Is it just me or does anyone else get the feeling that the FDA would rather keep the public fat and week. What’s their agenda? What are they hiding? Who’s behind it? CIA,Freemasons,Satan,or Aliens? Lets here your thoughts.
Yeah, that’s it they want to keep us fat and weak.
It’s not so much a conspiracy, as a reaction to the snake-oil and patent-medicine business of the 19th century. Because there was so much hucksterism and completely ineffective products being sold as drugs, the FDA was formed to regulate it. Unfortunately snake-oil hucksterism is with us to this day in the dietary supplement world, which is itself big enough and influential enough to escape most
regulation. Pharma companies must invest tens
of millions of dollars in testing new drugs
and have very strict advertising requirements.
Supplement companies can whip out a new supplement in a few months with zero testing.
I sometimes wish the FDA came down a lot harder
on supp companies that make useless junk. Not
every supp company is bad of course, Biotest is great and one of the few companies that actually makes useful stuff. 
Caveat emptor.
i agree with your basic idea. however, i feel that the FDA doesn’t necessarily want us to be fat and weak, they just want us to pay outlandish prices for good products. every time a suppliment is found to work, they yank it off of the market sometimes citing “safety reasons” and make it prescription only. example: PPA just got yanked off of the suppliment market. it is a safer, more effective fat burner with less side effects than ephedrine, psuedoephedrine, etc. i would assume it can still be prescribed for fat loss because, after all, it has been shown to be very effective. basically i feel that the pharmaceutical companies see this as something they could “steal” by making it prescription only. that way they have more of a monopoly, as no suppliment companies could sell the product, and they can charge 10 times as much (since it is a prescription). this is all a result of the pharmaceutical companies and the doctors’ attempt to lobby the FDA to get what they want (a lot more $$). conspiracy? you bet your ass.
Big Brother is behind it of course! I hear them laughing about it on the inside. They thinks it funny. Sad, but true.
I think it’s the aliens…serious 
Freemasons and Satan
Three issues: first you have to consider the
implications related to the “war on drugs.”
Second, most people have been brainwashed to
believe that they need government bureaucrats
to “protect” them. Third, the FDA has been
bought and paid for by large pharm companies.
I hope the moderator lets me post this link. The Life Extension Foundation has a very lucent article in the current issue of their mag about the third issue: the corruption at the FDA. You can read it here: http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2001/may2001_cover_reform.html
I think the first and third proposals for FDA reform that they make at the end of the article are very worth considering.
you sre its cause the FDA isnt run by good white cathoics baran.
Last November, when PPA was all over the news, I decided to look at the New England Journal of Medicine article that kicked this whole thing off.
The motivation for the study seems to have been because “Since 1979, more than 30 case reports have been published that describe the occurrence of intracranial hemorrhage after the ingestion of phenylpropanolamine…In addition to the published reports, between 1969 and 1991, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received 22 spontaneous reports of hemorrhagic stroke associated with phenylpropanolamine in appetite suppressants or cough and cold remedies.” So, assuming that there’s only one case per report, that’s 52 cases in 22 years. This doesn’t seem that high of a risk to me. If we compare PPA to acetaminophen (Tylenol), it seems even safer. According to the American Association of Poison Control Centers, in 1999 there were 85 deaths attributed to acetaminophen (Tylenol) alone, not including medications that contained other drugs in addition to acetaminophen.
The PPA study compared patients with “a subarachnoid or intracerebral hemorrhage within 30 days before enrollment and the absence of a previously diagnosed brain lesion” to control subjects, “for the association between the use of …phenylpropanolamine and the risk of a hemorrhagic stroke.”
“As compared with control subjects, patients were significantly more likely to … report … current cigarette smoking, a history of hypertension, a family history of hemorrhagic stroke, regular alcohol use (more than two drinks per day), and recent cocaine use.” They supposedly controlled for all this with the statistical analysis. I think it was Mark Twain that said “There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics.”
At the end of the NEJM article they note that the study was "Supported by Novartis Consumer Health (formerly Ciba Consumer Pharmaceuticals), Thompson Medical Company, and Chattem." I did some surfing to see what I could find about them.
Chattem bought Dexatrim from Thompson in 1998.
