Business History Books » Business Plans » Fw: NAS Panel Calls Antioxidant Megadoses Ineffective
Fw: NAS Panel Calls Antioxidant Megadoses Ineffective
Question:
> >> If being a prescription item is so great, why do pharm companies >> attempt to move some of their products from prescription to OTC? >> Consider Aleve. Consider antihistamines. If it were more profitable >> to keep them as prescription items, they’d still be prescription >> items.
>does it have anything to do with their patents having run out? > I don’t follow the reasons it should. The patent running out means > that the smaller manufacturers can now produce generics, but why would > that make it advantageous to take it off prescription?
i dont know…it was just a thought. it just always seems that when something loses its patent is when it becomes OTC ready. >> How thoughtful of you. *I* think the only things that should be >> prescription are antibiotics, to try to contain the spread of >> resistant bacteria. It’s just a public health measure. >yeah, ban triclosan while you’re at it! > I wonder if that’ll happen, now that resistance has shown up?
one would hope so! >> I care a lot more about that than about some junkie buying heroin at >> the drug store. >what if that junkie turned out to be one of your family members? even your >child? > I am not going to get into a debate about drug policy on m.h.a; it’s a > topic for those alt.drugs groups, which I stay well away from. If you > want to discuss it by email, OK, email me, but I’m not going to fan > the flames of some gigantic, endless newsgroup discussion that I’ll > just wind up killfiling.
well, i would not want to get into a drug policy debate either. i was just making a bit of a counter point to your analogy. (that you would prolly feel differently if it hit closer to home) Remove one ‘m’ from mpinet to use your reply option….. "Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." Mark Twain Never hate your enemies, it affects your judgement. the Godfather movie
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >> I suppose the billions that a handful of companies make on vitamins > >> alone is too trivial for them to consider? > >who said that (too trivial to mention)? all i said was that **compared to > >what they make selling patented pharms**, there IS no comparison. am i > >wrong?? > Oh, I think so. I just looked up the annual reports of a couple of > large drug firms (Roche and Merck). Each of them had just under > US$30 billion in sales last year. A billion out of that is not small > potatoes. >i dunno, maybe it’s that ole non-math/statistical side of me rearing its ugly >head, but 1 out of 30 aint all that big.
Imagine you are the CEO of one of those companies and you decide to let the vitamin business just slip away. How do you think the board of directors is going to react to the news that you have tossed a billion dollars in sales aside? Yeah, it may be 3% of sales, but it is a gigantic amount of money to lose. I should think you’d be fired in short order. — David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct. The Millennium actually begins on January 1, 2001 So Get Ready for a Second Round of Parties
Response:
>> Sure it does. Not. > If being a prescription item is so great, why do pharm companies > attempt to move some of their products from prescription to OTC? > Consider Aleve. Consider antihistamines. If it were more profitable > to keep them as prescription items, they’d still be prescription > items. >does it have anything to do with their patents having run out?
I don’t follow the reasons it should. The patent running out means that the smaller manufacturers can now produce generics, but why would that make it advantageous to take it off prescription? > How thoughtful of you. *I* think the only things that should be > prescription are antibiotics, to try to contain the spread of > resistant bacteria. It’s just a public health measure. >yeah, ban triclosan while you’re at it!
I wonder if that’ll happen, now that resistance has shown up? > I care a lot more about that than about some junkie buying heroin at > the drug store. >what if that junkie turned out to be one of your family members? even your >child?
I am not going to get into a debate about drug policy on m.h.a; it’s a topic for those alt.drugs groups, which I stay well away from. If you want to discuss it by email, OK, email me, but I’m not going to fan the flames of some gigantic, endless newsgroup discussion that I’ll just wind up killfiling. — David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct. The Millennium actually begins on January 1, 2001 So Get Ready for a Second Round of Parties
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >> Is my assumption incorrect that most pharmacuetical companies have a >> >> sizable stake in the vitamin and mineral markets as well. If so, >> >> wouldn’t that be cutting into their profits by taking this position? >> >> Just curious. >> >> frank >> >compared to their synthetic drugs, i doubt their ‘natural’/ nutritional >> >supplements share of the market is all that huge….. >> I suppose the billions that a handful of companies make on vitamins >> alone is too trivial for them to consider? >who said that (too trivial to mention)? all i said was that **compared to >what they make selling patented pharms**, there IS no comparison. am i >wrong?? > Oh, I think so. I just looked up the annual reports of a couple of > large drug firms (Roche and Merck). Each of them had just under > US$30 billion in sales last year. A billion out of that is not small > potatoes.
