Shame on Orrin Hatch - The Patron Saint of Quack Medicine

[old_gregg]

snowcat got that fat downline.

[snowcat]

snowcat got that fat downline.

Can I interest you in a great business opportunity.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Show effectiveness for what? If they are showing and claiming effectiveness at treating, preventing or curing any disease, they are considered drugs and are then regulated accordingly.

I am amazed that you are so vehemently attacking a law you clearly do not understand.

Your very own website claimed that products under the umbrella of the DSHEA do not have to prove effectiveness prior to marketing. Any rational person would look at the DSHEA and conclude that they carve out an exception for a broad niche of products.

And the issue you describe is easily circumvented by a little creative wording on the label. Go walk into any GNC or supplement store and tell them you are suffering from depression. In every single case you will be taken over the St. Johns Wort aisle ("Promotes positive mood balance"). Tell them that you starting to experience Alzheimer's and they will take you over to the ginko biloba rack ("May support mental sharpness").

http://www.gnc.com/GNC-Herbal-Plus-Standardized-St-Johns-Wort/product.jsp?productId=2133911

http://www.gnc.com/GNC-Herbal-Plus-Ginkgo-Biloba-120-MG/product.jsp?productId=19431356

[Topper]

Then criticize its implementation and criticize the slime of the industry, not the law.

I believe the same standard that applies to drugs should apply to supplements. They should be forced to prove they are both SAFE and EFFECTIVE. Absent that, you are selling meaningless stuff that deceives people.

The reason it is not enforced is because the law had ulterior motives thanks to Senor Hatch.

[ERCougar]

Your very own website claimed that products under the umbrella of the DSHEA do not have to prove effectiveness prior to marketing. Any rational person would look at the DSHEA and conclude that they carve out an exception for a broad niche of products.

And the issue you describe is easily circumvented by a little creative wording on the label. Go walk into any GNC or supplement store and tell them you are suffering from depression. In every single case you will be taken over the St. Johns Wort aisle ("Promotes positive mood balance"). Tell them that you starting to experience Alzheimer's and they will take you over to the ginko biloba rack ("May support mental sharpness").

http://www.gnc.com/GNC-Herbal-Plus-Standardized-St-Johns-Wort/product.jsp?productId=2133911

http://www.gnc.com/GNC-Herbal-Plus-G...uctId=19431356

This is an odd position for me to be even sort of defending these losers, but I guess I'm just that contrarian...
Do you really have a problem with those kinds of claims? At some point, I think the consumer has to be responsible to use their brain and ask "WTF does this claim mean?" To claim that a drug treats depression is one thing (and unacceptable); to say it promotes mental well-being--a completely nebulous and unmeasurable outcome--is another. If you have a problem with the latter, where do you draw the line? Nutrition and dietary studies are VERY difficult to carry out, but that doesn't mean there aren't benefits to improving your diet or taking certain supplements. I guess I'm OK with a gray zone in there.

I believe the same standard that applies to drugs should apply to supplements. They should be forced to prove they are both SAFE and EFFECTIVE. Absent that, you are selling meaningless stuff that deceives people.

So I know you're a triathlete and have probably spent some time in a GNC store (or even running stores). What are these products supposed to say, if they can't say anything about why you would want to take it? I think the vast majority of the stuff in GNC is complete crap, but if you're going to spend money on something, you should be smart enough to demand studies that prove it's effectiveness.
Safe? Yes--they should have to demonstrate that, or at least be liable for any bad outcomes (just like every other product on the market). Effective? That's extremely tough to prove, and that's a standard we don't make anyone else (except medications) meet. If they're claiming medical treatment, then yes, require it. If they're claiming to improve performance, well...meh. Caveat emptor.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is an odd position for me to be even sort of defending these losers, but I guess I'm just that contrarian...
Do you really have a problem with those kinds of claims? At some point, I think the consumer has to be responsible to use their brain and ask "WTF does this claim mean?" To claim that a drug treats depression is one thing (and unacceptable); to say it promotes mental well-being--a completely nebulous and unmeasurable outcome--is another. If you have a problem with the latter, where do you draw the line? Nutrition and dietary studies are VERY difficult to carry out, but that doesn't mean there aren't benefits to improving your diet or taking certain supplements. I guess I'm OK with a gray zone in there.

So I know you're a triathlete and have probably spent some time in a GNC store (or even running stores). What are these products supposed to say, if they can't say anything about why you would want to take it? I think the vast majority of the stuff in GNC is complete crap, but if you're going to spend money on something, you should be smart enough to demand studies that prove it's effectiveness.
Safe? Yes--they should have to demonstrate that, or at least be liable for any bad outcomes (just like every other product on the market). Effective? That's extremely tough to prove, and that's a standard we don't make anyone else (except medications) meet. If they're claiming medical treatment, then yes, require it. If they're claiming to improve performance, well...meh. Caveat emptor.