The Novartis website states that “Novartis Pharma is a leader in the discovery, development, manufacture and marketing of prescription medicines. Our products provide treatment for a broad range of disease areas including: Cardiovascular/endocrine/respiratory diseases- high blood pressure, arteriosclerosis, high cholesterol, obesity, renal failure and asthma”
Now, I'm sure they did the studies out of concern for the health of PPA users, not to make PPA a prescription drug so they could make more money from it, aren't you?
Free: I have to take exception with the article you referenced. I know several high-level people who work for the FDA, and they are all honest, hard-working individuals who have dedicated their lives to keeping unsafe products from the market. Yes, I agree that in the process, some collateral damage has been done which has restricted access to seemingly safe substances, and I also agree that the U.S. as a whole seems to have a fetish with pharmaceuticals, but the term “corruption”, as used in the article is entirely without merit.
As is typically the case with articles such as this one, it makes bald allegations without any supporting evidence to back its claims. The FDA is a Federal agency which is subject to the whims of political leaders as well as any applicable legislation (e.g., the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994); thus, if someone wishes to change the FDA’s focus and resultant actions, then that person need only become politically active and vote. I don’t want to get into a discussion about U.S. voting habits – or, more properly, the lack thereof – but I assure you that if more concerned individuals were to contact their elected officials and vote for or against them as perceived necessary, then the various “problems” would not exist.
Yes the FDA should crack down hard on anything labeled “GNC”…no idea what the US versions of stuff is like, but here in Canada they blow
Apart from that side note, unless the FDA had “unofficial” black market connections, then they wouldn’t profit from banning supplements (thereby forcing them to go black market)…IF they did indeed have such connections, then the association’s bank account must be MASSIVE. Maybe they get a slice off of each “underground” sale??
But an earlier poster is right…People in the US (and now to some extent up here in CAN) have been successfully brainwashed by the government into thinking that they need help from the government to watch over them.
I think an INDEPENDANT association without ANY (if that’s possible) connections to Pharm companies should be doing the testing…I agree in that way too much crap is getting through…
Unless the FDA is part of a LARGER conspiracy…perhaps with MediCare. Think about it…if the FDA pulls off any type of guaranteed weight loss supplement, the population balloons in weight which HUGELY increases the amounts of visits/treatments, etc to fat clinics…
just my 2 cents…
Wazoo
Wonder how many in the FDA trade Pharm. stocks, and which ones…it would be interesting to know, huh?
Bob Kennedy: I think the key word in your
statement is “exception.” I have no doubt that
there are honest, hard working people at the
FDA - but they are likely the exception. The
article itself has evidence: there is a blatent conflict of interest when individuals
who work at pharm cos and have heavy vested
interest in approval of prescription drugs
are the ones responsible for determining
the safety of those products and who have
the power to pull “natural” competing products
off the market. If I had the time I could
pull together a massive amount of evidence.
But I don’t. Others have done so. Go do some
research.
gnc canada always meets the label claims unlike certain other canadian companies
Free: By using the word “exception”, I meant that the article you reference is patently without merit for several reasons. First, it makes unsubstantiated claims about an entity that has, for the most part, provided a benefit to the country in the form of controls on a variety of unsafe substances. I can’t imagine anyone would claim that the FDA has never kept an unsafe product off the market, but I do agree that the FDA has made some poor decisions (for whatever reasons) regarding the relative safety of certain products. Second, the article, which is poorly written to begin with – and yes, I am quite capable of making that judgment insofar as my occupation involves writing technical and legal documents – makes use of a variety of buzzwords clearly intended to incite an adverse emotional response (e.g., “blatant abuses”, “corrupt”, “Megabig!”, “incestuous”, “drug lords”, etc.). A truly factual document needs no such words to make its point. Third, the article’s underlying allegation that the FDA is not independent is truly ironic given the fact that LEF sells over 100 different products on its web site. Consequently, LEF itself has a conflict of interest which renders its opinions on this matter highly suspect. Fourth, the article’s plea for the establishment of free market rules are fairly humorous insofar as its author appears to desire controls on large pharmaceutical companies (again, the article’s conflict of interest is very apparent). Fifth, forgive me for daring to challenge your original post (LOL), but telling me to “[g]o do some research” makes no sense whatsoever. You provided the article – which cites no supporting evidence to back its dubious claims – and if you wish for people to buy into its message that the FDA “maintains and supports the ‘robber baron’ practices of the drug companies” (sorry, but LOL again) – then you are the one who needs to do the research. (Oh, by the way, just to show that I can do the research, the FDA is not explicitly denying Thomas Navarro – the child referenced in the article – the antineoplaston therapy that his parents are seeking for them. Instead, the FDA requires that such therapy – which has never been shown to efficacious in any measurable sense – be conducted in a clinical testing environment and only as a last resort in pediatric patients. The parents, however, wish to only use one Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski to administer the treatments; unfortunately, Dr. Burzynski has been the subject of four Federal grand jury investigations regarding claims he’s made on the effectiveness of his treatments as well as certain other complaints tendered by his previous patients. In other words, he’s not exactly what a reasonable person would call a trustworthy individual.)
