 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> > Are you going to say "no" to medicine which will cure your illness?
> Sadly, far too many religious fanatics or otherwise deluded believers in the
> mystic do.
But that's not because of the name "drug".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> But there's a limit to everything, of course.
Yeah. I read recently that they're figuring excess antioxidants (like
vitamin C) reduce the benefits of aerobic exercise, which seems plausible
when you think about it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > But there's a limit to everything, of course.
> Yeah. I read recently that they're figuring excess antioxidants (like
> vitamin C) reduce the benefits of aerobic exercise, which seems plausible
> when you think about it.
Also there has been recent evidence that for a healthy person, who
already has a balanced diet, taking dietary supplements can actually be
harmful in the long run. Especially excess of certain vitamins can be
dangerous, even if the excess is only minor, if it continues for very long
periods of time.
Dietary supplements (especially vitamins) have always been marketed as
being completely safe for anyone to take.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> God, I hope that's a joke!
>
> But something tells me it isn't :(
What? Company makes exaggerated health claims, regulatory organisation
tells them to stop it. What's the problem?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'd like a bowl of drugs, some scrambled brains on drugs, and a glass of
>> orange juice, please.
>>
>> http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/s7188c.htm
>
> God, I hope that's a joke!
>
> But something tells me it isn't :(
I hope that doesn't mean the politicians are trying to nationalize
General Foods like they're doing to the banks and the auto companies.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/15/2009 11:38 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>
>> God, I hope that's a joke!
>>
>> But something tells me it isn't :(
>
> What? Company makes exaggerated health claims, regulatory organisation
> tells them to stop it. What's the problem?
I've seen the claims in question, and they're actually quite accurate.
Try re-wording it: "Eating a healthy breakfast that's low in salt and
sugar is good for you - particularly your heart!"
But the FDA wants to classify cereal as a drug because of this? That's
just insane!
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/15/2009 9:21 AM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Maybe now they'll get rid of those irritaing commercials
>
> [6 Weeks later]
> H: Honey I'm almost done fixing the lock on our front door.
> W: I lowered my cholesterol to 180!
> H: Yeah, [wiping sweat from his brow] but you had Cheerios to help you.
> Commercials like that make me feel homicidal.
Is that a real commercial? Makes me glad I don't watch TV :)
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> What? Company makes exaggerated health claims, regulatory organisation
>> tells them to stop it. What's the problem?
>
> I've seen the claims in question, and they're actually quite accurate.
>
> Try re-wording it: "Eating a healthy breakfast that's low in salt and
> sugar is good for you - particularly your heart!"
>
> But the FDA wants to classify cereal as a drug because of this? That's
> just insane!
The trouble is, the packet phrases it like "eat our wonderful product
and you are automatically guaranteed to reduce your risk of heart
disease" - which is untrue. It depends on what other stuff you eat as
well. But they don't want to talk about that; they just want you to buy
their product.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> *product* which is *claimed* to have a health benefit. (This would
>> appear to include things which aren't even chemicals.) This, clearly, is
>
> Pedantically, everything is chemicals. :)
Sure. But (for example) a magic bracelet that makes you thin would be a
"drug" by their definition - even though none of the chemicals that
compose it ever end up inside you.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Sure. But (for example) a magic bracelet that makes you thin would be a
> "drug" by their definition - even though none of the chemicals that
> compose it ever end up inside you.
>
yyyes. But then the FDA is there to smack people who make
unsubstantiated claims when regarding the health effects of a particular
product. The term "drug" is a technicality in this regard. As in, "So
you say it acts like a drug, then? We'll just have to treat it like a drug"
What I wonder is why is there a loophole for anything marked as a
"Dietary Supplement"
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
