine. It doesn't matter if ephedrine is synthsized by a plant or a lab - it's the same thing. So yes, health food stores absolutely peddled ephedrine. That you don't understand this, as a supplement user, is disturbing.Of course its the same. It has the same action. But then, why doesn't the FDA likewise nanny lattés? Both just make one hyper as the next. And somebody with a pre-existing, congenital heart condition is just as likely to exerience PVC's on caffeine as on ephedra.

And why did the FDA ban tryptophan when you can just buy its precursor? Or just eat loads of turkey? Talk about a joke. The entire ban was the result of an isolated case. And yet, after mad cow, we still can get our happy meals. Are you seeing the inconsistencies here?


Your bizzare shift of focus to the evils of Democrats isn't helping your case much. It's irrelevant.Hello? It was the democrats who introduced the bill to muzzle the supplement industry. It was the democrats for the last 15 years who have been hyping nationalized healthcare ever since Rodham's nipples grew rigid with power. And the supplement industry is an obstacle to that goal, as seen by Hillary's very own statements which agree with Senator Durbin.


I prefer to deal with facts.Then make your preferances known, by all means. I'm waiting.

Until we meet again,

Bob ArctorWhatever...Zorro.

[Bob_Arctor]

Vitamins and minerals are needed by the body. Supplements (such as St. John's Wort, passionflower, hops, chamomile, gingko, guarana, yohimbe, etc.) are not. Each can affect the quality of certain body functions and systems, positively or otherwise.

Before I bought Lessman's vitamins and supplements, I would only buy brand name stuff...Centrum, etc., or whatever other name brand I could get my hands on. I have been taking vitamins since I was a kid and have only just recently got into taking supplements. Vitamins can actually be relied upon since they tend to be manufactured to USP standards. Of course, supplements are a different story.

As for their quality, Lessman uses no preservatives and only manufactures his supplements in relatively small batches. His vitamins and supplements are either in powder or liquid form. No hard pills. The only "additive" (if you can call it that) is the two piece gelatin capsule. I have every reason to believe that his products are superior to what everyone else out there has. Preservatives are merely antioxidants, you know. At any rate, you're taking his word for it, and he's trying to get you to buy.

As for warnings and interactions, they are clearly labeled on all of Lessman's products. I know there's another company out there, "Puritan's Pride," that also puts warnings on its vitamins and supplements. For example, the celery seed supplement that they sell has a warning for people who have had or have kidney disorders.
The warnings on Lessman's supplements inform the consumer of any ingredient that could possibly cause negative interactions with prescription drugs or physical ailments, such as high blood pressure, kidney or heart disease. Good, good. That shows some responsibility.

Quality supplements these days come with warnings that state they should be taken under recommendation by your family doctor. This is also what Lessman recommends. I don't know about other people, but I run everything past my doctor. If he says it's OK, then fine. I know most people don't do that. That's good your doctor checks it out - I wish more people would do that.

Placebos do not reduce bad cholesterol or raise good cholesterol. Nor do they cause a thickening of the hair, skin, or nails. They do nothing to aid with the rapid transfer of fat cells to be used as energy. Placebos will not raise low levels of minerals in the body, either. Placebos can do wonders for more subjective things though - mood, energy, pain and so on. Most supplements have this sort of subjective effect attributable to placebo rather than measurable physiological effects.

As for the physical aspect of supplementation, I know there is a difference because my friends and family members who haven't seen me in a few years, tell me that they have noticed an incredible difference. I have two younger siblings, plus friends that I went to grade school with. They do not take any supplements or vitamins, and they look a lot older than I do. They have thin, graying hair, dull, blotchy skin, slightly yellow tinted eyes, and facial wrinkles.
I have no gray hair or wrinkles. My hair is thick. My eyes are white and my skin is flawless. I also sleep like a baby every night for at least 7 hours. My friends, siblings, and I, do not drink or smoke. This could be due to the supplements you take, coincidence, your 'healthy living' overall or some combination. This goes to my point - maybe what you take is doing great things for you, maybe not - they haven't been studied! Your experience is anecdotal. My mother is the oldest of her sisters, but she looks younger and is healthier than any of them. She smokes, but also eats right and stays pretty active (she buys old houses and renovates them - lots of labor). She never takes vitamins or supplements.

This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
Any statement or claim that has not been evaluated by the FDA will get this slapped on it. It doesn't mean that a particular vitamin, mineral or supplement cannot diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The last I heard, Vitamin C cures periungual hemorrhage (scurvy). True. I should have differentiated more between 'vitamins' and 'supplements'. Vitamins and their effects are far better studied and understood than herbal supplements.
Some supplements are prescribed by doctors in Europe. Take that with a grain of salt - some of those countries are also into homeopathy, which is a complete scam!

[Bob_Arctor]

And its even more amusing that you trust the very industry that just got its ass handed to them first with Vioxx and then with Celebrex within a week's time of that. Not to mention that just last week, antidepressants got curbed, blackboxed right back into high risk category for suicidal ideation. Talk about one rather Sequioa-sized contraindication. I trust them far more than I trust some guy mixing up a batch of something in his basement and selling it as a panacea without proof, sure. Now the FDA has learned its lesson and safety studies will be required to go for years rather than months, further increasing costs.

Did you catch what I wrote in the last post about thalidomide?

Pharmaceutical drugs are very powerful physiologically, and virtually all will have bad effects to go along with the good as a consequence of our complex biochemistry. Supplements tend to be safe because they do very little or nothing physiologically. However, they will have a placebo effect that fools the amateur doctor into thinking he's beating the system.

The farm & sue tickle industry only has to prove that their drugs will sell...to the stockholders. The FDA is like Ray Charles at a shooting range when it comes to little brown bottles. Then where does that $500-800 million per approval go?

If I only had a penny for every teenager who had Ritalin shoved down their throat by an over eager Psych coming off an internship by trying to prove their ego on the backs of his confused parent... Yeah that junk is extremely overprescribed - kids act like kids and they're treated like they're crazy. But the FDA isn't telling people to medicate kids - that's up to the doctors, who often get hounded into it by the parents who can't take the yelling and running. All those antidepressants are legal in europe as well, but they prescribe it to kids only maybe one tenth as much as we do. The overprescription here is a social problem, much like our bad habit of prescribing antibiotics for viral illnesses just because that's what the patient wants, thereby promoting drug resistance in bacteria.

We're talking about an industry that bilks the fears of a geezer baby boomer demographic by using commercials of grey haired couples paddling down a placid stream to lute music. An industry that shows commercials of guys who can't get it up anymore because of too much swilled beer and cigs, suddenly popping a pill and throwing a football through a tire swing. Meanwhile, the wife watches him through the window as he turns to her and mouths the word 'bullseye'. Sex sells. Fear sells. Your supplement industry runs plenty of ads promoting this or that that'll do the same thing as Viagra but is 'all natural'. What's the difference? At least what the pharma industry sells actually works.
It wasn't like that in the fifties when my grandmother popped so much valium her feet felt like helium balloons. Where were the commercials then? 'Xanax... when you just want to chill and let it all hang out, including your privates...in public.' The industry has changed. Development costs are way, way up. Competition makes them feel they should run ads all day to promote their drug. You see ads for Levitra - it is EXACTLY the same as Viagra (in effect, the molecule is a little different). These 'me-too' drugs tend to be a waste. Merck sold $2.5 billion a year of Vioxx, and spent about $200 million a year advertising it. Do other products and companies in other industries spend so much as a percentage on advertising?

And then there's my favorite. The speed reader at the end of every commercial. You know the guy. He has the auctioneer's voice, Mr. Disclaimer, reading off all the mideval legalese, rifling off all those side effects until it turns into one long blur. You'd rather not know of side effects, that they lie and deceive you as the suppleents makers can and do? Do you like being tricked and wasting your money?

You know what's profitable? The HMOs. Talk about trying to role reverse by turning little David's health food store into Rx's Goliath. Let's get just a smidgeon of clarity here. Western medicine has never been adequately trained in basic nutrition. They prescribe women with osteosporosis calcium supplementation when that's the last thing they need. Little crappy oyster shell derivatives that neither absorb nor are ferried to the desired destination. In fact, they cause more harm by slowing the body's oxydative rate of metabolism at the cellular level making it worse and yes, harder, for the skeleton to get the calcium it so desperately needs. Yes, our physicans don't learn much about nutrition. Funny though I hear tons of ads from the supplement industry promoting calcium and phosphorous for women. Should they stop? Merck has a product called Fosamax that reverses osteoporosis. I believe it works by inhibiting the cells that break down bone structure. It has been proven to work very well. Opinions?
But the HMO gets its money all the same, if she lives or dies. Meanwhile, all she had to do was practice some preventable life medicine that comes in natural forms and behaviors. Maybe, maybe not. Most physicians are smart enough not to take the word of a company that just wants to sell a product at face value.

I've learned long ago that you are your own advocate. I don't need a laison nor an advocate for most things in life; not a real estate agent, nor a priest, not a travel agent nor a doctor. I mortar-n-pestle most of my herbs straight from a garden. The say a man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client. I'd say a man who acts as his own physician has an idiot for a patient. You could be your own best advocate by finding an expert. By taking supplements you're probably not hurting yourself - but if you run into serious problems (cancer, heart disease etc) as you get older you'd be absolutely insane to rely on unproven remedies. That's your right of course, but very inadvisable.

As for minerals, I don't overdo it or take a shotgun approach. I've been hair sampling now for over 3 years. I had heart palpitations and my copper was low. I took the copper, the heart palpitations are gone. I had issues with my equilibrium and successfullly fought it with magnesium and niacin as well as a few herbs. Works like a charm. I have much less problem with vitamins than with mystery supplements. Vitamins at least are very well understood. Of course, taking too many antioxidants will also increase your GI cancer risk.
I've tried the psychotropics. Now I advocate against them, highly. I nearly died from Remeron, Paxil and Prozac. Never again. Never ****ing again will I outsource my life to uncaring bearded Freudian wannabes. We're in agreement on this one. I've never taken the stuff but I've seen what it's done to my friends. Anyone who is less than suicidal should stay away.
Of course its the same. It has the same action. But then, why doesn't the FDA likewise nanny lattés? Both just make one hyper as the next. And somebody with a pre-existing, congenital heart condition is just as likely to exerience PVC's on caffeine as on ephedra. Before you made a distinction between the herb and the chemical.
I suppose for the same reason liquor is legal - tradition. By this logic though why is anything illegal? What is your opinion on something like marijuana - all natural, with demonstrable health benefits?

And why did the FDA ban tryptophan when you can just buy its precursor? Or just eat loads of turkey? Talk about a joke. The entire ban was the result of an isolated case. And yet, after mad cow, we still can get our happy meals. Are you seeing the inconsistencies here?
Clearly the FDA is subject to politics. It's bizarre it was banned for the reason you describe. It's almost like our government did something stupid and senseless! I'd always thought it was banned because it was a precursor of an illegal hallucinogen, DMT (dimethyltryptophan, I think).

By the way, I meant to tell you that a friend of mine who is a nutritionist told me that tryptophan is also produced in when you warm milk, so maybe check that out if you don't want to invest in an entire turkey.

Hello? It was the democrats who introduced the bill to muzzle the supplement industry. It was the democrats for the last 15 years who have been hyping nationalized healthcare ever since Rodham's nipples grew rigid with power. And the supplement industry is an obstacle to that goal, as seen by Hillary's very own statements which agree with Senator Durbin. Aren't the pharma companies also pro national health care? I don't know enough about this issue to discuss it very well, but feel free to educate me if you want. I guess I don't see the link between regulating supplements and nationized health care.
Then make your preferances known, by all means. I'm waiting. I only said I like to deal in facts. That is my preference. Taking the word of unscrupulous supplement makers who want you to buy as fact is a mistake.