I appreciate that viewpoint. One could argue "The placebo effect is powerful - what is the harm in letting people pay for a placebo effect?" I have two problems with that: 1) It just seems incredibly slimy to peddle cures/prevention/whatever when the majority of the stuff is no better than a placebo. And 2) I have seen many cases (including cancer deaths) where friends and family turned to this stuff to treat serious illness/disease when they would have had much better outcome with conventional medicine.

Yes, caveat emptor. People should be smart enough to do research, especially with the internet. Sadly, it doesn't seem to happen enough. And there is so much garbage out there that most folks end up finding something to confirm their biases. There are a zillion alternative medicine websites on the internet.

[snowcat]

This is an odd position for me to be even sort of defending these losers, but I guess I'm just that contrarian...
Do you really have a problem with those kinds of claims? At some point, I think the consumer has to be responsible to use their brain and ask "WTF does this claim mean?" To claim that a drug treats depression is one thing (and unacceptable); to say it promotes mental well-being--a completely nebulous and unmeasurable outcome--is another. If you have a problem with the latter, where do you draw the line? Nutrition and dietary studies are VERY difficult to carry out, but that doesn't mean there aren't benefits to improving your diet or taking certain supplements. I guess I'm OK with a gray zone in there.


So I know you're a triathlete and have probably spent some time in a GNC store (or even running stores). What are these products supposed to say, if they can't say anything about why you would want to take it? I think the vast majority of the stuff in GNC is complete crap, but if you're going to spend money on something, you should be smart enough to demand studies that prove it's effectiveness.
Safe? Yes--they should have to demonstrate that, or at least be liable for any bad outcomes (just like every other product on the market). Effective? That's extremely tough to prove, and that's a standard we don't make anyone else (except medications) meet. If they're claiming medical treatment, then yes, require it. If they're claiming to improve performance, well...meh. Caveat emptor.

I agree completely. How are you supposed to do a double-blind study on vitamin C? Do you ensure that the participants have no vitamin C in their diet other than what is supplemented? That would not be very smart or ethical but without it you really do not have a double-blind study.

I do not take any supplements. I believe in good diet to get good nutrition . I do not make or sell supplements (though I do have supplement companies as clients). I do not have a down-line (sorry Gregg). There just has been so much misinformation spread about supplements and the law. Many supplement companies have not done themselves any favors by taking advantage of the lax implementation and enforcement of the law. I think the law is adequate. Implementation/enforcement is improving. Anyone taking a supplement to treat anything instead of seeking and following competent medical advice is stupid and is gambling with their own life.

[USUC]

What about taking flaxseed pills instead for the omega 3s? No fish oil aftertaste.

With my recent diagnosis of arthritis, I've bought some fish oil. It is nasty and I've pretty much given up on it. The burps were horrible.

Instead, I'm sprinkling ground flax seed on a lot of the things I eat. It reminds me of wheat germ were it adds a bit of a nutty taste. If you need DHA, I don't think this works. It has lots of ALA and it gets converted into EPA, but not DHA. (http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/n...fish-oil-pills)

Also, snake oil really is an effective product.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-snake-oil.htm

That being said, the fish oils are just as effective and cheaper.

I haven't tried the snake oil, so I don't know if it is as gross as fish oil.

Cost is definitely a factor in taking the fish oil over flax seed. I'm supposed to be taking fish oil for high triglycerides so I'll have to do research about ALA/DHA. High carb intake and lack of exercise is another thing I'm trying to remedy now to help.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I agree completely. How are you supposed to do a double-blind study on vitamin C? Do you ensure that the participants have no vitamin C in their diet other than what is supplemented? That would not be very smart or ethical but without it you really do not have a double-blind study.

Huh? There are lots of controlled studies on megavitamins, including vitamin C. Just google it. A few examples.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6234505

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/374692

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10197889

[snowcat]

Huh? There are lots of controlled studies on megavitamins, including vitamin C. Just google it. A few examples.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6234505

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/374692

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10197889

They are not withholding the nutrients from the diet only giving supplemental quantities or not. Thus the difficulty in doing good nutritional studies. How much is the normal diet of each of the participants skewing the data.

[TripletDaddy]

I appreciate that viewpoint. One could argue "The placebo effect is powerful - what is the harm in letting people pay for a placebo effect?" I have two problems with that: 1) It just seems incredibly slimy to peddle cures/prevention/whatever when the majority of the stuff is no better than a placebo. And 2) I have seen many cases (including cancer deaths) where friends and family turned to this stuff to treat serious illness/disease when they would have had much better outcome with conventional medicine.

Yes, caveat emptor. People should be smart enough to do research, especially with the internet. Sadly, it doesn't seem to happen enough. And there is so much garbage out there that most folks end up finding something to confirm their biases. There are a zillion alternative medicine websites on the internet.

My in laws still take airborne. they love that stuff.

[ERCougar]

They are not withholding the nutrients from the diet only giving supplemental quantities or not. Thus the difficulty in doing good nutritional studies. How much is the normal diet of each of the participants skewing the data.

