Celiac.com Sponsor (A1):


Join eNewsletter


Celiac.com Sponsor (A1-m):



Join eNewsletter

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

UR Groovy

Rediculous Conspiracy Theory, Or Not?

Recommended Posts

I don't know what to make of this. Here's an article I came across that would really terrify most of us in the US if it were true - but, probably not surprise. It has to do with the FDA & potential new regulatory processes. Has anybody else heard about this? I tend to be anti-FDA, I know. But, if this were actually taking place, I think I'd lose my mind.

http://www.newstarget.com/021789.html

Quote from the article that particularly disturbs me:

"Vegetable juice will be regulated as a drug. Raw juice retreats will be raided or shut down."

Is this really being proposed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):

Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):


I've heard about this every couple years since the late-1980's. I'm not sure if it's an urban myth, or whether it's a proposal that keeps getting shot down that they keep trying.

If you go to www.fda.gov, you might be able to find some information about it. If you can't find anything, you could email them.

Let us know if you find anything out.

Nancy


The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person who is doing it.

~Chinese Proverb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had to ask. I'm not going to lose my marbles over this sort of thing. I went to FDA.gov . The document is, indeed, there. Sounds like it's probably just more of the same.

I guess the thing that bothers me is that, if, for some crazy reason, this does go through at some point in the future, the FDA may be able to approve or not approve these things as drugs - which would mean that they could potentially have the power to not approve it.

I would think that the chances of this type of regulation actually taking place is pretty slim, though, I wouldn't be surprised if they used our tax dollars to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Dr. Mercola's response. I get his newletter, btw, and enjoy it. http://v.mercola.com/blogs/public_blog/New...tion-12707.aspx

have received dozens of requests to promote a response to the FDA Guidance for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Products issued by the FDA in February 2007. There have also been many people posting about this on Vital Votes.

It has never been my intention to cry wolf and encourage response to any government initiative unless I was convinced it warranted it.

So, I invested in a legal consultation and paid one of the top Washington DC lawyers that defends against FDA actions $500 an hour to review the initiative and provide his impression of the proposal.

After reviewing his analysis and consulting with two other attorneys, my take is that this proposal does not warrant a response.

The primary reason for this? The Guidance does not create any new regulations; rather it


gluten-free 12/05

diagnosed with Lyme Disease 12/06

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank You CarlaB,

This is the information I was looking for. I appreciate your reply. That makes a lot more sense than what I was thinking could be happening.

I am going to sign up for the Dr. Mercola newsletter again - my husband used to get it, but he stopped getting it recently for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what to make of this. Here's an article I came across that would really terrify most of us in the US if it were true - but, probably not surprise. It has to do with the FDA & potential new regulatory processes. Has anybody else heard about this? I tend to be anti-FDA, I know. But, if this were actually taking place, I think I'd lose my mind.

http://www.newstarget.com/021789.html

Quote from the article that particularly disturbs me:

"Vegetable juice will be regulated as a drug. Raw juice retreats will be raided or shut down."

Is this really being proposed?

You have to make some pretty alarming statements if you want people to order one of your books "Grocery Warning", for only $89. And, Mike Adams, Health Ranger, has lots of others to sell also.

Five minutes of reading his ludicrous claims tell me he's an internet health version of televangelists. Preying on those unfortunate ones gullible enough to fall for such ridiculous nonsense. Hey, some people believed Robert Tilton and sent him money too.

best regards, lm

p.s., If any fellow celiac forum members are followers of his, please disregard this post as the lunatic manifistations of a non-believer. Maybe my thinking is being affected by all the poisonous toxins in grocery items (besides gluten). No really, seriously.


gluten-free 12-18-06

colonoscopy, upper GI
blood, urine, stool tests, prometheus panel
positive endoscopy/positive duodenal biopsies (severe villous atrophy, high intraepithelial lympocytes)
diagnosed celiac disease by Gastroenterologist Andrew R. Gottesman, 12-18-06

"Sobriety sucks. That's why they invented booze in the first place." Denis Leary - Rescue Me

Beware the chocolate of Chiapa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have to make some pretty alarming statements if you want people to order one of your books "Grocery Warning", for only $89. And, Mike Adams, Health Ranger, has lots of others to sell also.

Right on.

Never hear of the guy until I saw this. Thought it sounded pretty conspiracy theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don't disagree about the "health ranger" comments and the fact the guy is proably in it for himself... I think its worth considering the FDA is also in it for the companies pay backhanders via lobbyists....

That is some of the claims are far fetched (like regualting rocks or fingers) but whereever there is a profit to be made ludicrous stuff is often passed....

My tired old example is unpasturised cheese....

This has been legislated out of existance in the UK.... and public perception turned that its going to kill you yet millions of French and Italians eat raw cheeses daily....

In this context raw cheeses contain pro-biotics...

Why is cheese regulated? Becuase in the UK there are 4 companies make 95% of the cheese... they find it convenient to send it to a central factory to be processed and distributed... but of course it tastes like plastic... (or certainly not as good)...

One example... perhaps Nikki and Jason might remember was Wenslydale cheese.... (aka Wallace and Grommit)

Wenslydale was a sheeps cheese (hence no TB risk like cow milk) actually started in Wenslydale in the 13C by monks from France... It was also a damned fine cheese!

St Ives bought out the entire valley ... and had legislation passed that it must be pasturised regardless of the fact it was Sheep milk and no TB risk !! The individual farmers couldn't do this themselves... so they sold out. St. Ives started making industrial

wenslydale from pasturised COW milk.. then a few years ago St. Ives got bored... and closed their factory... now you can't get real Wenslydale....


Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. (JC, De Bello Gallico Liber III/XVIII)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cheese example reminds me of the fact that margarine has been overly regulated or even illegal in various places around the world. In many places, it was illegal to sell margarine with coloring added. And it seems this is still true in Quebec, Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/food/margarine.html

Here are some interesting articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margarine

http://www.margarine.org/historyofmargarine.html


A spherical meteorite 10 km in diameter traveling at 20 km/s has the kinetic energy equal to the calories in 550,000,000,000,000,000 Twinkies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I don't disagree about the "health ranger" comments and the fact the guy is proably in it for himself... I think its worth considering the FDA is also in it for the companies pay backhanders via lobbyists....

gfp,

Yes, the FDA is crooked as can be. They just passed new rules limiting some of the permissable "consultant" fees and other "kickbacks in disquise" that occurs. Not sure when they go into effect or if it got final approval or whatnot.

And of course the guy probably has lots of valid points and even may be correct in some of his health claims. But, he goes so overboard in exagerating and misrepresenting some of that stuff that he loses all credibility. I was mainly commenting on the article linked in the original post.

rg,

My Dad says that when margarine first came out they were not allowed to sell it colored yellow ( being just oil, it is white) . A little yellow ball came with it and you had to "kneed" it into the white margarine until it was all mixed up. He said the butter lobby got the restriction implemented to make sure the margarine was unappealing compared to butter.

best regards, lm


gluten-free 12-18-06

colonoscopy, upper GI
blood, urine, stool tests, prometheus panel
positive endoscopy/positive duodenal biopsies (severe villous atrophy, high intraepithelial lympocytes)
diagnosed celiac disease by Gastroenterologist Andrew R. Gottesman, 12-18-06

"Sobriety sucks. That's why they invented booze in the first place." Denis Leary - Rescue Me

Beware the chocolate of Chiapa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gfp,

Yes, the FDA is crooked as can be. They just passed new rules limiting some of the permissable "consultant" fees and other "kickbacks in disquise" that occurs. Not sure when they go into effect or if it got final approval or whatnot.

And of course the guy probably has lots of valid points and even may be correct in some of his health claims. But, he goes so overboard in exagerating and misrepresenting some of that stuff that he loses all credibility. I was mainly commenting on the article linked in the original post.

rg,

My Dad says that when margarine first came out they were not allowed to sell it colored yellow ( being just oil, it is white) . A little yellow ball came with it and you had to "kneed" it into the white margarine until it was all mixed up. He said the butter lobby got the restriction implemented to make sure the margarine was unappealing compared to butter.

best regards, lm

Larry, couldn't agree more....

Its a shame ... its like I say on the "green thread" you practically have to be a "whacko" to actually believe this... ???

When I was at school in the UK we were force fed milk... literally forced, if you didn't drink it the teachers would assult you and hold your nose while squirting it down your throat...

This is milk, one of the top ten allergens!

So far as I know children are still forced to drink milk in public (american terminology) schools... regardless of the fact the UK has an obesity epidemic!


Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. (JC, De Bello Gallico Liber III/XVIII)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its a shame ... its like I say on the "green thread" you practically have to be a "whacko" to actually believe this... ???

You know, gfp, this is the 2nd time you've made me feel I have no right to ask a question. I'm not a "whacko". I'm just a girl who found out a few months ago that things ingested and eaten is most likely the reason for the years of mental and physical problems I've had. I was raised not to question authority. I've recently found that my father wasn't right about everything.

I don't "believe" what was in that article, and, again, I have to point out that I was asking a question. I'm so new to this. Your condescending tone is really unneccessary.

If you hadn't done this to me before, I wouldn't have internalized it, but you have.

I won't further comment on this, as I apparently have no right to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you hadn't done this to me before, I wouldn't have internalized it, but you have.

I won't further comment on this, as I apparently have no right to do so.

Don't let him get to you ... he doesn't mean to come across as harsh. ;) Really, he doesn't. :) He can even be funny when he wants to.

As far as the green thread ... I'd just stay out of that one ... speaking of looking at the source and the money trail, that thread is a prime example of what's being talked about here. Al Gore happens to be the one sells the product to make you "carbon neutral." :o So, his credibility is VERY low in my book ... as low as the person here trying to sell books. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528

But it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman.

gluten-free 12/05

diagnosed with Lyme Disease 12/06

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, gfp, this is the 2nd time you've made me feel I have no right to ask a question. I'm not a "whacko". I'm just a girl who found out a few months ago that things ingested and eaten is most likely the reason for the years of mental and physical problems I've had. I was raised not to question authority. I've recently found that my father wasn't right about everything.

I don't "believe" what was in that article, and, again, I have to point out that I was asking a question. I'm so new to this. Your condescending tone is really unneccessary.

If you hadn't done this to me before, I wouldn't have internalized it, but you have.

I won't further comment on this, as I apparently have no right to do so.

If you don't believe the article then how could it be referring to you?

The point I'm trying to make is that with this or the other thread one has to be considered part of a whacko minority by the majority...

I can't quite see how you mistake ? unless you just want to? Why are you angry at me for pointing out many people think you are wacko? Its not my fault they don't realise celiac disease is real and gluten a toxin... .. its not me giving you that sniggering look and thinking your on some health fad diet?

The point is that in the eyes of the majority we are all whacko's... who else would believe that wheat could be a toxin?

I'm not saying you are a wacko... I'm saying many people will consider you one whether its because you believe wheat can be toxic or you believe the majority of the worlds climate scientists...

Back in 1492 a Whacko set sail from Europe.... he had some whacko notion the world was round... everyone thought he was mad.

Even though he had a lot of evidence that the world was round.... almost everyone rejected the idea of a round earth because everyone else rejected the idea and everyone knew the world was flat.

In 1750 The First American wacko went out in a thunderstorm with a kite and a key... ?

There is a long list of famous Wacko's.... Marshal was completely out of his tree when he suggested heliobacter pylori could cause ulcers... almost as Wacko as Lister suggesting surgeons washing their hands and sterilising equipment could prevent post operative infections?


Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. (JC, De Bello Gallico Liber III/XVIII)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, gfp, this is the 2nd time you've made me feel I have no right to ask a question. I'm not a "whacko". I'm just a girl who found out a few months ago that things ingested and eaten is most likely the reason for the years of mental and physical problems I've had. I was raised not to question authority. I've recently found that my father wasn't right about everything.

I don't "believe" what was in that article, and, again, I have to point out that I was asking a question. I'm so new to this. Your condescending tone is really unneccessary.

If you hadn't done this to me before, I wouldn't have internalized it, but you have.

I won't further comment on this, as I apparently have no right to do so.

Hold on here! gfp is AGREEING with you! Please do not take offense. The comment gfp made was to express a common belief, not his own. And that believing in something which most people do not shouldn't place that person in such opposition with the majority as to be labeled unkindly.

Is this correct gfp?

<EDIT>

heh...seems we posted simultaneously...


A spherical meteorite 10 km in diameter traveling at 20 km/s has the kinetic energy equal to the calories in 550,000,000,000,000,000 Twinkies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hold on here! gfp is AGREEING with you! Please do not take offense. The comment gfp made was to express a common belief, not his own. And that believing in something which most people do not shouldn't place that person in such opposition with the majority as to be labeled unkindly.

