FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Medicine forums » nutrition
The Great "Mediterranean Diet" Fraud.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 32 of 209 [3126 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, ..., 207, 208, 209 Next
Author Message
MMu
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 418

PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 7:12 am    Post subject: Re: The China Study Reply with quote

Quote:
Vegetarian food sources have an equal protein quality in the context of a
whole diet.

Vegetables do not have the same protein quality (PD-CAAS, AAS etc.) as meat.
If you think this is wrong please compare the numbers.

"In the context of a whole diet" of someone who knows of the problem and
counteracts it with specific vegetable source combinations that have a
simiar amino acid pattern that meat has, yes- then they do.. of course.

Again, i am not saying that vegetarians do not get enough protein-
I am saying that meat is a source of higher protein quality (according to
the scientific definition of that word) than most vegetables.

Quote:
Actually vegetarian proteins are /better/ as they are packed in
a more healthy package than meat.

"Protein quality" is not a free-use term in nutrition science- it is well
defined; vitamin/aox/etc. content is not part of that definition.

Not that I am very fond of the study presented, but if we assume it is
legitimate: explain where the 6% higher mortality in vegetarians compared to
meat eaters comes from..

Quote:
Alongside with meat you get also saturated
fat and cholesterol but no phytochemicals or fiber.

As I already said: "the emphasis should be on the consumption on
vegetables, fruit and plant-derived products (because of higher
micronutrient density, lower fat level and level of antioxidants). Meat/fish
should not be excluded since its a great source for quality protein, some
minerals and some vitamins."

Quote:
There are better reasons for fish eating than those. To my knowledge
meat/fish do not contain any minerals that you can not obtain from
vegetarian sources.

1) "some minerals *and* some vitamins"
2) Where did I say they do contain minerals that are *not* in vegetables?

Quote:
Actually it is a advantage that you get non-heme iron if
you are familiar with recent studies about the subject.

I did not say a single word about heme-iron.

Quote:
As far as I know
there are no nutritional reasons to eat meat in addition to fish. However,
I
do admit that getting long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (especially DHA) and
certain phospholipids /are/ good reasons for fish eating.

I do not have my souci-fachmann-kraut handy, but i am more than confident
that meat and fish do not have exactly the same average content of amino
acids, vitamins and minerals [and not to forget: food contaminants]. The
combinatory effect seems to be quite a good reason.

Other than that: bigger food variety?
Most people still enjoy eating something different every now and then.
Back to top
Laurie Brandt
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:04 pm    Post subject: Re: LIFE UNDER CODEX - taking away supplements, then profiteering from supplements of lower value Reply with quote

Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the money. The
pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by folk using herbs, essential
oils, homopathy and the like. They don't like their profit margin cut in
to.
Laurie

In article <39nhprF64gvrgU1@individual.net>, "Juhana Harju"
<shantigiri@despammed.com> wrote:

Quote:
Jeff wrote:
:: Codex requires real standards about the safety and purity of
:: supplements.
::
:: Why are the herb and vitamin makers afraid of this?
::
:: You can learn more about the program here:
:: http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp

I am not involved in sales of any products but I know that it is very
costly to get any product through that kind of process. It happens that
even if a product is good and safe it can't be brought to market because
of the high costs involved.
Back to top
Juhana Harju
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 1056

PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:25 pm    Post subject: Re: The China Study Reply with quote

MMu wrote:
::: Vegetarian food sources have an equal protein quality in the
::: context of a whole diet.
::
:: Vegetables do not have the same protein quality (PD-CAAS, AAS etc.)
:: as meat. If you think this is wrong please compare the numbers.
::
:: "In the context of a whole diet" of someone who knows of the problem
:: and counteracts it with specific vegetable source combinations that
:: have a simiar amino acid pattern that meat has, yes- then they do..
:: of course.
::
:: Again, i am not saying that vegetarians do not get enough protein-
:: I am saying that meat is a source of higher protein quality
:: (according to the scientific definition of that word) than most
:: vegetables.

Your definition is a reductionistic approach which has been criticized also
within the scientific community. In practise people eat whole diets, not
isolated foods, so it makes sense to evaluate the whole diets. And this has
been done in the nutrition science also.

::: Actually vegetarian proteins are /better/ as they are packed in
::: a more healthy package than meat.
::
:: "Protein quality" is not a free-use term in nutrition science- it is
:: well defined; vitamin/aox/etc. content is not part of that
:: definition.

