Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> The absence of anything to indicate that it *is* substantiated?

People generally don't print references to their research results on the 
bottle. The substantiation could very well be somewhere else. I don't print 
on the bottle all the research I did to figure out how many calories are in 
that package of food either.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

There is a good amount of scientific literature supported the benefits of 
"probiotics". What has been debated is the delivery method. They generally 
do not fare well in the stomach, and it has been suggested that ingestion is 
not an effective way to restore microflora. In other words, most people may 
not be using the utilizing the optimal orifice. A woman can't use yogurt to 
treat a yeast infection by eating the yogurt because one thing is not 
connected to the other in any way.

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:49821185$1@news.povray.org...
>>> Frankly, I'm surprised these claims are legal. I thought there was a law 
>>> against making unsubstantiated "health claims"...
>>
>> What makes you think it's unsubstantiated?
>
> The absence of anything to indicate that it *is* substantiated?
>
> -- 
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message