Is this correct gfp?

<EDIT>

heh...seems we posted simultaneously...

Exactly!

I think its extremely regretable that if you question the FDA your classed as some revolutionary pinko commie or some fringe revolutionary trying to bring down the government...

However... like I just said this is hardly new!

I do wish people would actualy read what I say and not read the first line and get upset before they actually finish reading!

By everything I said I must be a complete wacko... ???


Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. (JC, De Bello Gallico Liber III/XVIII)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay ... if you say so. The statement wasn't about me, but about the author of the article - I understand that. I must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed.

Fajitas... its not MY OPINION about the author of the article..

I personally believe he is over stating the case but I don't think he's off his trolley...

<<---HUGS--->>

What I find (and I shouldn't because its centuries old) is society as a whole viewing anyone who challenges their government bodies, food companies or whoever is some militant idiot....

Without idiots like Franklin and Columbus where would we be?

My opinion is people in general are pre-disposed to beleive what they want... that is what my signature say's... and it was written 2000 yrs ago... and nothing has changed...

The world needs more people like you.... it even needs more people like the author perhaps... the problem I see is because the large majority are already pre-disposed to treating anyone with a new idea or challenging the government as wacko conspiracy theorists many many important things are just classed along with alien abductions and Elvis being alive on the moon...

I haven't checked out each claim he makes about the FDA but I do know several are true...

The problem I see is that when people do try and state the point instead of understating it the huge majority love to jump on any parts that might be incorrect...

I'll give a perfect example... some people were sue'd by McDo's in the UK for giving out literature against McDo's..

They had about 20 points.... out of these 15 or so were indisputable... but McDo's sued thenm anyway because the remaining 5 were debateable... or unprovable...

What do the majoirty see in this case... ?

Unfortunately that McDo's were correct...

The fact that 15/20 of the points were undisputably true is forgotten... and all 20 are dismissed... even though 15 were definately true and the remaining 5 were probably true but unprovable...?


Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. (JC, De Bello Gallico Liber III/XVIII)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fajitas... its not MY OPINION about the author of the article..

I personally believe he is over stating the case but I don't think he's off his trolley...

<<---HUGS--->>

What I find (and I shouldn't because its centuries old) is society as a whole viewing anyone who challenges their government bodies, food companies or whoever is some militant idiot....

Without idiots like Franklin and Columbus where would we be?

My opinion is people in general are pre-disposed to beleive what they want... that is what my signature say's... and it was written 2000 yrs ago... and nothing has changed...

The world needs more people like you.... it even needs more people like the author perhaps... the problem I see is because the large majority are already pre-disposed to treating anyone with a new idea or challenging the government as wacko conspiracy theorists many many important things are just classed along with alien abductions and Elvis being alive on the moon...

I haven't checked out each claim he makes about the FDA but I do know several are true...

The problem I see is that when people do try and state the point instead of understating it the huge majority love to jump on any parts that might be incorrect...

I'll give a perfect example... some people were sue'd by McDo's in the UK for giving out literature against McDo's..

They had about 20 points.... out of these 15 or so were indisputable... but McDo's sued thenm anyway because the remaining 5 were debateable... or unprovable...

What do the majoirty see in this case... ?

Unfortunately that McDo's were correct...

The fact that 15/20 of the points were undisputably true is forgotten... and all 20 are dismissed... even though 15 were definately true and the remaining 5 were probably true but unprovable...?

Right on,gfp - I have a lot of respect for you, and typically appreciate your posts, as you seem to know what you're talking about. I apologize for putting words in your mouth and assuming things without really understanding your point.

I'm really new to questioning what's going on in our world. I'm from a military family and "Yes Sir, Sir's". I always accepted that what I was told was true. I'm adjusting to a new reality.

I'll try to understand before I jump to conclusions.

Have a nice day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my understanding of this specific document is that it doesn't have any legislative power and is only moreso a formulated viewpoint for the FDA in relation to supplements... basically, it's just proposing how the FDA should think these products should be regulated but it has no power in itself... when I first saw this, I definitely didn't like what I saw but reading a few sources have eased my concerns in regards to this particular document:

you can check out this site and click on either of the first 2 links, both of which address this document: http://www.thenhf.com/fda.html similar to carla's post from mercola in saying this document itself is not a big concern...

with all that being said, there are legitimate concerns that the direction things are going is to regulate and/or restrict the over the counter sale of vitamins/supplements... not only in the US, but worldwide... apparently (and anybody in Canada can confirm or refute this), a number of supplements available in the US are now banned or require a prescription in Canada including melatonin, DHEA, Pau D' arco, etc...

from what I've read, some other countries like Germany and Norway have even stricter regulations currently on things such as vitamin E, which now require prescriptions, are much more costly, and the person is limited in terms of how much vitamin E they can get with the prescription... and I think these limitations are essentially based on RDA type values... this all ties into Codex, which appears to be the greatest worldwide concern in this area, though of course, individual bills in Congress are as concerning, if not moreso...

the difficulty is figuring out what is a pressing concern and needs action to be taken on, such as the massive protest in the mid 90s that made DSHEA go through as is and prevented the govt from regulating supplements and vitamins... in the case of this particular FDA guidance document, it doesn't seem to be a big concern... but there are other bills that have been proposed and will be proposed that we'll likely have to protest against and comment on in relation to supplements and vitamins among other related things...

last thing in the world I want is to be taking something like Merck CoQ10 or a Pfizer multi-vitamin in a few years if I'm even lucky enough to get a prescription for them...


- Charlie

- gluten free since January, 2006

- multiple food intolerances temporarily from leaky gut and candida

- positive test for lyme disease - April, 2007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
from what I've read, some other countries like Germany and Norway have even stricter regulations currently on things such as vitamin E, which now require prescriptions, are much more costly, and the person is limited in terms of how much vitamin E they can get with the prescription... and I think these limitations are essentially based on RDA type values... this all ties into Codex, which appears to be the greatest worldwide concern in this area

Very true.... I lived in Norway for 2 yrs.... you can't buy OTC multivits except stuff so weak its not worth buying... (basically less than you'd get in a can of V8)...

In the recent past the UK has stopped OTC pain medication except in bottles of less than 16... and this is just the weakest Ibuprofen or tylenol etc.

Even in a pharmacy you can only buy so much... and its not a lot...

Having spent a lot of time in the 3rd world I often wanted to be able to buy stocks of stuff like cold medication or tylenol etc. just to have around... "hmm can't sell you those sorry"

In the UK you can't buy glasses without a prescription under 2yrs old and in France 1 yr. ???

How can it be good to deny people glasses?

If anyone notioced my spelling going to pot, its my eyes, I lost my glasses 4 yrs ago ... and refuse to be tested so I am unable to buy them, even though my prescription for astigmatism probably stays the same? How can it hurt to let me buy my old prescription? Least any more than having no glasses at all?


Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. (JC, De Bello Gallico Liber III/XVIII)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
even though my prescription for astigmatism probably stays the same?

I don't think it can hurt to use your old prescription, however, mine has changed significantly over the past few years and I also have an astigmatism. I have two old pairs of glasses and a new pair; I see significantly better from the new pair, but the old pairs were fine when they were new.


gluten-free 12/05

diagnosed with Lyme Disease 12/06

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it can hurt to use your old prescription, however, mine has changed significantly over the past few years and I also have an astigmatism. I have two old pairs of glasses and a new pair; I see significantly better from the new pair, but the old pairs were fine when they were new.

The funny thing is its not a simple case...

On the face of it the idea is that it forces people to get checked for glaucoma etc.

Doubtless there is some truth in this and doubtless some people may have had their eyesight saved or diabetes diagnosed because of this.

However at the same time the opticians make a fortune...

My problem wiuth this is two fold.... firstly (but not most importantly) it should be my choice to be tested...

Secondly ... this would never have happened unless opticians had pressured the government and stood to make money from it...

Like the example earlier with unpasturised cheese... thge legislation usually means someone is making money out of it...

Sometimes its not so bad sometimes it is like the milk in schools... but almost always someone ismaking money from the legislation.

Some of the proposals the paper puts forwards sound unlikely ... however when there is enough money in it even the most outlandish ones can get passed... indeed the more outlandish the easier sometimes...

The one pattern I always find true is that when an industry puts forwards the regulations its always to their advantage and the consumer is an afterthought.


Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. (JC, De Bello Gallico Liber III/XVIII)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites