Korean Job Discussion Forums

some waygug-in · Joined: 25 Jan 2003

So if this does turn out to be true, would you agree that this is going a bit too far?

mindmetoo · Joined: 02 Feb 2004

some waygug-in · Joined: 25 Jan 2003

I see.

But the effectiveness of vitamin suppliments is not something that currently needs to be proven. This is common knowledge. Why should someone need a prescription to buy a bottle of vitamin pills?

With regard to pharmaceuticals:

http://www.wddty.com/03363800369554137906/payback-why-doctors-continue-to-prescribe-discredited-drugs.html

Payback: Why doctors continue to prescribe discredited drugs
10 May 2007
Doctors have been receiving �rebates� that run into hundreds of millions of dollars for prescribing a discredited family of drugs. One medical practice received $2.7m from one manufacturer for prescribing $9m worth of the drug last year alone.

The drugs, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (EPOs), can cause fatal cancers and heart problems, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) report concluded last March. Its warning was based on a medical trial that discovered 222 patients out of 1,432 who were given EPO therapy suffered heart problems afterwards.

The drugs, which include Aranesp, Epogen and Procrit, are routinely given to patients who are anaemic following chronic renal failure, cancer, chemotherapy treatment, or HIV and AIDS.

A new report, presented to an FDA committee in the last few days, has discovered that not only are the drugs dangerous, they also do not improve a cancer patient�s quality of life or survival.

Despite these concerns, EPO sales continue to flourish. In 2002, the latest year when figures were available, global sales reached $8.1bn (�4.2bn), an increase of 18 per cent on the previous year.

And, with the substantial �rebates� on offer, now we know why.

(Sources: New York Times, 9 May 2007; FDA website).

Shocked

And with regard to clinical trials of new drugs:

http://www.ahrp.org/testimonypresentations/armymeddept.php

The JAMA report provides a basis for evaluating the value and relevance of clinical trial findings for clinical care. It also provides a basis for measuring FDA's performance as gatekeeper in preventing hazardous drugs from reaching the market. They found that clinical trials are underpowered to detect uncommon, but potentially lethal drug reactions. Their design, biased selection, short duration, and accelerated approval process almost ensures that severe risks go undetected during clinical trials. The JAMA report validates the findings of a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative report in the Los Angeles Times by David Willman.[4]

Willman uncovered evidence demonstrating the adverse consequences of the 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), the law that brought industry money and industry influence to the FDA. The approval process for new drugs was accelerated and the percentage of drugs approved by the FDA increased from 60% approval at the beginning of the decade to 80% approval by the end of the 1990s. Willman reported that the FDA was the last to withdraw several drugs that had been banned by European health agencies. There was a concomitant precipitous rise in the approval of lethal drugs: between Januray1993 and December 2000, seven deadly drugs were brought to market only to be withdrawn after they had been linked to at least 1,002 deaths.[5] In a follow up article, August 2001, [6] Willman reported that the list of lethal drugs withdrawn since Sept 1997 had jumped to a dozen - 9 had been approved after 1993.

mindmetoo · Joined: 02 Feb 2004

mindmetoo · Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Sorry it's a PDF:

http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/consume/dd66_diet.pdf

Page 4: 76% of AARP members want the government to verify and review SHAM health claims.

Seems to me there is a strong demand out there for what I'm saying. SHAM should be held to the same standards as drug companies.

some waygug-in · Joined: 25 Jan 2003

Despite your many reassurances, I am not reassured. Confused

There is a strong lobby on both sides of this issue, and a lot of money at stake. I don't disagree that there needs to be some regulation of alternate health practitioners and products, but I strongly disagree that the CODEX is the way to go.

A case in point:

http://www.iahf.com/anh_lawsuit.html

ED209 · Joined: 17 Oct 2006

Who owns the natural health companies?
The pharmaceutical companies of course!

Natural health care is uncontrolled and sold in shops by people with little or no medical knowledge. The pharmaceutical industry is as corrupt as any big business, but they've saved my life and I'll go back to them when it needs saving again. I'll go the natural health care shop when I need some new bath salts.

mindmetoo · Joined: 02 Feb 2004

some waygug-in · Joined: 25 Jan 2003

The vitimins issue....I think I have shown where that comes from.

What they are talking about is the CODEX treatment of vitamins using toxicological methods for determining safe dosages.

There is strong disagreement on the validity of this method.

The hormones.....I am still waiting for an answer from the website in question.

With regard to mega-vitamin therapies:

http://www.weeksmd.com/articles/psychiatry/ABRAM_HOFFER.html

jaganath69 · Joined: 17 Jul 2003

ED209 · Joined: 17 Oct 2006

ED209 · Joined: 17 Oct 2006

concerning vitamins

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6657795.stm

mindmetoo · Joined: 02 Feb 2004

some waygug-in · Joined: 25 Jan 2003

So do you think it's fair that this woman is being blocked from getting the treatment that has helped her regain a normal life?

http://www.iahf.com/anh_lawsuit.html

And in other news:

http://healthandfitness.sympatico.msn.ca/Vitamin+D+battles+breast+and+colorectal+cancers/Fitness/ContentPosting_TransCon.aspx?isfa=1&newsitemid=237857&feedname=TRANS-HOMEMAKERS&show=True&number=3&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc