Government/FDA Lies

Diet and Nutrition
1

Our government is misleading us. Who knew? I’m sure you’re as surprised as I am…

"When health freedom advocates need a congressman to fight against attempts to restrict access to dietary supplements, they turn to Dr. Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is the leader in Washington who is not afraid to fight the powerful special interests that want to limit access to dietary supplements.

When Dr. Paul learned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was trying to censor truthful health claims by supplement manufacturers, he introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act (H.R. 2117)."

2

very interesting. im sure theres some supp. co’s out there that are as worse dogs as the pollies though.

Does Dr. Paul have a vested interest in supplements?

3

Sooooo I must supposed to be shocked and appalled into voting for Ron Paul.

4

[quote]sjfou wrote:
very interesting. im sure theres some supp. co’s out there that are as worse dogs as the pollies though.

Does Dr. Paul have a vested interest in supplements?[/quote]

I’m not aware of any vested interest, but that doesn’t mean much.

5

[quote]daltron wrote:
Sooooo I must supposed to be shocked and appalled into voting for Ron Paul.[/quote]

you can be shocked and appalled into voting for whoever you want.

6

What truthful information has the FDA been censoring? What mechanism have they been using to censor?

How did the FDA ever prohibit distribution of scientific education?

7

I’m not American but my guess would be a supplement company may claim something like Echinacea can help with cold / flu. Prior to the change, the FDA would have it removed from the label, however now it would be there but with a disclaimer stating that ‘this statement hasn’t been examined by the FDA’ etc etc. Could be completely wrong though hehe.

8

Ron Paul is a joke.

9

The real fight is putting preservatives and other chemicals in our damn food.

10

[quote]danchubb wrote:
I’m not American but my guess would be a supplement company may claim something like Echinacea can help with cold / flu. Prior to the change, the FDA would have it removed from the label, however now it would be there but with a disclaimer stating that ‘this statement hasn’t been examined by the FDA’ etc etc. Could be completely wrong though hehe.[/quote]

That is what I was thinking. Does anyone know for sure?

11

[quote]Novitennis88 wrote:
Ron Paul is a joke.[/quote]

Can you elaborate? Or is this just nonsensical rambling?

12

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
danchubb wrote:
I’m not American but my guess would be a supplement company may claim something like Echinacea can help with cold / flu. Prior to the change, the FDA would have it removed from the label, however now it would be there but with a disclaimer stating that ‘this statement hasn’t been examined by the FDA’ etc etc. Could be completely wrong though hehe.

That is what I was thinking. Does anyone know for sure?[/quote]

Isn’t this part of the “This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease” disclaimer? You can say pretty much whatever you want on the label, but that disclaimer must be on the packaging. Or maybe the FDA is changing it?

According to what I’ve been reading, the FDA has been attempting to have supplements essentially re-classified as drugs, so that they would only be available via prescription. Imagine, having to go to a doc and get a prescription for Vitamin C, fish oil, or maybe even whey protein. I may be misremembering, here, but I think this was the basic concept that people were getting all fired up about.

The health freedom movement was started to combat this kind of over-regulation. What we consume should be our choice, it should not be up to some politician or fat-cat pharmaceutical company executive.

13

[quote]RhunDraco wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
danchubb wrote:
I’m not American but my guess would be a supplement company may claim something like Echinacea can help with cold / flu. Prior to the change, the FDA would have it removed from the label, however now it would be there but with a disclaimer stating that ‘this statement hasn’t been examined by the FDA’ etc etc. Could be completely wrong though hehe.

That is what I was thinking. Does anyone know for sure?

Isn’t this part of the “This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease” disclaimer? You can say pretty much whatever you want on the label, but that disclaimer must be on the packaging. Or maybe the FDA is changing it?

According to what I’ve been reading, the FDA has been attempting to have supplements essentially re-classified as drugs, so that they would only be available via prescription. Imagine, having to go to a doc and get a prescription for Vitamin C, fish oil, or maybe even whey protein. I may be misremembering, here, but I think this was the basic concept that people were getting all fired up about.

The health freedom movement was started to combat this kind of over-regulation. What we consume should be our choice, it should not be up to some politician or fat-cat pharmaceutical company executive.[/quote]

My understanding in this instance, after reading the article, is that the FDA was deliberately censoring the proven benefits of some supplements. For example, if Vitamin C were proven to cure the common cold, that information was not allowed to be printed. That is the definition of censorship to me, and I am willing to bet it was “encouraged” by big drug companies.

14

[quote]awesomepossom wrote:
RhunDraco wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
danchubb wrote:
I’m not American but my guess would be a supplement company may claim something like Echinacea can help with cold / flu. Prior to the change, the FDA would have it removed from the label, however now it would be there but with a disclaimer stating that ‘this statement hasn’t been examined by the FDA’ etc etc. Could be completely wrong though hehe.

That is what I was thinking. Does anyone know for sure?

Isn’t this part of the “This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease” disclaimer? You can say pretty much whatever you want on the label, but that disclaimer must be on the packaging. Or maybe the FDA is changing it?

According to what I’ve been reading, the FDA has been attempting to have supplements essentially re-classified as drugs, so that they would only be available via prescription. Imagine, having to go to a doc and get a prescription for Vitamin C, fish oil, or maybe even whey protein. I may be misremembering, here, but I think this was the basic concept that people were getting all fired up about.

The health freedom movement was started to combat this kind of over-regulation. What we consume should be our choice, it should not be up to some politician or fat-cat pharmaceutical company executive.

My understanding in this instance, after reading the article, is that the FDA was deliberately censoring the proven benefits of some supplements. For example, if Vitamin C were proven to cure the common cold, that information was not allowed to be printed. That is the definition of censorship to me, and I am willing to bet it was “encouraged” by big drug companies.
[/quote]

I find this hard to believe and would love to see some examples if it is happening.