Walter C. Willett, one of the leading nutritionists, has said that "protein
comes not by itself but has a package of many other nutrients. And that
package makes a difference in your health."

:: Not that I am very fond of the study presented, but if we assume it
:: is legitimate: explain where the 6% higher mortality in vegetarians
:: compared to meat eaters comes from..

That is not a fair conclusion. 'Occasional meat eater' is a definition which
means that you eat actually *very* little meat. From other studies we know
that regular meat eaters have much *higher* mortality than lactovegetarians
and about the same mortality as vegans.

::: Alongside with meat you get also saturated
::: fat and cholesterol but no phytochemicals or fiber.
::
:: As I already said: "the emphasis should be on the consumption on
:: vegetables, fruit and plant-derived products (because of higher
:: micronutrient density, lower fat level and level of antioxidants).
:: Meat/fish should not be excluded since its a great source for
:: quality protein, some minerals and some vitamins."

Yes, you have been repeating that over and over again but you have not
provided good arguments to back the claims you made in the last sentence.

::: There are better reasons for fish eating than those. To my knowledge
::: meat/fish do not contain any minerals that you can not obtain from
::: vegetarian sources.
[...]

:: Other than that: bigger food variety?
:: Most people still enjoy eating something different every now and
:: then.

That is not very convincing. I would bet that the diet of most regular meat
eaters is much more limited in variety than that of most vegetarians. (I am
not a vegetarian.)

--
Juhana
Back to top
Juhana Harju
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 1056

PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:42 pm    Post subject: Re: The China Study Reply with quote

Juhana Harju wrote:
:: MMu wrote:
::::: Vegetarian food sources have an equal protein quality in the
::::: context of a whole diet.
::::
:::: Vegetables do not have the same protein quality (PD-CAAS, AAS etc.)
:::: as meat. If you think this is wrong please compare the numbers.
::::
:::: "In the context of a whole diet" of someone who knows of the
:::: problem and counteracts it with specific vegetable source
:::: combinations that have a simiar amino acid pattern that meat has,
:::: yes- then they do.. of course.
::::
:::: Again, i am not saying that vegetarians do not get enough protein-
:::: I am saying that meat is a source of higher protein quality
:::: (according to the scientific definition of that word) than most
:::: vegetables.
::
:: Your definition is a reductionistic approach which has been
:: criticized also within the scientific community. In practise people
:: eat whole diets, not isolated foods, so it makes sense to evaluate
:: the whole diets. And this has been done in the nutrition science
:: also.
::
::::: Actually vegetarian proteins are /better/ as they are packed in
::::: a more healthy package than meat.
::::
:::: "Protein quality" is not a free-use term in nutrition science- it
:::: is well defined; vitamin/aox/etc. content is not part of that
:::: definition.
::
:: Walter C. Willett, one of the leading nutritionists, has said that
:: "protein comes not by itself but has a package of many other
:: nutrients. And that package makes a difference in your health."
::
:::: Not that I am very fond of the study presented, but if we assume it
:::: is legitimate: explain where the 6% higher mortality in vegetarians
:::: compared to meat eaters comes from..
::
:: That is not a fair conclusion. 'Occasional meat eater' is a
:: definition which means that you eat actually *very* little meat.
:: From other studies we know that regular meat eaters have much
:: *higher* mortality than lactovegetarians and about the same
:: mortality as vegans.

This might be the original study:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/516S

::::: Alongside with meat you get also saturated
::::: fat and cholesterol but no phytochemicals or fiber.
::::
:::: As I already said: "the emphasis should be on the consumption on
:::: vegetables, fruit and plant-derived products (because of higher
:::: micronutrient density, lower fat level and level of antioxidants).
:::: Meat/fish should not be excluded since its a great source for
:::: quality protein, some minerals and some vitamins."
::
:: Yes, you have been repeating that over and over again but you have
:: not provided good arguments to back the claims you made in the last
:: sentence.
::
::::: There are better reasons for fish eating than those. To my
::::: knowledge meat/fish do not contain any minerals that you can not
::::: obtain from vegetarian sources.
:: [...]
::
:::: Other than that: bigger food variety?
:::: Most people still enjoy eating something different every now and
:::: then.
::
:: That is not very convincing. I would bet that the diet of most
:: regular meat eaters is much more limited in variety than that of
:: most vegetarians. (I am not a vegetarian.)
::
:: --
:: Juhana

--
Juhana
Back to top
Jeff
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1313

PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 6:12 pm    Post subject: Re: LIFE UNDER CODEX - taking away supplements, then profiteering from supplements of lower value Reply with quote

"Laurie Brandt" <laurie@polyhedrongroup.com> wrote in message
news:laurie-0904051004460001@localhost...
Quote:
Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the money. The
pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by folk using herbs, essential
oils, homopathy and the like. They don't like their profit margin cut in
to.

