[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
…no facts of any kind other than if there were vast dollar figures involved that were somehow tied in with political influence…
You seem to believe that money and political influence are illegitimate tools for persuasion.
[/quote]
You seem to add things to what you read.
At any rate, if the prime purposes involved were to ensure safety and promote health of the American people as well as best economic result for the country, the government would not see it as desirable to needlessly grant a monopoly to a single form so as to enable them to sell for vastly-inflated cost a product already available, not invented by any pharmaceutioal company, at very reasonable cost in a free competitive market.
The drive to grant monopoly power to a single firm so as to allow them to charge extreme prices for something they did not invent has NOTHING to do with the interests of the American people or the good of the economy as a whole.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
TooHuman wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
The drive to grant monopoly power to a single firm so as to allow them to charge extreme prices for something they did not invent has NOTHING to do with the interests of the American people or the good of the economy as a whole.[/quote]
Exactly, but thats not how they see it.
Politicians think they are so self important, and are ordained by the people to make decisions.
They are elitists they think they are superior to everyone and its their responsibility to control us, stupid, brainless, cattle.
They have to appease the lobby to get the funds to get elected, and they feel that them getting elected is the only way to fufill their responsibility to the people.
Its complete bullshit, its justification of abuse, its burning the house down to save it from a flood.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
TooHuman wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
…no facts of any kind other than if there were vast dollar figures involved that were somehow tied in with political influence…
You seem to add things to what you read.
At any rate, if the prime purposes involved were to ensure safety and promote health of the American people as well as best economic result for the country, the government would not see it as desirable to needlessly grant a monopoly to a single form so as to enable them to sell for vastly-inflated cost a product already available, not invented by any pharmaceutioal company, at very reasonable cost in a free competitive market.
The drive to grant monopoly power to a single firm so as to allow them to charge extreme prices for something they did not invent has NOTHING to do with the interests of the American people or the good of the economy as a whole.[/quote]
We’re not disagreeing.
Governments don’t act on the interests of their people.
They act upon the interests of the Faction that exerts the most pressure and political incentive.
The goal is to be that faction(to exert the most influence).
That’s how governments are run.
So…
If you want to get something done with congress, you don’t come with the facts, you come with how the facts will make them money and win them reelection.
We seem to be moving away from an important topic.
Pyrodoxamine is one of the most potent fighters against AGE’s.
Given that AGE’s are implicated in almost every disease, and anything that works to limit them would be of great use, the fact that the FDA moved to ban them definitely raises an eyebrow to me.
Interesting.
I would like to work for the FDA possibly when I finish grad school.
The best way to fight the enemy is to join them and change them from within.
[quote]Wise Guy wrote:
We seem to be moving away from an important topic.
Pyrodoxamine is one of the most potent fighters against AGE’s.
Given that AGE’s are implicated in almost every disease, and anything that works to limit them would be of great use, the fact that the FDA moved to ban them definitely raises an eyebrow to me.
Interesting.
I would like to work for the FDA possibly when I finish grad school.
The best way to fight the enemy is to join them and change them from within. [/quote]
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Wise Guy wrote:
We seem to be moving away from an important topic.
Pyrodoxamine is one of the most potent fighters against AGE’s.
Given that AGE’s are implicated in almost every disease, and anything that works to limit them would be of great use, the fact that the FDA moved to ban them definitely raises an eyebrow to me.
Interesting.
I would like to work for the FDA possibly when I finish grad school.
The best way to fight the enemy is to join them and change them from within.
“We are the Borg: You will be assimilated.”[/quote]
We are a special combination
Of lifeforms and technology
Your puny phasers are no match
To our superior weaponry
Your ships are small, your shields are tender
Disarm your weapons and surrender
We now expect complete submission
We do not talk `bout your condition
Nothing to say, to be debated
Is this going to affect my ZMA? I know there’s B6 in it and isn’t it the B6 that causes the dreams?
I’ve probably got like 4 bottles in the cupboard but if this is my last chance for my lovely dream sleep I’d like to know so I can buy enough to take me into 2012 or something.
I’m glad this topic was opened, I’ve been meaning to ask what you guys think about B6, but specifically Pyrodoxal-5-Phosphate. Now, this is a form that was NOT banned, and is what I’ve read as being most effective.
Effective for what is my big question. I’ll quote a Dr. Slagle, who wrote a book about using Tyrosine and Tryptophan for treating depression (The Way Up pub. St. Martins Press). She states:
If your B complex does not contain vitamin B6 in the pyridoxal-5-phosphate form, you will need to find the form and add it spearately. B6 is essential for the metabolism and usage of proteins and amino acids.
She states that only this P-5-P form is properly absorbed because it is the coenzyme form, and the liver does not have to convert it. Elsewhere I’ve read the this form is better than the Pyrodoxamine form, that less is needed, that it is purer also (Jon B. Pangborn, PhD, ChE, Syracuse University cited on www.nutrition4health.org/NOHAnews/NNSp99B6.html). So there is this aspect, of P5P being better than the now-outlawed Pyrodoxamine.
The bigger question for me is Dr. Slagle’s assertion that when taking large amounts of single amino acids that it is crucial to also take with it P-5-P to absorb it well.
So I wanted to share these ideas, seems important for any of us taking single amino acids. Anyone have more info about this?
The point of taking pyridoxamine is not the same as taking other forms of B6. It is not correct that, for example, P-5-P is better as an anti-glycation agent. Quite the reverse.
My understanding is that whether P-5-P is “better” or not than pyridoxine depends on whether the individual produced P-5-P well from pyridoxine or not. A few do not and thus these few do better with P-5-P.
I don’t know that that must be completely accurate and correct but it is what I had understood to be the case.
As for this person’s assertions that large amounts of amino acids cannot be absorbed without taking P-5-P at the same time, that indeed it is “crucial” to do so, that is patently untrue.
Thanks so much for your response, Bill. I was hoping you’d reply, as you are probably the only one around who would know about all this. The B6 + amino acid question seems pretty important, as probably every product sold here would be involved. But you do leave the door open just a crack…it’s not “crucial” to take P-5-P with single aminos, but is it helpful, does it aide in absorption?
I have no knowledge that taking it at the same time is important in any way in this regard, but also no knowledge for a fact that the effect must be absolutely zero.
I would expect zero though until provided the specific evidence that there is any effect at all.
I’m referring to individuals that aren’t B6-deficient in the first place, the has-to-be-at-the-same-time aspect, and that one has to take P-5-P at all.
Countless title-winning and other successful lifters and athletes don’t, you know.
Or actually, the pharmaceutical company’s reasoning, for whom the FDA is serving as their bitches.
So to speak.
No offense intended.
I don’t think the pharmaceutical company has an unreasonable legal argument. The law so applied, however – granting monopoly rights to a firm for a substance they did not invent for uses which they did not invent, not for the end of increasing innovation but only for the end of allowing them to charge far more than the present going rate and of denying most Americans the available health benefit – is not to the benefit of American citizens in any way.
And also of course does not represent any power granted to the Federal Government by the Constitition, but of course I know that has been of zero legal relevance for generations now, so is a moot point, but still true.
No offense taken, I agree with you. The law being applied in this manner would seem to open the flood gates that could end innovation in the supplement industry.