It's not that I want the supplement industry shut down or it made illegal. I just want to be sure that what they say is in that bottle IS in that bottle. You should, too, because how can you properly self-medicate if you don't know the strength, purity, or even identity of what you're taking? This has been my point - not that you don't have the right to take the stuff, but that you should have the right to know exactly what you ARE taking. You can educate yourself all you want but if your supplement doesn't include what it says it does...what's the point?

There is a resource out there - www.consumerlab.com
It requires a subscription but lets you see quite a bit of information for free. You can search by vitamin, mineral or herb and it lets you know how many brands were tested and which ones were good and which were not. Many don't cut it, from the few I looked at. You might want to check it out.

later on
Bob Arctor

[BEST45CAL]

I know there are a lot of homeopathic remedy freaks who would rather go to an herbalist or slam huge amounts of supplements instead of seeing a doctor.

I'm not one of them. The next time that I get an infection, I'm going to the doctor. Apparently, you have to be an M.D. to prescribe naturally produced bacteria (antibiotics) for certain infections.

I believe that homeopathic medicine and traditional medicine should compliment each other. If one method or remedy doesn't work, I try a different one. Only because there are some drugs that have no effect on me, or they have negative side effects.

When you do go to a medical doctor and all they can do is give you some pill that can mask the symptoms, how worse off would you be if you got the same benefit from an herbal remedy or supplement? Generally, I think you would be better off with the natural stuff, mainly because of the lack of side effects.

As for prescription medicines in general, there are a lot of good ones, but there are also a lot of bad ones with terrible side effects, such as Lipitor.

As for honesty and ethics, I don't think it's ethical to knowingly sell a drug that can cause more problems than it is supposed to take care of. Those TV commercials that display their huge disclaimers in microscopic print and have some out of work actor droning on about the associated dangers of using their product, should be a red flag. Drugs like Lipitor.

Cholesterol is manufactured by the liver. Lipitor inhibits liver function. Retards it. That's how it reduces cholesterol. The problem is that you must have quarterly blood tests to ensure that your liver is still working. How scary is that?

Luckily, supplementation has come a long way since the 1990s. Andrew Lessman makes a product called CholestaCare. It's a natural alternative for cholesterol management and has no negative side effects.

I turned my dad to it because he, quite frankly, was afraid to take his Lipitor and actually stopped taking it all together. I told him that I didn't think it was a good idea to just stop taking his medicine, but he was very concerned with the negative side effects of Lipitor.

He had a heart attack last year and naturally, the doctor prescribed Lipitor, Altace, and baby asprin. He still takes the Altace and baby asprin, but he has replaced the Lipitor with CholestaCare.

This supplement (phytosterols...in a powder form) will actually reduce bad cholesterol and raise good cholesterol. So, if your cholesterol is over the limit, this product can bring it down to normal levels.

Lessman is the only one who makes this product and has been given permission by the FDA to make these claims.

Lessman also lobbies diligently to get quacks off the air. Currently, there is some guy on TV (who got his degree in the mail) who's doing an infomercial for a supplement that is supposed to reduce cortisol.

I have a feeling that Lessman will get him kicked off the air, too because that guy is doing the industry a disservice. You can best believe that if another quack slithers onto the TV screen making outrageous claims, Lessman will be working to have him kicked off the air, too.

You mentioned that preservatives (in some manufactured vitamins, minerals and supplements) are antioxidants. However, they're not needed if the product is air tight. Lessman uses medical grade capsules and proprietary manufacturing methods help to ensure this.

Let's face it, homeopathic medicine will always be the thorn in the side of some of those in the medical community. I'm sure that there are some physicians out there who think that it's terrible for people without medical degrees to educate themselves about the proper use of vitamins, minerals and supplements, even though natural remedies have a successful track record that spans hundreds of years in this country.

With regard to one type of cancer (not all cancers), it may not be wise to take antioxidants exclusively, especially where hormones, fatty acids and enzymes are known to work better. However, there is no denying that antioxidants are effective at neutralizing free radicals. The oxidative stress on the cells caused by free radical damage could make that cell a future host for cancer.

To me, the ideal physician would be one who is versed and trained in both standard and homeopathic methods of medicine.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Celebrex...Celebrex...c'mon and start your day! It makes me want to do tai chi with a bunch of people clad in matching orange-colored jackets while a black and white border collie hill-hairy-ass-ly mimics the tai chi movements with an upraised paw and cocked head. Chiat marketing is amazing. Incorporate a health and wellness message and fold it neatly into a warm Sunday evening Wide World of Disney movie! Old Yeller meets snobby New Age cultist elites. That's some way to sell dope.

It makes me wanna go pop some pills. :rolleyes:

[Wyatt_Junker]

Cholesterol is manufactured by the liver. Lipitor inhibits liver function. Retards it. That's how it reduces cholesterol. The problem is that you must have quarterly blood tests to ensure that your liver is still working. How scary is that?

Let me ask you a question Four Five.

What do you think about taking an adrenal complex and it having a similar effect on your adrenal gland? I know you're suppose to take breaks to "revive" your normal body's reaction, but is there likewise a problem with your long-term adrenal funtion, in your opinion?

The one I take, AdrenaCort, is composed of 600 mg of Vitamin C, 90 mg of magneisum, 45 mg of Zinc and 600 mg of pantothenic acid, 375 mg of adrenal bovine tissue, 210 mg of random bioflavanoids, 150 mg of Chinese licorice root and 90 mg of adrenal cortex. It really helps after workouts to get me back up to speed.

Perhaps short-term use only? Again, in your opinion.

[Bob_Arctor]

I know there are a lot of homeopathic remedy freaks who would rather go to an herbalist or slam huge amounts of supplements instead of seeing a doctor. I don't want to lump herbal supplements together with homeopathic treatments. Many herbal products may work - my complaint is that they (often) aren't subjected to controlled studies, are themselves not manufactured under good conditions, and quality control is very lacking. Maybe they work - but until they are studied and produced properly, I'll take the claims of the manufacturers with a huge grain of salt.