Actually, some pharmacuetical companies also make vitamins and other
supplements.

However, these supplemements don't really compete with real medicine,
because they don't do much.

Jeff

Quote:
Laurie

In article <39nhprF64gvrgU1@individual.net>, "Juhana Harju"
shantigiri@despammed.com> wrote:

Jeff wrote:
:: Codex requires real standards about the safety and purity of
:: supplements.
::
:: Why are the herb and vitamin makers afraid of this?
::
:: You can learn more about the program here:
:: http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp

I am not involved in sales of any products but I know that it is very
costly to get any product through that kind of process. It happens that
even if a product is good and safe it can't be brought to market because
of the high costs involved.
Back to top
David Wright
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 6:39 pm    Post subject: Re: LIFE UNDER CODEX - taking away supplements, then profiteering from supplements of lower value Reply with quote

In article <laurie-0904051004460001@localhost>,
Laurie Brandt <laurie@polyhedrongroup.com> wrote:
Quote:
Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the money. The
pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by folk using herbs, essential
oils, homopathy and the like. They don't like their profit margin cut in
to.

Oh, horse manure. If there's a ton of money to be made in herbs, the
big pharma companies will just buy up the small ones, or force them
out of business. In fact, I'd be quite surprised if they weren't
already in that business. They're already firmly in the vitamin
business.

(Meanwhile, homeopathy is a load of crap, and anyone selling
high-dilution homeopathic remedies is charging big bucks for either
water or alcohol or sugar pills, depending on the nature of the
remedy.)

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"His staff loves to say Bush is a man who doesn't know the
meaning of the word 'quit.' Well, apparently he's not all
that conversant with the word 'shame' either." (Will Durst)


Quote:
Laurie

In article <39nhprF64gvrgU1@individual.net>, "Juhana Harju"
shantigiri@despammed.com> wrote:

Jeff wrote:
:: Codex requires real standards about the safety and purity of
:: supplements.
::
:: Why are the herb and vitamin makers afraid of this?
::
:: You can learn more about the program here:
:: http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp

I am not involved in sales of any products but I know that it is very
costly to get any product through that kind of process. It happens that
even if a product is good and safe it can't be brought to market because
of the high costs involved.
Back to top
GMCarter
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 193

PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:34 am    Post subject: Re: LIFE UNDER CODEX - taking away supplements, then profiteering from supplements of lower value Reply with quote

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:12:22 GMT, "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Quote:

"Laurie Brandt" <laurie@polyhedrongroup.com> wrote in message
news:laurie-0904051004460001@localhost...
Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the money. The
pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by folk using herbs, essential
oils, homopathy and the like. They don't like their profit margin cut in
to.

Actually, some pharmacuetical companies also make vitamins and other
supplements.

Indeed. They also have gotten into the botanical industry.

Quote:
However, these supplemements don't really compete with real medicine,
because they don't do much.

LOL. That's a silly statement. Roche wouldn't have been caught in a
price-fixing scam if "dietary supplements" didn't do much. It's such a
silly statement, it makes you sound like a pharmaceutical industry
lobbyist.

George M. Carter
Back to top
GMCarter
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 193

PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:38 am    Post subject: Re: LIFE UNDER CODEX - taking away supplements, then profiteering from supplements of lower value Reply with quote

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:39:16 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net (David
Wright) wrote:

Quote:
In article <laurie-0904051004460001@localhost>,
Laurie Brandt <laurie@polyhedrongroup.com> wrote:
Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the money. The
pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by folk using herbs, essential
oils, homopathy and the like. They don't like their profit margin cut in
to.

Oh, horse manure. If there's a ton of money to be made in herbs, the
big pharma companies will just buy up the small ones, or force them
out of business.

Indeed, they have tried to do this. And there is a good deal of money
to be made in botanical medicine.

But you can't patent a botanical as readily as a drug. And if there is
a competition between a drug, like a statin, say, and other
interventions which cannot be patented, the profit margin falls
dramatically. And then there is genuine capitalist competition in the
market place, rather than the distorted perversion of intellectual
property rights that the pharmaceutical industry hides behind to
justify price gouging, which results in destabilizing the dismal
health care access in the United States causing massive suffering and
death.

Globally, the industry feels IP rights trump human life and have
worked assiduously to block access to generic HIV medications and
treaments for opportunitistic infections, resulting in literally
MILLIONS of unnecessary deaths of men, women and children.

Quote:
In fact, I'd be quite surprised if they weren't
already in that business. They're already firmly in the vitamin
business.

They are.

Quote:
(Meanwhile, homeopathy is a load of crap, and anyone selling
high-dilution homeopathic remedies is charging big bucks for either
water or alcohol or sugar pills, depending on the nature of the
remedy.)

Possibly. But some of the clinical data contradict your statement. I
have no strong opinion one way or the other on the system of
homeopathy.

George M. Carter
Back to top
Andrew Heenan
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 112

PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 9:15 am    Post subject: Re: Low iron diet / therapy for chronic hepatitis C Reply with quote

"Doug" <dt12remove@adelphia.net> wrote
Quote:
Que se? ....doogalas

Is a crossposting idiot.
Stop crossposters by using this message as
a reply to all groups *except your own*,
then block the sender (killfile).
It takes a few seconds to excommunicate
the idiots, and the more people that do it,
the sooner they'll learn.
Keep The Internet Free - of Idiots
Back to top
Andrew Heenan
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 112

PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 10:38 am    Post subject: Re: Low iron diet / therapy for chronic hepatitis C Reply with quote

"*Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.es>

Quote:
Is a crossposting idiot.
**Who Cannot Read Very Well **
Stop crossposters by using this message as
a reply to all groups *except your own*,
then block the sender (killfile).
It takes a few seconds to excommunicate
the idiots, and the more people that do it,
the sooner they'll learn.
Keep The Internet Free - of Idiots
Back to top
Jeff
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1313

PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 3:15 pm    Post subject: Re: LIFE UNDER CODEX - taking away supplements, then profiteering from supplements of lower value Reply with quote

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:mmsh511ml7ho1i1fd65kn2aa9e61792mbr@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:12:22 GMT, "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com
wrote:


"Laurie Brandt" <laurie@polyhedrongroup.com> wrote in message
news:laurie-0904051004460001@localhost...
Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the money.
The
pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by folk using herbs, essential
oils, homopathy and the like. They don't like their profit margin cut in
to.

Actually, some pharmacuetical companies also make vitamins and other
supplements.

Indeed. They also have gotten into the botanical industry.

However, these supplemements don't really compete with real medicine,
because they don't do much.

LOL. That's a silly statement. Roche wouldn't have been caught in a
price-fixing scam if "dietary supplements" didn't do much. It's such a
silly statement, it makes you sound like a pharmaceutical industry
lobbyist.

You're correct. I should have been clearer. Supplements do not do much to
help people. I mean they don't cure disease or anything.

They do help the pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines.

And that is what the pharmaceutical companies like.

Jeff

Quote:
George M. Carter
Back to top
David Wright
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:42 pm    Post subject: Re: LIFE UNDER CODEX - taking away supplements, then profiteering from supplements of lower value Reply with quote

In article <hpsh515v7r5dm1s2iau5pf0g0tm7i5ahm0@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:39:16 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net (David
Wright) wrote:

In article <laurie-0904051004460001@localhost>,
Laurie Brandt <laurie@polyhedrongroup.com> wrote:
Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the money. The
pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by folk using herbs, essential
oils, homopathy and the like. They don't like their profit margin cut in
to.

Oh, horse manure. If there's a ton of money to be made in herbs, the
big pharma companies will just buy up the small ones, or force them
out of business.

Indeed, they have tried to do this. And there is a good deal of money
to be made in botanical medicine.

But you can't patent a botanical as readily as a drug. And if there is
a competition between a drug, like a statin, say, and other
interventions which cannot be patented, the profit margin falls
dramatically.

And yet -- there are generic drug companies that are doing just fine.
And even big pharma makes vitamins. It's almost enough to make one
think there's money in it.