15

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

I find this hard to believe and would love to see some examples if it is happening.

[/quote]

Just because you find it hard to believe doesn’t mean it’s not happening. I’ll give you the first one. You get to dig for others if you would love to see more examples.

"Because of the FDA’s censorship of truthful health claims, millions of Americans may suffer with diseases and other health care problems they may have avoided by using dietary supplements. For example, the FDA prohibited consumers from learning how folic acid reduces the risk of neural tube defects for four years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended every woman of childbearing age take folic acid supplements to reduce neural tube defects. This FDA action contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable neural tube defects!
“The FDA also continues to prohibit consumers from learning about the scientific evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis; that omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of sudden death heart attack; and that calcium may reduce the risk of bone fractures.”

16

[quote]awesomepossom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

I find this hard to believe and would love to see some examples if it is happening.

Just because you find it hard to believe doesn’t mean it’s not happening. I’ll give you the first one. You get to dig for others if you would love to see more examples.

"Because of the FDA’s censorship of truthful health claims, millions of Americans may suffer with diseases and other health care problems they may have avoided by using dietary supplements. For example, the FDA prohibited consumers from learning how folic acid reduces the risk of neural tube defects for four years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended every woman of childbearing age take folic acid supplements to reduce neural tube defects. This FDA action contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable neural tube defects!
“The FDA also continues to prohibit consumers from learning about the scientific evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis; that omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of sudden death heart attack; and that calcium may reduce the risk of bone fractures.”

[/quote]

Still looking for a single example of censorship. How did the FDA prohibit people from learning about folic acid?

They do not censor scientific papers, all they do is require manufacturers do not make unproven claims.

Ron Paul is very deceptive in his claims that the FDA is censoring scientific info.

The FDA failing to recommend the use of a product is not censorship.

17

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Still looking for a single example of censorship. How did the FDA prohibit people from learning about folic acid?

They do not censor scientific papers, all they do is require manufacturers do not make unproven claims.

Ron Paul is very deceptive in his claims that the FDA is censoring scientific info.

The FDA failing to recommend the use of a product is not censorship.
[/quote]

How in the world is that not censorship? Granted, the FDA didn’t come to my local library and burn books, but they most certainly censored proven information they had on supplements. Their approach was the furthest thing from fair and balanced, and in the area they control they failed the people they are supposed to represent.

And I knew you’d ask “how” the FDA prohibited people from learning about folic acid. Diversion is a decent argumentative tactic, but irrelevant. The point is not about what processes they used, but that they WITHHELD pertinent, balanced, proven information. Once again, censorship.

Though this is about the FDA, what part of what Ron Paul said is deceptive?

Wait, you work for the FDA, don’t you?

18

[quote]awesomepossom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Still looking for a single example of censorship. How did the FDA prohibit people from learning about folic acid?

They do not censor scientific papers, all they do is require manufacturers do not make unproven claims.

Ron Paul is very deceptive in his claims that the FDA is censoring scientific info.

The FDA failing to recommend the use of a product is not censorship.

How in the world is that not censorship? Granted, the FDA didn’t come to my local library and burn books, but they most certainly censored proven information they had on supplements. Their approach was the furthest thing from fair and balanced, and in the area they control they failed the people they are supposed to represent.

And I knew you’d ask “how” the FDA prohibited people from learning about folic acid. Diversion is a decent argumentative tactic, but irrelevant. The point is not about what processes they used, but that they WITHHELD pertinent, balanced, proven information. Once again, censorship.

Though this is about the FDA, what part of what Ron Paul said is deceptive?

Wait, you work for the FDA, don’t you?[/quote]

The FDA didn’t suppress any information. They do not allow companies to make unproven claims on their packaging and require a disclaimer label. That is a far cry from censorship.

Ron Paul is being deceptive because he is acting as if the FDA is hiding information. They are not. As I said before it is not the FDA’s job to promote a companies products.

19

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
awesomepossom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Still looking for a single example of censorship. How did the FDA prohibit people from learning about folic acid?

They do not censor scientific papers, all they do is require manufacturers do not make unproven claims.

Ron Paul is very deceptive in his claims that the FDA is censoring scientific info.

The FDA failing to recommend the use of a product is not censorship.

How in the world is that not censorship? Granted, the FDA didn’t come to my local library and burn books, but they most certainly censored proven information they had on supplements. Their approach was the furthest thing from fair and balanced, and in the area they control they failed the people they are supposed to represent.

And I knew you’d ask “how” the FDA prohibited people from learning about folic acid. Diversion is a decent argumentative tactic, but irrelevant. The point is not about what processes they used, but that they WITHHELD pertinent, balanced, proven information. Once again, censorship.

Though this is about the FDA, what part of what Ron Paul said is deceptive?

Wait, you work for the FDA, don’t you?

The FDA didn’t suppress any information. They do not allow companies to make unproven claims on their packaging and require a disclaimer label. That is a far cry from censorship.

Ron Paul is being deceptive because he is acting as if the FDA is hiding information. They are not. As I said before it is not the FDA’s job to promote a companies products.[/quote]

How did they withhold information? In order for the FDA to consider an effect proven, and thus be able to promote/endorse such a product, the drug has to undergo trials as per the FDA Clinical trial requirements. The standards for a FDA trial are much greater than your typical study. They also take a long, long time and multiple trials and approvals.

I am guessing that the studies the FDA “covered up” were not up to FDA standards. They can only approve a drug if it follows the rules.

20

He’s just so conservative he’s basically a liberal. He wants none government at all. Its ridiculous and he has 0 chance.

Go Kucinich.