Homeopathy, on the other hand, is pure nonsense! The principle is crazy - that you take an herb that would have a similar effect of you as the condition you suffer from - i.e. if you have a fever, it'll be a fever-inducing herb - and then diluting it to the point none of the herb actually exists. It is a perfect placebo, but complete lies from a medical point of view. Herbal supplements may work, homeopathy cannot work.

I'm not one of them. The next time that I get an infection, I'm going to the doctor. Apparently, you have to be an M.D. to prescribe naturally produced bacteria (antibiotics) for certain infections. Good, good. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that if something is 'natural' it is automatically guaranteed to be harmless with no side effects...this may be the single largest and most dangerous belief associated with supplements. The origin of a molecule has no bearing on its safety. Many antibiotics are natural, and many of them have terrible side effects and can be very dangerous. Some of the most destructive and potent molecules known are all-natural...think of all the toxic mushrooms out there that will destroy your liver or kidneys and kill you in a few days, or botulism toxin (the most deadly substance on earth, gram-for-gram) or anthrax toxin or ricin...I could go on and on. I once worked with a substance derived from bacteria that is a cancer drug - it was incredibly dangerous, we had to take extreme precautions when handling it because it basically destroyed whatever tissue it touched...it was all-natural though. Please don't think that if something is natural it is harmless or if it is synthetic it is dangerous. It's not automatically true.

When you do go to a medical doctor and all they can do is give you some pill that can mask the symptoms, how worse off would you be if you got the same benefit from an herbal remedy or supplement? Generally, I think you would be better off with the natural stuff, mainly because of the lack of side effects. First, you have to make sure you're getting the same benefit. Just because some company tells you their herb will do X Y and Z, quietly followed by "This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease" doesn't mean it'll do what they say - because it hasn't been studied in a trial. Secondly, I always hear this vague idea that what pharma companies sell only 'masks the symptoms', versus the idea that supplements actually cure it somehow (followed of course by This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.- ironic, no?). Third, natural does not = no side effects. That is an outright lie (not on your part, but on the part of the supplement industry as a whole). Usually there are no side effects because there are no effects of any kind.

As for prescription medicines in general, there are a lot of good ones, but there are also a lot of bad ones with terrible side effects, such as Lipitor. You have to weigh the risk versus the benefits. Heart disease kills many, many thousands every year, and the risks of Lipitor, while severe for maybe a few percent of users, do not outweigh the overall benefits of its use. Wyatt Junker brought up aspirin, which kills (and helps kill) plenty of people every year - but the many benefits outweigh the drawbacks. It's a balance. Something like Viagra, that has never saved a life, would never have been approved if it had the side effects of Lipitor. Likewise, many cancer drugs are horribly toxic poisons with unbelievable side effects that are only approved because your only other alternative is death.

As for honesty and ethics, I don't think it's ethical to knowingly sell a drug that can cause more problems than it is supposed to take care of. Those TV commercials that display their huge disclaimers in microscopic print and have some out of work actor droning on about the associated dangers of using their product, should be a red flag. Drugs like Lipitor. Baffling - you'd rather they lie to you or keep it hidden? They're being honest about their product. That is a good thing.

Anyway, "can" is the important word. If you read the list of side effects, they are always compared to the placebo group. For the majority of side effects of the typical drug, those levels are maybe only a percent or two above placebo levels - headaches for 2% of placebo group and for 4% of those taking the real drug, that sort of thing. Check it out for yourself - this information is usually in a box or small chart near the bottom of the page of small print in the magazine ads. That droning voice lists every one of those side effects even if the levels are almost the same as placebo.

They are required to tell you everything about the drug so you can make an informed choice. You should in fact appreciate the fact they can't lie to you. A lot of these drugs today are pretty heavy-duty, with powerful effects as well as powerful side effects.

Cholesterol is manufactured by the liver. Lipitor inhibits liver function. Retards it. That's how it reduces cholesterol. The problem is that you must have quarterly blood tests to ensure that your liver is still working. How scary is that? I don't know - how scary is heart attack/failure etc? It's a balance of risks. A few percent of people have liver trouble with it, and the rest do not, and everyone gets their cholesterol (which leads directly to many thousands of deaths) chopped in half. Lipitor inhibits the enzymes leading to cholesterol formation - and Cholestacare works (if it works) exactly the same way according to what I read. (If I have it wrong, what is its mechanism?)

Luckily, supplementation has come a long way since the 1990s. Andrew Lessman makes a product called CholestaCare. It's a natural alternative for cholesterol management and has no negative side effects.

I turned my dad to it because he, quite frankly, was afraid to take his Lipitor and actually stopped taking it all together. I told him that I didn't think it was a good idea to just stop taking his medicine, but he was very concerned with the negative side effects of Lipitor.

He had a heart attack last year and naturally, the doctor prescribed Lipitor, Altace, and baby asprin. He still takes the Altace and baby asprin, but he has replaced the Lipitor with CholestaCare.

This supplement (phytosterols...in a powder form) will actually reduce bad cholesterol and raise good cholesterol. So, if your cholesterol is over the limit, this product can bring it down to normal levels. Has this product every been studied in a controlled trial? I looked it up but was only able to find places selling it, not much actual information about it. I don't mean reviews of one of the components, I mean a study comparing a group of people taking Cholestacare with a group taking placebo. What have the results of your dad's cholesterol tests been since he's been taking it? If they're way down, then great! If they aren't down too much, there are other drugs out there that are a bit milder and safer (Zocor for one).

Lessman is the only one who makes this product and has been given permission by the FDA to make these claims. No, this is absolutely untrue. All the information I saw on it was followed by the familiar This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The FDA would never let him make that claim without stacks of clinical trial data along with piles of info on manufacturing process and facilities.

Lessman also lobbies diligently to get quacks off the air. Currently, there is some guy on TV (who got his degree in the mail) who's doing an infomercial for a supplement that is supposed to reduce cortisol.

