Can we trust the FDA?

[Mazen]

http://v.mercola.com/blogs/public_blog/The-FDA-Has-Blood-on-its-Hands-18252.aspx

Sometimes I wonder if the FDA or other organizations are controlled by the pharma industry and don't allow real cures to appear, or to investigate alternative medicine further? Instead they promote life long medication to gain as much money as possible from the sick...

I mean, here on the forum we have lot's of experiences with alternative stuff that works for some (Colostrum , Bee Propolis, Probiotics....). So why don't the government, FDA, or the CCFA do studies on these and try to find optimal doses to help us with Crohn's for example instead of taking all these meds that have a long list of side effects???????????

I guess the answer is GREED!!!:ymad:

 

[D Bergy]

If you research deeply into the AMA and the FDA you will find that the agenda is largely political and business driven. You would think health would be the main concern but it does not seem to be the case.

As I mentioned before, the last major cure was the Polio vaccine. Whether it even was a cure is still debated. Our technology has advanced a thousandfold since then and yet cures are extremely rare. Difficult to explain why.

I have given up on waiting for any cure for anything coming from the organizations that should be doing the research. The research that is done is usually quite good, but it seems that no one goes the extra step by making what is found usable to people.

For instance, the study about Listeria possibly causing or contributing to Crohn's is potentially very useful. Now it took me about five minutes to find out that the probiotic Primal Defense has the bacteria to kill Listeria. A study of actual Crohn's patients could be done on the spot with virtually no risk. But that never seems to occur. Now either I am just an idiot and am missing something, or there is another reason it is not done.

The reason I and many others believe that is not done is rather simple. You cannot patent a natural bacteria, therefore you are not going to make any big Pharma type money off of it. So who is going to fund the research? The FDA? Well, who pays for a majority of the FDA's studies right now? The Pharma industry. Well, do you think they are interested in finding an effective, low profit, probiotic to replace treatments that can cost hundreds and thousands a month? They actually would not be acting in their shareholders best interest, if they did this. I can conceive a shareholders lawsuit in just this scenario.

I am not saying Primal Defense is the cure for diddly. But, until anyone can come up with a more logical explanation of why the next practical step is not taken after a study like this I am forced to believe it is not for a good reason.

On the other hand, no one is stopping us from taking the next logical step. So that is what I plan on doing where possible.

If Primal Defense would turn out to be an excellent treatment the FDA would stop them from making any claims about effectiveness because it is not tested as a drug would be. Again, maybe I am an idiot but does it seem sensible that a product we can buy today anywhere without restriction, somehow cannot make health claims because it is not tested as a drug? It is not tested as a drug because it is not a drug to begin with. The Cherry growers ran into this very issue when they advertised scientifically proven health benefits of Cherries.
There is no issue whether the benefits are real. It is that by making that claim, it is now classified as a drug and subject to the rules that govern drugs.
No issue in whether safe or effective. Cherry related overdose deaths I suspect are quite rare.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/mar2006_awsi_01.htm

I cannot come to any other conclusion other than it is a rigged game.
Only my opinion, but it is based on what we all can see for ourselves.

Rant over

D Bergy

 

[Kev]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I understand the sheer basic need for some level of government control to kick in to stop someone from claiming the 'medicinal' benefits of this product or the other. It stemmed (no cherry pun intended) from the patent medicine salesmen... from a time when they could make 'outrageuos' claims about the health benefits of the snake oil (or whatever). Seems the pendulum has swung too far the other way. I watched a US news program do an investigative report on the modern day equivalent... info-mercials. They came up with a 'totally' bogus, albeit 'harmless' product, and approached any number of 'info-mercial' prodcution companies to develop a market campaign for it.
Some of these offered a 'total' solution.. including 'expert, medical, testimonials' & 'long time consumers who provided "word of mouth" opinions on these products'. All of which was bogus.. the doctor in question never tried/distributed the item, she just looked at the ingredients, and for a fee, appeared on the info-merical. The homegrown consumers? Actors, trying to break into show business, who were paid to praise the product they'd never tried, never seen before. And the result? A very convincing info-mercial, that IF it had aired, would have had people buying, and using it, in droves. Of course, the news team never aired it, but they did trod it out in malls, stores, etc., to see if the general public realized it was 'bogus'. The general public didn't. Fortunately, this particular product was totally safe.. and it never was marketed. so, how about some south african Colgate toothpaste? you see my point? A simple rule.. like, if you claim a product has 'medicinal' benefits, it is treated like 'medicine'... Yes, it is flawed. Yes, it allows oversights for products that do offer medicinal benefits that shouldn't be treated like medicines, and YES, no drug manufacturer is going to step in to help (regardless of how many people suffer - they aren't in the business to alleviate suffering, there into making money)

But whatcha going to do?

 

[D Bergy]

I agree that in the scenario you gave that they should be shut down immediatly. That was the original purpose of the FDA. To prevent completely false claims not backed up by any research or bad research. Also to keep potentially harmful products off the market.

I have no problem with that except it creates a huge obstacle to perform studies that cost millions for a potentially beneficial product that simply does not have the ability to recoup the cost of the studies. For instance, it is commonly known that oranges, lemons, limes all prevent scurvy. But lets say that that was just discovered today. the fruit industry would be prohibited from making that claim until it invested millions in research to prove the safety and effectiveness before that claim can be made. The research would not be done by them for purely economic reasons. Unless the FDA does the study it will never get done. And since the FDA has this incestious relationship with the drug industry they likely will not do it either. How about private research? Well many of them rely on pharmaceuticle companies for research money as well.

So in the end, Scurvey will ravage thousands of people long after it has to simply because oranges are not profitable enough to be a cure.

In this case all that we really need to know as consumers is if oranges help Scurvey. That hurdle should be easy enough to demonstrate. We do not need to test for safety or side effects or method of action. it only matters if it works. This is a reasonable test for food products or other known safe substances that we use routinely.

In the case of the Cherry growers, they already had the scientific evidence to back up their claims. The question was not if it the claims were true, but even though true, now Cherries have to be considered a drug and tested as if it was an untested, potentially harmful substance. I think any reasonable person already knows the answer since millions of consumers eat them every day. And since they are eaten everyday the FDA has already determined they are safe by the fact they are in virtually every supermarket in the world.

I can not think of one good reason why the Cherry growers should not be able to make factual health claims proven by sound science for a product that is already eaten everyday for thousands of years. The only possibility I can come up with is because it is in someones best interest to prevent the facts from coming out.

It is also interesting that while this Cherry fiasco was going on Vioxx was being pulled of the market for serious side effects. Both Cherries and Vioxx are antiinflammatories and both effective. So while Vioxx had the blessings of the FDA it went to market. Cherries producers which have a product that can do the same thing with no safety concerns were prohibited from making health claims.

I cannot think of a more absurd scenario.

D Bergy

 

[Cara Fusinato]

"Sometimes I wonder if the FDA or other organizations are controlled by the pharma industry and don't allow real cures to appear, or to investigate alternative medicine further? Instead they promote life long medication to gain as much money as possible from the sick..."

Yes, it is true. It is increasingly clear that FDA is in over their collective head -- things showing up in everything from toothpaste, spinach, and dog food, to drugs that are quickly approved and cause major harm. They are supposed to protect us, but are unable to police everywhere. However, the pharmaceutical industry IS a huge lobby group with politic, media, and FDA influence. But when something like Xango shows up that can and does improve help, the FDA threatens to shut them down for indicating that their product is can help certain conditions. I know, I know, just as strong a case can be made for the FDA to protect us from snake oil, but they don't. How many stupid products are on TV that do nothing? But something that DOES do something holistically is persecuted.

Why give Crohn's patients the same things that are give to leukemia patients killing off the immune system? Why not research how to modulate the immune system and repair it? Why not find ways to use stem cells to rebuild? Or other forms of gene therapy? The almighty buck! Drugs are expensive and the insurance industry is paying and people are losing their lives and their savings trying to keep up.

I, for one, have bucked all the meds for Crohn's and have been extremely stable for a year. I am now even able to eat fruits and veges and fiber. I take precisely one med for jumping legs (which were actually caused by a pulled anxiety pill about 7 years ago). I am working to find a natural approach to quiting it because Requip is actually a Parkinson's drug and makes you very drowsy. Not good.

And then, we have a great holistic doctor in our town who has 40 years experience and our insurance company doesn't cover him. It's just crazy and wrong.

 

[Chester]

It seems so

Yes, this is a miserable situation. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but the evidence does seem to be piling up. I've had Crohn's for over 30 years, but it's been quiet for the past 15 or so, thanks to Asacol and Azathioprine, I think. But I'm having a flare now, which my doc confirmed with a colonoscopy. He wrote a scrip for Humira, which I took to the drugstore. The pharmacist said the heavy doses in first month alone would cost $5,000, and $1,250 each month after that. I have insurance, but there's a lifetime benefits cap, and I can't use up all my insurance on just this. I realize that drug companies must recoup their costs of development, but this is nuts. The cost of Humira makes it impossible for me to have it. So I'm trying the probiotics plan. If that works, and I see reason for optimism in this forum, the drug company will make nothing off me, whereas if the drug were priced reasonably, I would try it and they would at least make something. Sometimes, it seems, Big Pharma is its own worst enemy.

Chet

 

[D Bergy]

I do not think it is a conspiracy, it is just the result of maximizing profits. That is what businesses do very well. As a business person it all seems quite logical to me. You have to admit that they have been very good at accomplishing their mission. The end result has some very serious consequences, or "side effects" is a term we are all familiar with.

I think what is particularly dishonest about it is they portray themselves as humanitarians trying to improve life for all the sick. The problem with that they deliberately deceive people with this portrayal. The main object of any business is to make a profit and that is universally true. Anything that threatens that objective is to be stopped any way possible. It is not complicated, or a conspiracy. That is just the fundamentals of business.

That is why leaving research and development to Pharmaceutical companies almost exclusively will not, and does not work. There needs to be research done that is completely independent of their influence and a lot of it.

We are doing our own right here, and right now. I have learned many things here already and we are just scratching the surface. Who is better to judge the results than a bunch of Crohn's sufferers.

I really hope the probiotics work well for you. I think you have had enough misery with this disease. I hope it works for everybody. But, hope is one thing and results are another. In any case we will learn something we did not know before.

I would use Primal Defense Ultra and also the capsules since this seems to be working for most people and the powder form did not work for one. It also makes this experiment more consistent for the group.

Please let us know if it works or not.


Good Luck

D Bergy

 

[Cara Fusinato]

Now the FDA is dipping into the supplement industry big time. They are threatening to ban products and companies. They are expecting research data. They expect labels to be accurate. In a way, this might be good because maybe it will weed out some of the garbage like that product guaranteed to "extend that certain part of a male body." But, they may also hinder some of the good products like the Garden of Life stuff or the mangosteen or some of the really quality probiotics.

My big fear . . . that the supplements won't be available anymore and we all HAVE to go to the chemicopharmaceutical route.

 

[D Bergy]

I think the supplement industry needs to do some house cleaning or it will be done for them. They need to standardize products better. Have some third party organization test their products regularly and approve or not based on the results.
I am really amazed that they have not done this a long time ago.

Lead was found in many multivitamins and that is just not acceptable.

I thought I was the only one that got the ads for the "enlarging formula". I was starting to get a little self conscious about it. What a load of my mind!

D Bergy