i dunno, maybe it’s that ole non-math/statistical side of me rearing its ugly head, but 1 out of 30 aint all that big. > Jeez, kids, a billion dollars is a significant amount of sales to ANY > corporation. And vitamins can be a goldmine for a company that can > make them in bulk. The cost of production is low, you don’t have to > worry about adverse-reaction lawsuits like you do with prescription > drugs, no clinical trials needed, and they’re available over the > counter. Combine that with the current zeal towards megadosing, and > it’s certainly a business I’d try to stay in!
no doubt, but one billion out of 30 aint gonna make or break the company. >> Yeah, billions of dollars. Vitamins are big business, and those >> handful of companies are where just about everyone gets their supply. >it would indeed be very interesting to see some kind of corporate rundown of >who owns what branch of which other companies…..i buy from nature’s way >quite often. i wonder who they are owned by? > No idea. They’re not necessarily owned by a large company. It’s just > that they have to get their raw materials from somewhere. Making > everything themselves would be too expensive even if it were practical.
here is their info: http://www.naturesway.com/company/index.asp?page=gmp_awards (ownership info is under international resources in case this link doesnt bring that page up) i saw the name schwabe and thought "not THAT schwab i hope!" note their satisfaction or money-back refund policy. Remove one ‘m’ from mpinet to use your reply option….. "Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." Mark Twain Never hate your enemies, it affects your judgement. the Godfather movie
Response:
> >it is essential >that we reach out to more people if we are to succeed in stopping the evil >that is the pharmaceutically manipulated and funded so called "National >Academy of Science"! > This is science, not politics. Just because people disagree with you does > not mean they are obviously wrong, biased, or involved in a conspiracy. > They are not even saying that you are wrong, merely that there is no > convincing evidence for your viewpoint.
arent these ‘non-politically motivated’ and impartial, non-conspiratorial NAS folks the same ones who shunned carl sagan for a prestigious award not too long ago? at least they are consistent. > There has been a lot of good research on supplements, and there is a lot yet > going on. What more can you want?
do you disagree, peter, that something not patentable would be rather less-than-embraced-or-feverishly-followed-through-with by drug companies? > If the results are always equivocal this probably means that any beneficial > effects are not huge. Perhaps people would do as well a better diet, more > exercise, and without having to put billions of dollars into the pockets of > the supplement manufacturers.
true, but dream on. > To pretend that the views of the other side > are being manipulated and yours aren’t is naive to the extreme. Just look > at all the commercial hype on this newsgroup.
indeed. too true. here on this ng, and also in every doctor’s office. lots of pharm commercialism with all of those pens, pads, posters and other presents. Remove one ‘m’ from mpinet to use your reply option….. "Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." Mark Twain Never hate your enemies, it affects your judgement. the Godfather movie
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Moses: it is true some manufacturers make large sales of vitamins. We >are all capitalist these days, right? Ok…. a couple of points one the >key word is some. Not all of the drug companies get a piece of that >pie, but more importantly the ultimate goal of the orthodox >establisnment types is control. This means vitamins and related related >will become a prescription item. > Sure it does. Not. > If being a prescription item is so great, why do pharm companies > attempt to move some of their products from prescription to OTC? > Consider Aleve. Consider antihistamines. If it were more profitable > to keep them as prescription items, they’d still be prescription > items.
does it have anything to do with their patents having run out? >Personally, I think only things that should be prescription are meds >which are addictive. > How thoughtful of you. *I* think the only things that should be > prescription are antibiotics, to try to contain the spread of > resistant bacteria. It’s just a public health measure.
yeah, ban triclosan while you’re at it! > I care a lot more about that than about some junkie buying heroin at > the drug store.
what if that junkie turned out to be one of your family members? even your child? Remove one ‘m’ from mpinet to use your reply option….. "Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." Mark Twain Never hate your enemies, it affects your judgement. the Godfather movie
Response:
>Moses: it is true some manufacturers make large sales of vitamins. We >are all capitalist these days, right? Ok…. a couple of points one the >key word is some. Not all of the drug companies get a piece of that >pie, but more importantly the ultimate goal of the orthodox >establisnment types is control. This means vitamins and related related >will become a prescription item.
Sure it does. Not. If being a prescription item is so great, why do pharm companies attempt to move some of their products from prescription to OTC? Consider Aleve. Consider antihistamines. If it were more profitable to keep them as prescription items, they’d still be prescription items. >Personally, I think only things that should be prescription are meds >which are addictive.