I have a feeling that Lessman will get him kicked off the air, too because that guy is doing the industry a disservice. You can best believe that if another quack slithers onto the TV screen making outrageous claims, Lessman will be working to have him kicked off the air, too. That's cool, I can respect this. I recognize the difference between a guy and Lessman and the stuff he sells compared to those people selling magic cure-all pills that fix everything. They are criminals in my mind, because while the buyer should beware, outright fraud is inexcusable. They're as bad as those quacks selling magnets to cure everything - I even heard a commercial once for a showerhead that would magnitize or ionize (I forget which) the water when you shower, which had magical health benefits as well. Preying on the ignorance of the consumer like that is absolutely disgusting.

You mentioned that preservatives (in some manufactured vitamins, minerals and supplements) are antioxidants. However, they're not needed if the product is air tight. Lessman uses medical grade capsules and proprietary manufacturing methods help to ensure this. Probably, though oxidation can occur through a variety of mechanisms - I hope Lessman has proved his products remain potent for the full time the expiration date on the bottle promises.

Let's face it, homeopathic medicine will always be the thorn in the side of some of those in the medical community. I'm sure that there are some physicians out there who think that it's terrible for people without medical degrees to educate themselves about the proper use of vitamins, minerals and supplements, even though natural remedies have a successful track record that spans hundreds of years in this country. I assume you refer mainly to supplements, which have some credibility, compared to true homeopathy, which is pure quackery.

It's not that physicans want to keep you in the dark - if anything, they wish their patients were better educated! It's just that physicans know the incredible complexity of our physiology and biochemistry, and know that just because you've read a few paragraphs about supplement X doesn't mean you actually know much...any more than reading a page about some legal case makes you a lawyer, or reading about the theory of spark plugs makes you a mechanic. Usually this stuff won't be a problem, but there can be.

For example, my father is about 50 and has been a heavy smoker his whole life, his diet is poor and so on. His wife (my step-mother, I suppose) is very pro- supplements and vitamins, as well as crazier stuff like reflexology and various other New-Age type therapies that are total junk. I fear, really fear, the day when he calls and says he has bad heart trouble, or lung cancer or something like that...because he's a weak man, and will let his wife bully him into going to quacks over real doctors. This thought terrifies me and makes me a little sick all at once. This industry can be dangerous because it can cause a person to avoid proper care in favor of useless self-medication.

With regard to one type of cancer (not all cancers), it may not be wise to take antioxidants exclusively, especially where hormones, fatty acids and enzymes are known to work better. However, there is no denying that antioxidants are effective at neutralizing free radicals. The oxidative stress on the cells caused by free radical damage could make that cell a future host for cancer. Oddly enough, that's exactly what the problem is suspected to be. Free radicals can cause cancer by damaging DNA. Usually, a cell that has been damaged will either undergo apoptosis (automatic self-destruct, basically), or be killed by the immune system. Too much antioxidant may interfere with the body's efforts to kill the damaged cells, since that method itself uses oxidation! There's probably a happy medium somewhere.

To me, the ideal physician would be one who is versed and trained in both standard and homeopathic methods of medicine. I'll agree with this. I really want to emphasize though that my complaint is not with the concept of taking vitamins or supplements...it is that these products are not studied, tested, manufactured or shown to work to any significant degree, and those that can be dangerous will often not be advertised as such. I would like:

1. Supplements to be tested on people in controlled trials to ensure they actually work and so their side effects can be understood. As it stands, we know some work, that some don't, and nothing at all about the rest.

2. For the supplement industry to manufacture and have quality control at a high level. When tested, many supplements have too much, too little, different, or none of what is listed on the bottle. Even if you have solid evidence that a certain supplement will help you, what good is that if it's present at only half the concentration listed on the bottle? In addition to the fact that they're ripping you off financially by shorting you.

That's it! I don't think these are bad requests or out of line at all. You should have the right to know exactly what and how much you're taking and what it will do to you, both good and bad.

[BEST45CAL]

From what I've been able to find, the adrenal glands seem to be able to return to their normal function if they are healthy. Overproduction of cortisol without the help of some type of supplement is usually the result of tumors and/or cancer. Again, moderation seems to be the key.

I'm not familiar with AdrenaCort, however, the Chinese licorice root has me a tiny bit concerned. It's possible to screw up your system with too much licorice, however, the amount listed on this product is more than safe.

I would not exceed the dosages listed on the container.

I have not been able to find anything to suggest that AdrenaCort can cause any harm. The best thing to do is run the AdrenaCort past your doctor. He may want to do tests to check your hormone levels.

Something that must be taken into consideration with a lot of these supplements, is that sometimes, just taking one particular supplement will not do the job as well by itself. Some tend to work better when blended with others.

For example, I take alpha lipoic acid, but in order to get the maximum benefit from it, it is mixed with twice as much NAC (N-Acetyl Cysteine), another very powerful antioxidant. It enhances the immune system by boosting glutathione levels.

AdrenaCort appears to be a blend that enables the body to make full use of its key ingredients.

[BEST45CAL]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Lessman is the only one who makes this product and has been given permission by the FDA to make these claims. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
No, this is absolutely untrue. All the information I saw on it was followed by the familiar This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The FDA would never let him make that claim without stacks of clinical trial data along with piles of info on manufacturing process and facilities.Ha! Nice try.

It's absolutely true. I'm looking at a bottle of the New CholestaCare right now. There is a statement printed on this product's container:

"According to the US Food and Drug Admistration, consuming at least 400mg per serving of plant sterols twice daily with meals for a daily total intake of at least 800mg, as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, may reduce the risk of heart disease."

As for the stacks of clinical trials that you seek, Lessman makes his claims based on the research of plant sterols. Lessman has just recently been given approval by the FDA to make claims of cholesterol reduction for his CholestaCare products.

If you enjoy science, you can hear him talk about it on HSN. I believe his next visit is in November? I'm not sure.