That's why you blind it and randomize it--you assume those variables will equal out. And then you repeat it. Lots of times.

On a related note, I'm still skeptical that SSRI's are any better than placebo:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....ticleid=185157

Why are they used? A couple of reasons. 1) It's much easier to write a prescription when someone says they're depressed then to dig into the real problems. 2) Publication bias. Negative studies (like this JAMA one) are far less likely to be published, giving an illusion of effectiveness. The FDA runs into this problem because a drug company will only provide them with studies performed that show effectiveness.

By the way, I don't deny that there are cases where antidepressants are necessary and effective. I honestly don't know enough about it to say, but I do think they're overused and are more of a placebo for many people. Anyone taking an SSRI should also be doing counselling, IMO.

[wuapinmon]

My doctor pushes it too. The book mentioned in the OP actually speaks positively of fish oil as being something with some actual science/data to back it up. He said it is not difficult to get enough in your diet, but if you aren't eating fish and certain veggies, it might help to take it as a supplement.

My wife is somewhat under the spell of my SIL dietician who thinks that all health ills can be cured with a vegan diet and vitamins. She had me start taking fish oil because it was supposed to help migraines (I'm a long-term sufferer) and my heart health. I was advised to take two per day. After 2-3 months, I got angular cheilitis in the corners of my mouth, and they wouldn't heal. After a couple of months of not daring to yawn or eat po-boys, I got to reading about the ailment and discovered that it was associated with hypervitaminosis A, commonly caused by fish oil. I stopped all together taking the pills, and the corners of my mouth healed within a week. Now, I take one pill every 3 days or so. They only thing that seems to work on migraines is Excedrin migraine if I catch it the moment I feel an aura or tingling, Frova (same thing, but it's like $10 a pill), Vicodin (if I need to be able to work and function), and Tylenol 3 if I want to try and sleep it off.

If there were some herb or eggshell or snail shit I could take to get rid of a migraine, I'd do it. But, everything I've ever tried is akin to giving someone a head of iceberg lettuce and some mayo packets and telling them that that "salad" is a "meal" and it will fill them up long term.

Also, when I had gout, I wanted to scream vile things at people who told me to take cherry or cranberry supplements as a sure-fire way of stopping it. NO! The only thing that works for gout is:

1. Colchecine
2. Indomethacin (but that medicine sucks for side effects)
3. Percocet (it hurts that bad)
4. WATER
5. Time
6. Elevating the suffering member
7. Allorpurinol once the acute attack is over.
8. Not eating cauliflower, yeasty bread, oysters, or organs.

Anything else is bullshit. I tried them all....nothing works except what I wrote above.

[ERCougar]

My wife is somewhat under the spell of my SIL dietician who thinks that all health ills can be cured with a vegan diet and vitamins. She had me start taking fish oil because it was supposed to help migraines (I'm a long-term sufferer) and my heart health. I was advised to take two per day. After 2-3 months, I got angular cheilitis in the corners of my mouth, and they wouldn't heal. After a couple of months of not daring to yawn or eat po-boys, I got to reading about the ailment and discovered that it was associated with hypervitaminosis A, commonly caused by fish oil. I stopped all together taking the pills, and the corners of my mouth healed within a week. Now, I take one pill every 3 days or so. They only thing that seems to work on migraines is Excedrin migraine if I catch it the moment I feel an aura or tingling, Frova (same thing, but it's like $10 a pill), Vicodin (if I need to be able to work and function), and Tylenol 3 if I want to try and sleep it off.

If there were some herb or eggshell or snail shit I could take to get rid of a migraine, I'd do it. But, everything I've ever tried is akin to giving someone a head of iceberg lettuce and some mayo packets and telling them that that "salad" is a "meal" and it will fill them up long term.

Also, when I had gout, I wanted to scream vile things at people who told me to take cherry or cranberry supplements as a sure-fire way of stopping it. NO! The only thing that works for gout is:

1. Colchecine
2. Indomethacin (but that medicine sucks for side effects)
3. Percocet (it hurts that bad)
4. WATER
5. Time
6. Elevating the suffering member
7. Allorpurinol once the acute attack is over.
8. Not eating cauliflower, yeasty bread, oysters, or organs.

Anything else is bullshit. I tried them all....nothing works except what I wrote above.

I think I remember you mentioning that you've taken Phenergan with codeine or Tussionex for cough? Guess what--placebo effect. And a little buzz from the narcotic...but no improvement in cough. I still write it for patients with influenza because they're miserable, they could use the buzz, and they could use the sleep, but not because it will help their cough (at least any more than honey).

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's why you blind it and randomize it--you assume those variables will equal out. And then you repeat it. Lots of times.

Yep. My son was explaining to me how you can't look at a double-blind trial in isolation. The best thing to do is sit and wait until a large number of studies are done and then do a comprehensive analysis. There is a name for this, but I forgot what it is.