How thoughtful of you. *I* think the only things that should be prescription are antibiotics, to try to contain the spread of resistant bacteria. It’s just a public health measure. I care a lot more about that than about some junkie buying heroin at the drug store. — David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct. The Millennium actually begins on January 1, 2001 So Get Ready for a Second Round of Parties
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >> Is my assumption incorrect that most pharmacuetical companies have a > >> sizable stake in the vitamin and mineral markets as well. If so, > >> wouldn’t that be cutting into their profits by taking this position? > >> Just curious. > >> frank > >compared to their synthetic drugs, i doubt their ‘natural’/ nutritional > >supplements share of the market is all that huge….. > I suppose the billions that a handful of companies make on vitamins > alone is too trivial for them to consider? >who said that (too trivial to mention)? all i said was that **compared to >what they make selling patented pharms**, there IS no comparison. am i >wrong??
Oh, I think so. I just looked up the annual reports of a couple of large drug firms (Roche and Merck). Each of them had just under US$30 billion in sales last year. A billion out of that is not small potatoes. Jeez, kids, a billion dollars is a significant amount of sales to ANY corporation. And vitamins can be a goldmine for a company that can make them in bulk. The cost of production is low, you don’t have to worry about adverse-reaction lawsuits like you do with prescription drugs, no clinical trials needed, and they’re available over the counter. Combine that with the current zeal towards megadosing, and it’s certainly a business I’d try to stay in! > Yeah, billions of dollars. Vitamins are big business, and those > handful of companies are where just about everyone gets their supply. >it would indeed be very interesting to see some kind of corporate rundown of >who owns what branch of which other companies…..i buy from nature’s way >quite often. i wonder who they are owned by?
No idea. They’re not necessarily owned by a large company. It’s just that they have to get their raw materials from somewhere. Making everything themselves would be too expensive even if it were practical. >(course, you can always grow yer *own* herbs. or buy them whole/dried >c/s so you know what you’re getting.)
You can as long as you can analyze them well enough to be sure that the content is consistent. Otherwise, you’re never truly sure, though I daresay it usually works out fine. — David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct. The Millennium actually begins on January 1, 2001 So Get Ready for a Second Round of Parties
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Is my assumption incorrect that most pharmacuetical companies have a >> sizable stake in the vitamin and mineral markets as well. If so, >> wouldn’t that be cutting into their profits by taking this position? >> Just curious. >> frank >compared to their synthetic drugs, i doubt their ‘natural’/ nutritional >supplements share of the market is all that huge….. > I suppose the billions that a handful of companies make on vitamins > alone is too trivial for them to consider?
who said that (too trivial to mention)? all i said was that **compared to what they make selling patented pharms**, there IS no comparison. am i wrong?? > I think it was Roche that > just paid millions on a huge antitrust suit the US brought against > them for price-fixing on vitamins.
niiiice. see how they are!! (those big bad evil drug companies…they’ll corrupt everything!) > Yeah, billions of dollars. Vitamins are big business, and those > handful of companies are where just about everyone gets their supply.
it would indeed be very interesting to see some kind of corporate rundown of who owns what branch of which other companies…..i buy from nature’s way quite often. i wonder who they are owned by? hmmm, maybe it’s all just another evil corporate masterplan……all the vitamins and supplements and herbs are actually being sold by the evil drug companies. we can’t ever get away from <G> (course, you can always grow yer *own* herbs. or buy them whole/dried c/s so you know what you’re getting.) Remove one ‘m’ from mpinet to use your reply option….. "Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." Mark Twain Never hate your enemies, it affects your judgement. the Godfather movie
Response:
> Just read in Consumer Reports(May issue) that in the U.S. alone > 14.7 billion dollars were spent by consumers on vitamins and > supplements in 1999. I don’t consider that small potatoes!! > frank > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
yes, but **compare** that to how much was spent on pharms. BIIIIIG potatoes, those pharms. Remove one ‘m’ from mpinet to use your reply option….. "Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." Mark Twain Never hate your enemies, it affects your judgement. the Godfather movie
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >it is essential > >that we reach out to more people if we are to succeed in stopping the evil > >that is the pharmaceutically manipulated and funded so called "National > >Academy of Science"! > This is science, not politics. Just because people disagree with you does > not mean they are obviously wrong, biased, or involved in a conspiracy. > They are not even saying that you are wrong, merely that there is no > convincing evidence for your viewpoint. >arent these ‘non-politically motivated’ and impartial, non-conspiratorial NAS >folks the same ones who shunned carl sagan for a prestigious award not too long >ago? >at least they are consistent.