There are unscrupulous people everywhere in all industries, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of folks in the supplement industry try their best to put out high quality products.

It's not right to paint all supplement manufacturers with the same brush because I could say negative things about doctors, too.

We don't need to go there.

[Bob_Arctor]

Ha! Nice try.
It's absolutely true. I'm looking at a bottle of the New CholestaCare right now. There is a statement printed on this product's container:

"According to the US Food and Drug Admistration, consuming at least 400mg per serving of plant sterols twice daily with meals for a daily total intake of at least 800mg, as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, may reduce the risk of heart disease."
That's entirely different than saying it is 'approved' to treat the disease. For example, the FDA allows Cheerios (I think) to say on their box that the whole grains used are good for heart health (or something like that)...do you consider Cheerios an FDA approved drug? I hope not!

If you search for Cholestacare with google you'll see the ads for it invariably include the 'not approved by FDA' disclaimer.

As for the stacks of clinical trials that you seek, Lessman makes his claims based on the research of plant sterols. Lessman has just recently been given approval by the FDA to make claims of cholesterol reduction for his CholestaCare products.
Okay, so it's on the level of Cheerios. That's fine, but hardly puts it in the class of Liptor or Zocor. The levels of cholesterol reduction claimed are 10% to 14% - good, but nowhere near the 35%-45% seen with modern cholesterol drugs. Furthermore, phytosterols do nothing to raise HDL or reduce triglycerides.

I asked what changes to your dad's cholesterol levels have resulted from the switch from Lipitor - are they just as low now as they were? Frankly, do you feel comfortable with the fact they are probably only down about ten or fifteen percent now versus the thirty or forty percent they had been? The doctor wanted those levels knocked down that far for a reason - if he only wanted a ten or twenty percent reduction there are much more mild drugs out there.
If you enjoy science, you can hear him talk about it on HSN. I believe his next visit is in November? I'm not sure. I'll keep an eye out for his show.
There are unscrupulous people everywhere in all industries, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of folks in the supplement industry try their best to put out high quality products.
It's not right to paint all supplement manufacturers with the same brush because I could say negative things about doctors, too. They may try, but do they guarantee it? This is my whole point - you're skeptical of the highly regulated pharma drugs, where all the data is open for your review...yet completely trusting of the unregulated supplement makers, where everything is kept completely in the dark. You're comparing the unsubstantiated claims of their ad writers to the proven facts provided by pharma companies. This is foolish. They both want your money; one is forced to tell you the truth and guarantees the quality of the product while the supplement makers can say whatever the feel like with no proof at all. Check out www.consumerlab.com - they give some information for free about the supplements they test, and many of them do not do what they say or have the proper things in the pills.

At any rate, did you have any thoughts on:
1. Supplements to be tested on people in controlled trials to ensure they actually work and so their side effects can be understood. As it stands, we know some work, that some don't, and nothing at all about the rest.

2. For the supplement industry to manufacture and have quality control at a high level. When tested, many supplements have too much, too little, different, or none of what is listed on the bottle. Even if you have solid evidence that a certain supplement will help you, what good is that if it's present at only half the concentration listed on the bottle? In addition to the fact that they're ripping you off financially by shorting you.

My main concern isn't that the supplements are hurting you - it's that they may not be helping for the reasons I list.

[BEST45CAL]

[Bob_Arctor]That's entirely different than saying it is 'approved' to treat the disease. For example, the FDA allows Cheerios (I think) to say on their box that the whole grains used are good for heart health (or something like that)...do you consider Cheerios an FDA approved drug? I hope not!I said that Lessman makes his claims as a result of the research on plant sterols. The FDA says it's OK to say that about plant sterols. CholestaCare is plant sterols, not sterol esters.

If you search for Cholestacare with google you'll see the ads for it invariably include the 'not approved by FDA' disclaimer.
CholestaCare is Lessman's product, not Cholestacare. I'm talking about Lessman's product, not that other Cholestacare. But that's OK. Any claim by a manufacturer that's not been studied in one way or another by the FDA will have that slapped on the bottle. That doesn't mean that it can't do what it says it's not approved by the FDA to claim. If I should happen to stumble upon some plant that cures cancer the next time I go running, then decide to sell it, it'll have to have that FDA disclaimer slapped on it, too. Oh my. Our government in action. LOL

I have the CholestaCare right here. Lookin' right at it. You seem annoyed that Lessman is making these claims. You keep forgetting who's letting him make his claims. He goes on television, to millions of households in the US and makes these claims. He's been able to do so for only a few months now.

Okay, so it's on the level of Cheerios. That's fine, but hardly puts it in the class of Liptor or Zocor. The levels of cholesterol reduction claimed are 10% to 14% - good, but nowhere near the 35%-45% seen with modern cholesterol drugs. Furthermore, phytosterols do nothing to raise HDL or reduce triglycerides.Now you're getting silly because HDL and high total cholesterol are the numbers that are really imporant with regard to coronary heart disease.

That's what my dad had. There are a few objective doctors out there who want their patients to take phytosterols.

CholestaCare is a food. It won't shut down your liver and there are no side effects, either. You say that the website claims that CholestaCare can reduce levels 10% to 14%. I didn't see that at all on Lessman's HSN site. I have to believe that's on the low end of the spectrum. If what you say is true, then those numbers are put there for the purpose of "under promise, over deliver." Customers who have been taking this product claim to have reduced their levels by higher percentages and their doctors tell them that they no longer need Lipitor. They either no longer need the Lipitor, or they don't have to take as much Lipitor. Sounds like great news to me.