Quote:
And then there is genuine capitalist competition in the
market place, rather than the distorted perversion of intellectual
property rights that the pharmaceutical industry hides behind to
justify price gouging, which results in destabilizing the dismal
health care access in the United States causing massive suffering and
death.

You'll have a harder time making that one stick. It's certainly true
in the case of some persons, no question, but since only about 10% of
health care dollars go to prescription costs, even if you cut that to
zero, things are still going to be expensive and the system is still
broken.

Quote:
Globally, the industry feels IP rights trump human life and have
worked assiduously to block access to generic HIV medications and
treaments for opportunitistic infections, resulting in literally
MILLIONS of unnecessary deaths of men, women and children.

Well, it's kind of a difficult thing for a capitalistic company, isn't
it? I mean, if you give everything away, how do you stay in business.

This is not to say I'm a big fan of big pharma, who still have a
preposterously high return on equity. I just don't demonize them.

Quote:
(Meanwhile, homeopathy is a load of crap, and anyone selling
high-dilution homeopathic remedies is charging big bucks for either
water or alcohol or sugar pills, depending on the nature of the
remedy.)

Possibly. But some of the clinical data contradict your statement.

And most of it doesn't. In fact, the whole question of how you
distinguish between a homeopathic remedy and a placebo is an
interesting one.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"His staff loves to say Bush is a man who doesn't know the
meaning of the word 'quit.' Well, apparently he's not all
that conversant with the word 'shame' either." (Will Durst)
Back to top
GMCarter
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 193

PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:00 am    Post subject: Re: LIFE UNDER CODEX - taking away supplements, then profiteering from supplements of lower value Reply with quote

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 17:15:24 GMT, "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Quote:

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:mmsh511ml7ho1i1fd65kn2aa9e61792mbr@4ax.com...
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:12:22 GMT, "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com
wrote:


"Laurie Brandt" <laurie@polyhedrongroup.com> wrote in message
news:laurie-0904051004460001@localhost...
Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the money.
The
pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by folk using herbs, essential
oils, homopathy and the like. They don't like their profit margin cut in
to.

Actually, some pharmacuetical companies also make vitamins and other
supplements.

Indeed. They also have gotten into the botanical industry.

However, these supplemements don't really compete with real medicine,
because they don't do much.

LOL. That's a silly statement. Roche wouldn't have been caught in a
price-fixing scam if "dietary supplements" didn't do much. It's such a
silly statement, it makes you sound like a pharmaceutical industry
lobbyist.

You're correct. I should have been clearer. Supplements do not do much to
help people. I mean they don't cure disease or anything.

Again, you're not clear. That's a stupid statement. Many drugs don't
cure people of diseases. They help symptoms only.

And pellagra is cured with niacin. Botanical agents may treat many
disease symptoms and or effect a cure. Depends on how one defines that
term.

But it is utterly wrong to say that supplements do not help people. It
is just as idiotic as saying drugs do not help people.

Quote:
They do help the pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines.

And that is what the pharmaceutical companies like.

They can be a competition to the pharmaceutical bottom line. A good
example would be St. John's wort which treats mild-to-moderate
depression as well as many antidepressant drugs (which do not cure but
merely ameliorate depression).
Back to top
GMCarter
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 193

PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:06 am    Post subject: Re: LIFE UNDER CODEX - taking away supplements, then profiteering from supplements of lower value Reply with quote

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:42:18 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net (David
Wright) wrote:

Quote:
In article <hpsh515v7r5dm1s2iau5pf0g0tm7i5ahm0@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:39:16 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net (David
Wright) wrote:

In article <laurie-0904051004460001@localhost>,
Laurie Brandt <laurie@polyhedrongroup.com> wrote:
Its not so much fear, as lack of funds. As they say folow the money. The
pharmisutical industry is beint cut into by folk using herbs, essential
oils, homopathy and the like. They don't like their profit margin cut in
to.

Oh, horse manure. If there's a ton of money to be made in herbs, the
big pharma companies will just buy up the small ones, or force them
out of business.

Indeed, they have tried to do this. And there is a good deal of money
to be made in botanical medicine.

But you can't patent a botanical as readily as a drug. And if there is
a competition between a drug, like a statin, say, and other
interventions which cannot be patented, the profit margin falls
dramatically.

And yet -- there are generic drug companies that are doing just fine.
And even big pharma makes vitamins. It's almost enough to make one
think there's money in it.