Bob: I think you are right on many of your
points. I agree the article is poorly written,
and I also agree that the LEF is not unbiased.
The fact that the LEF is not unbiased does
not negate the accusation that the FDA is not
either. The article does not make that many
claims, and many of the claims that it does
make are substantiated. The main reason I
was referring to it was to point out that
there is a conflict of interest - and the
article gives evidence to support that. I am
not holding that single article up as the
epitome of critique of the FDA. And in fact, I
don’t personally agree with some of what is
in the article. That article just happened to
be one that was convenient for me to link to.
If I were paid to be a professional investigative reporter, I could put together a report of the numerous FDA abuses that have been reported over the years *and* that provide plenty of real evidence. I however do not get paid for that - unless you want to start up a collection on T-mag. :-) I respect you as being one of the more intelligent posters on this forum, so I never questioned your ability to critique the article. My suggestion to you was consider other possibilities, that the FDA *is* in fact very fucked up. You seem not open to considering that possibility at all. If you are open to considering other ideas, then you can research that possibility for yourself (the point at the end of my second message).
I only post to T-mag in between working, when my brain is too fried to do real work. If you want me to to assemble a collection of references of FDA abuse for you, then send me a check. My post to this thread was to get people thinking about the possibility of reforming the problems at the FDA, not to pretend to be an investigative reporter. Perhaps I shall just refrain from posting to this forum at all if it means I have to spend 20 hours of research on each topic before I post. I have a living to earn and goals to achieve, and little of that is related to this forum. Sorry if you have some personal interest at the FDA and this hit a "hot button" for you.
One final point I want to make is this: there are a lot of possible ways that drugs and the like could be regulated. The FDA is only one way. And it may not be the best way. But many people seem to have blind obedience to the current way of doing things and are completely closed minded and refuse to even consider possibly better alternatives. I'm not saying that is what you do, just some people. So articles like this, if nothing else, have "shock value" in that they may induce people to consider the possibility that there is need for change. And IMHO, there is a need for change. The FDA approval process needlessly increases the costs of drugs by a huge factor. Safe drugs could be achieved at lower cost with an alternative system. Yes I have done the research; yes I have considered alternatives, and no I'm not going to post them all here because it would take up way too much space. And this is already way to long.
well let me take a crack at it, there’s a lot of money to be made in the pharmaceutical industry and they have a lot of lobbying power in washington…ghb was taken off the market because its a dangerous date rape drug, and yet its now sold by the pharmaceutical industry, ppa was taken off the market because it may cause srokes, and i heard that too will be sold under prescription, and then the fda has such a hard on for getting rid of ephedrine, and yet they sold phen-fen which gave 40% of users heart valve defects, sure makes you wonder what the fda’s real motives are
Bob: and wasn’t it David Kessler that wanted to ban/regulate extremely Ephedra containing products in 95/96? But of course Phen-Fen and Redux got passed right away. Count the deaths/diseases linked to both and see the real killer. They finally yanked the stuff after the pharm companies had a much safer weight loss DRUG out like Xenical or something. I can’t believe anyone on this forum believes they (most FDA) don’t have their own interests at heart. Like politicians. And, no joke about individuals at the FDA trading in pharm stocks. If you knew there was an AIDS vaccine that passed phase one of whatever trial and company XYZ was trying to get it approved would you back the truck up and load up on that stock before press time? Just my $.02.
Blame the corn flake munchin’ lobbyists. You know who sponsored the USRDA’s much outdated food pyramid nearly a decade ago? It was wheat heads over at Kellog’s for a large part. No wonder I got fat when I ate “healthy”. It’s all about the money. They actually started to hustle the dairy and meat industry. Nowadays it’s gotten better. However, the FDA is still a monstrosity, I say people that want to take unsafe things should be willing to suffer the consequences. Who’s with me.