I asked what changes to your dad's cholesterol levels have resulted from the switch from Lipitor - are they just as low now as they were? Frankly, do you feel comfortable with the fact they are probably only down about ten or fifteen percent now versus the thirty or forty percent they had been? The doctor wanted those levels knocked down that far for a reason - if he only wanted a ten or twenty percent reduction there are much more mild drugs out there.I just got off the phone with my father. His doctor is not providing him with any information with regard to his total cholesterol, HDL or LDL. Just those lab request sheets (whatever they're called) and big ass bills (thank God for Tri-Care). So I can't tell you what his numbers were before or during the Lipitor. The doctor isn't giving him that info. He was taking one 40mg tab/day before he stopped on his own about a month and a half ago. But before he stopped taking Lipitor on his own, the doctor made him quit taking it back in March of this year (2004). Hmmm...I wonder why? Dad had been taking Lipitor since August, 2003.

I asked him to get on the telephone and demand that he be given his test results. He is scheduled for his next visit in about one month. If this doctor doesn't cooperate, I'll have to go down there. They hate it when I show up.

They may try, but do they guarantee it? This is my whole point - you're skeptical of the highly regulated pharma drugs, where all the data is open for your review...yet completely trusting of the unregulated supplement makers, where everything is kept completely in the dark. You're comparing the unsubstantiated claims of their ad writers to the proven facts provided by pharma companies. This is foolish. They both want your money; one is forced to tell you the truth and guarantees the quality of the product while the supplement makers can say whatever the feel like with no proof at all. Check out www.consumerlab.com (http://www.consumerlab.com/) - they give some information for free about the supplements they test, and many of them do not do what they say or have the proper things in the pills.I'm not skeptical of drugs at all. If Lipitor shuts down the liver, it shuts down the liver. That's a fact. I have used drugs that work just fine. I'm not skeptical at all. I have no problem using prescription drugs. I have a problem with them if they don't work or have negative side effects.

As for the supplements, I only buy from reputable sources. For the last few years, we've been buying and using Lessman's products because they have no fillers and some of them are packaged in foil packets. They are all in powder or liquid form.

At any rate, did you have any thoughts on:
1. Supplements to be tested on people in controlled trials to ensure they actually work and so their side effects can be understood. As it stands, we know some work, that some don't, and nothing at all about the rest.
I believe they already do that. How else would they know if they work or not? I'd like to know about those supplements that haven't been tested. You assume that all labs that produce supplements don't do that. But If you want to get all of Lessman's customers together so you can poke and prod them, be my guest. Some supplements are effective, some are not. And since you say they're just foods and don't do anything for me, why do you care how I spend my money?

2. For the supplement industry to manufacture and have quality control at a high level. When tested, many supplements have too much, too little, different, or none of what is listed on the bottle. Even if you have solid evidence that a certain supplement will help you, what good is that if it's present at only half the concentration listed on the bottle? In addition to the fact that they're ripping you off financially by shorting you.Your assertion that I am somehow being shorted is silly. All one would have to do to bring down Lessman is to test his products and find that they aren't as advertised. I'm sure that he'd lose at least one customer.

But, I can say the same things about prescription drugs. Which brings the whole arena of generics to mind. Why are people so afraid of generics? Are they the same as name-brands? Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. You can never know what you're really getting, can you?


My main concern isn't that the supplements are hurting you - it's that they may not be helping for the reasons I list.
I know if they work or not. I get a physical once a year. Pilots have to do that, you know. Some not as often. Others, much more frequently. My cholesterol is 142...even after eating a slice of pepperoni pizza. LOL

So, you'd rather I spend my money on drugs just because they're drugs? That their side effects are there just to let me know they're working? Again, if it works, I'll use it. If it doesn't, I'll use an alternative. It doesn't matter to me. I think a lot of people are like this. Morphine has no effect on me. Who knew that was gonna happen? You don't, until you are given morphine. If the drug works, I'll use it. If it doesn't, I'll use something else. It might not necessarily be a supplement, but it will definitely be something different.

[Bob_Arctor]

I said that Lessman makes his claims as a result of the research on plant sterols. The FDA says it's OK to say that about plant sterols. CholestaCare is plant sterols, not sterol esters. The ads for CholestaCare aren't using the full name, but they are indeed sterol esters, not just 'sterols'. Please, please read this link - it is the FDA sheet describing exactly what it means that plant sterols are good for you.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS01033.html

By the way, that fact sheet is four years old, so this is not new news - perhaps Lessman just started making it more recently?

CholestaCare is Lessman's product, not Cholestacare. I'm talking about Lessman's product, not that other Cholestacare. So am I. I was just lazy about capitalizing the second 'c'.

But that's OK. Any claim by a manufacturer that's not been studied in one way or another by the FDA will have that slapped on the bottle. That doesn't mean that it can't do what it says it's not approved by the FDA to claim. If I should happen to stumble upon some plant that cures cancer the next time I go running, then decide to sell it, it'll have to have that FDA disclaimer slapped on it, too. Oh my. Our government in action. LOL Will the FDA only have your word to go on, or would you actually bother to prove that what you're selling works? Again, you're trusting the word of ad writers who want you to buy their product. Anecdotal reports are worthless. If some guy claims he has the cancer cure and he'll sell it to you for $29.99, and the medical community knows nothing of it...who will you believe? Are you going to stop seeing the oncologist and just take the salesman's word for it? Of course not (I hope!).

I was at the grocery store today, and I looked through the products on the vitamin aisle. There were things there promising to cure baldness - think they work? They say they do, yet there sure are a lot of bald guys out there who'd pay anything to have hair again. There were other products for men's troubles in the bedroom - if that junk worked, why does Viagra make billions?

They're just ads. Remember, caveat emptor.

I have the CholestaCare right here. Lookin' right at it. You seem annoyed that Lessman is making these claims. You keep forgetting who's letting him make his claims. He goes on television, to millions of households in the US and makes these claims. He's been able to do so for only a few months now. I'm only getting annoyed because I don't think you're actually reading what I've written. You don't seem to understand the precise nature of his claim.

Remember what I said about Cheerios? CholestaCare operates under the same guidelines. The FDA is allowing him to say taking plant sterols may help reduce cholsterol some. Contrast this to Lipitor, which will reduce cholesterol a lot. Cheerios may reduce cholesterol as well - is it a proper replacement for cholesterol medication? Read that link I gave you to find out exactly what the sterols do. Educate yourself with the facts, don't just parrot the words of the supplement ad writers.