Yes, indeed there is. And where there's money, there's potential for
corruption, no doubt.

But the BIG difference is that where generics are available, the
original drug is off-patent and thus there is COMPETITION. So there
isn't the same degree of outrageous price gouging that pharma now
uses, hiding behind IP as a slim justification for destroying the US
healthcare system.

Quote:
And then there is genuine capitalist competition in the
market place, rather than the distorted perversion of intellectual
property rights that the pharmaceutical industry hides behind to
justify price gouging, which results in destabilizing the dismal
health care access in the United States causing massive suffering and
death.

You'll have a harder time making that one stick. It's certainly true
in the case of some persons, no question, but since only about 10% of
health care dollars go to prescription costs, even if you cut that to
zero, things are still going to be expensive and the system is still
broken.

Where did you get the 10% figure? But I agree that prescription drug
costs are only a part of the issue. Drugs, diagnostics and devices all
play a role, as well as hospital fees, etc.

Quote:
Globally, the industry feels IP rights trump human life and have
worked assiduously to block access to generic HIV medications and
treaments for opportunitistic infections, resulting in literally
MILLIONS of unnecessary deaths of men, women and children.

Well, it's kind of a difficult thing for a capitalistic company, isn't
it? I mean, if you give everything away, how do you stay in business.

LOL. PHARMA isn't capitalism which is rooted in notions of competition
and open markets, yes? Pharma is selected products upon which peoples'
lives depend, and upon which they exert monopolistic control.

Quote:
This is not to say I'm a big fan of big pharma, who still have a
preposterously high return on equity. I just don't demonize them.

I do. I've watched friends die waiting for drugs that pharma had
worked so assiduously to prevent them from accessing.

Quote:
(Meanwhile, homeopathy is a load of crap, and anyone selling
high-dilution homeopathic remedies is charging big bucks for either
water or alcohol or sugar pills, depending on the nature of the
remedy.)

Possibly. But some of the clinical data contradict your statement.

And most of it doesn't.

So you claim. I take it you've read all the extant studies? Or can you
point to a meta-analysis? (Please don't bother with Stephen Barrett;
he is completely discredited as far as I'm concerned as a knee-jerk
bigot.)

Quote:
In fact, the whole question of how you
distinguish between a homeopathic remedy and a placebo is an
interesting one.

Yep! Absolultely. Lots of fascinating questions regarding health, etc.
embedded in that, not to mention the physics of water molecules.

George M. Carter
Back to top
Jeff
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1313

PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:03 am    Post subject: Re: LIFE UNDER CODEX - taking away supplements, then profiteering from supplements of lower value Reply with quote

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:suek51hb7kern257kiit7093crmus59t6r@4ax.com...
(...)

Quote:
You're correct. I should have been clearer. Supplements do not do much to
help people. I mean they don't cure disease or anything.

Again, you're not clear. That's a stupid statement. Many drugs don't
cure people of diseases. They help symptoms only.

And supplements rarely even help symptoms.

Quote:
And pellagra is cured with niacin. Botanical agents may treat many
disease symptoms and or effect a cure. Depends on how one defines that
term.

References please.

Quote:
But it is utterly wrong to say that supplements do not help people. It
is just as idiotic as saying drugs do not help people.

As long as one has a healthy diet, supplements rarely help people.

Quote:
They do help the pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines.

And that is what the pharmaceutical companies like.

They can be a competition to the pharmaceutical bottom line. A good
example would be St. John's wort which treats mild-to-moderate
depression as well as many antidepressant drugs (which do not cure but
merely ameliorate depression).

Actually, subsequent research has questioned whether St. John's wort is
very helpful. But this is a very rare example of where supplements have
been shown to help.

Jeff
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 32 of 209 [3126 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, ..., 207, 208, 209 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:48 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Medicine forums » nutrition
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Vegetarian diet for arthritis ironjustice@aol.com nutrition 3 Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:14 am
No new posts Fats in diet stryped@hotmail.com nutrition 5 Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:00 pm
No new posts Diet supplements don't benefit cancer patients: journal J cancer 0 Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:01 am
No new posts Healthy diet in Old age sha nutrition 0 Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:30 pm
No new posts Help with health diet stryped@hotmail.com nutrition 1 Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:53 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: email marketing campaigns , electronics forum, Science forum, Unix/Linux blog, Unix/Linux documentation, Unix/Linux forums


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0625s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0032s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]