Now you're getting silly because HDL and high total cholesterol are the numbers that are really imporant with regard to coronary heart disease. No. You want low LDL - high levels of LDL are very bad. You also want higher levels of HDL, which are better for you. You should have a high ratio of HDL to LDL, but of course a lower overall number.

By the way, there are drugs in trials now that will specifically raise HDL.

CholestaCare is a food. It won't shut down your liver and there are no side effects, either. You say that the website claims that CholestaCare can reduce levels 10% to 14%. I didn't see that at all on Lessman's HSN site. There may be side effects - you don't know. Plant sterols interact with the biochemistry of the liver just like anything else. They are a competitive inhibitor of an enzyme system.

I looked at the plant sterol studies, which said the amount of reduction was between 10 and 14%. That's good, but not even close to the 33% to 45% provided by Zocor, Lipitor, or Crestor. You see, because it's not a drug, Lessman can't provide any figures for cholesterol reduction.

Speaking of HSN, look again at the HSN CholestaCare page, toward the bottom...you'll see the FDA disclaimer. It's in plain sight, so I don't understand how you've been able to miss it.

Right now, CholestaCare is only as good a replacement for cholesterol medication as Cheerios is. Is that going to be good enough?

I have to believe that's on the low end of the spectrum. If what you say is true, then those numbers are put there for the purpose of "under promise, over deliver." You believe that based on what? Wishful thinking? Why don't you look at the facts the studies have found? I'm not lying to you - if I were, I'd just say they only reduced it 1% or something :D.

Customers who have been taking this product claim to have reduced their levels by higher percentages and their doctors tell them that they no longer need Lipitor. They either no longer need the Lipitor, or they don't have to take as much Lipitor. Sounds like great news to me. Hmm. I'll take the studies over some anonymous anecdotes. You should too. There are all sorts of 'miracle' products for sale that are supported by anecdotes and nothing more. You're not some naive believer in the perfect honesty of your fellow man, are you?

I just got off the phone with my father. His doctor is not providing him with any information with regard to his total cholesterol, HDL or LDL. Just those lab request sheets (whatever they're called) and big ass bills (thank God for Tri-Care). So I can't tell you what his numbers were before or during the Lipitor. The doctor isn't giving him that info. If you're able to get hold of the figures let me know, I'm curious. Let's say your dad's cholesterol was at 200. Lipitor would bring that down to maybe 130 (on the average). CholestaCare would only reduce it to about 176 (using an average of the 10 to 14% reduction the studies have shown plant sterols to provide). That's good, and is better than nothing, but if these numbers are close to accurate it should be clear that CholstaCare is not a good substitute. If a younger person had overall levels of say 150, then Cholestacare would reduce it to maybe 132, which would be worthwhile.

He was taking one 40mg tab/day before he stopped on his own about a month and a half ago. But before he stopped taking Lipitor on his own, the doctor made him quit taking it back in March of this year (2004). Hmmm...I wonder why? Dad had been taking Lipitor since August, 2003. I'm confused by this. You dad stopped taking it around the start of September, but the doctor made him stop in March?

I asked him to get on the telephone and demand that he be given his test results. He is scheduled for his next visit in about one month. If this doctor doesn't cooperate, I'll have to go down there. They hate it when I show up. Good man! See what the levels are now, and contrast them with what they were in the Lipitor days. If they are as low or nearly as low, then great! If they're back up a bit, see what the doctor says to do...the doctor does know your dad is using CholestaCare and nothing else, right?

I'm not skeptical of drugs at all. If Lipitor shuts down the liver, it shuts down the liver. That's a fact. I have used drugs that work just fine. I'm not skeptical at all. I have no problem using prescription drugs. I have a problem with them if they don't work or have negative side effects. There aren't many drugs (I can't even think of one, but I'm not a pharmacist!) that don't have at least some side effects. That's the nature of our very complex biochemistry.

Hey, speaking of side effects, have you heard the weird news about Vioxx and other Cox-2 inhibitors in relation to cancer? It seems that the Cox-2 pathway, when activated, helps cancers 'hide' from the immune system. Vioxx inhibits the pathway, helping make the cancers 'visible' to the immune system. It'd be strange if it began being used for cancer despite the problems with its use for pain!

As for the supplements, I only buy from reputable sources. For the last few years, we've been buying and using Lessman's products because they have no fillers and some of them are packaged in foil packets. They are all in powder or liquid form. This is what you don't seem to get - how do you know what a reputable source is? Do you do your own analysis of the supplements, or have them independently tested? No? Then that means you're taking the word of someone who wants your money at face value. If we were talking about used cars here and our positions were reversed you'd call me an idiot. You'd say that obviously you need a mechanic to check the car first, so you aren't ripped off...and that's only dealing with money, not your and your dad's lives, which are priceless!

I believe they already do that. How else would they know if they work or not? You 'believe' they do? Forgive me if that's not convincing. Maybe you should check out www.consumerlab.com (http://www.consumerlab.com) which does independent tests - then you can be sure. It's just like having a mechanic look at that car you want to buy. You can look at some of the results for free, but full access is $25 or something like that...doesn't seem like a bad deal (just think, you'd pay a mechanic three times that to make sure the car you're buying is in the shape the seller claims it to be).

I'd like to know about those supplements that haven't been tested. You assume that all labs that produce supplements don't do that. Again, look at consumerlab.com. Some products were what they claimed, some were not. If you're spending the cash, shouldn't you at least be sure you're getting what you pay for?

Some supplements are effective, some are not. And since you say they're just foods and don't do anything for me, why do you care how I spend my money? For a couple reasons. One, I hate to see people get ripped off, no matter how it's done. Two, you believe the ads that say your supplements will do this and that, but you don't actually know. This means that you may be endangering yourself because you're not helping yourself as much as prescription drugs could. That's all. It's a free country, but you just don't seem to be aware that things may not be what they seem in relatio