I don’t know what this refers to. But who is it that bribes virtually all of the world’s scientists to say that people can probably get all the vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants they need from a reasonable diet? I suppose it is all those darned food-peddlers again. Conspiracy theories can really become tortuous. > There has been a lot of good research on supplements, and there is a lot yet > going on. What more can you want? >do you disagree, peter, that something not patentable would be rather >less-than-embraced-or-feverishly-followed-through-with by drug companies?
I agree. The issue is what impact this is having on health or medical capabilities. Drug companies don’t control all research. Do a Pubmed search on any supplement or herb and you will be surprised at the number of studies that pop up. I don’t know who funds them all but there seems to be no shortage of them. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> If the results are always equivocal this probably means that any beneficial > effects are not huge. Perhaps people would do as well a better diet, more > exercise, and without having to put billions of dollars into the pockets of > the supplement manufacturers. >true, but dream on. > To pretend that the views of the other side > are being manipulated and yours aren’t is naive to the extreme. Just look > at all the commercial hype on this newsgroup. >indeed. too true. >here on this ng, and also in every doctor’s office. lots of pharm commercialism >with all of those pens, pads, posters and other presents.
This is pretty harmless stuff to keep their brand names in the doctors eye. I am more concerned about the cheap weekend conferences. I don’t get invited to them as we surgeons don’t prescribe much 
. Seriously though, AM grossly exagerates the influence drug companies have. There is an influence, it is not always harmless, but it is basically all within the framework of good science that will win out in the end. Drug companies are extremely careful about their reputations, realising that they go broke if caught out deceiving doctors, or the FDA, or the regulatory authorities of other countries. Peter
Response:
writes: >I suppose the billions that a handful of companies make on vitamins >alone is too trivial for them to consider? I think it was Roche that >just paid millions on a huge antitrust suit the US brought against >them for price-fixing on vitamins. >Yeah, billions of dollars. Vitamins are big business, and those >handful of companies are where just about everyone gets their supply.
You are nearly right. Yes, it’s big business. But to the handfull of pharm.cos. you mention, if I can guess who you mean, it is still trivial in their business plans. Yes they manufacture vitamin and minerals, to keep them cost effective and therefore highly profitable. They manufacture the more popular supplements. But they still prefer to invest in patentable products where initial competition is restricted and their necessary return on investment, which is necessarily high in the case of prescription drugs, can be fully recovered while retaing their high gross margins. The unfortunate thing about this, and perhaps adds meaning to your comment "where just about everyone gets their supply" is that such pharm. co. vitamins are marketed in many guises through many different outlets with no reference to the manufacturer. Luckily however, there are now more and more entrants into the market producing more natural substances, so competition is hotting up. Funny, that as soon as such get their feet firmly under the table that the NAS come to their conclusions. I have always stated that megadoses should only be taken for a limited time for a specific reason, so the simplified report is not a surprise to me. It seems they are finding the obvious to be true as usual. The headline, however, does not support the content. It still relies on the average person being able to find all their nutritional needs in an "healthy" diet which includes 5 portions (a portion defined as two tablespoon fulls) of veg. and five portions of fruit (a portion being defined as an whole fruit), per day. Now assuming that the portions of veg. are raw and that this "healthy" diet is "average", stop, strike that, not average: normal, then the normal person is perhaps OK. My problem is, however twofold: 1: Is this healthy diet normal? 2: Is their such a thing as a normal person? I don’t think so! Wishing you an abundance of all you desire, Regards, Ray ?: http://communities.msn.co.uk/RAYSNEWAYS
Response:
Moses: it is true some manufacturers make large sales of vitamins. We are all capitalist these days, right? Ok…. a couple of points one the key word is some. Not all of the drug companies get a piece of that pie, but more importantly the ultimate goal of the orthodox establisnment types is control. This means vitamins and related related will become a prescription item. And the profits will balloon even if the volume of sales are somewhat diminished. The R.D.’s want to the experts and forbid others to even disagree. Much of it is bias. I’ll listen to a Karl Folkers or Roger J. Williams any day in preference to a Lizzy Whelan or Victor Herbert. Personally, I think only things that should be prescription are meds which are addictive. I say embrace the Mexican Model of health care especially given how incomes distribution to the various class/social levels of the USA. Semi-Sincerely Moses Clarke PS Typos typos….a species that roosts in my Usenet postings – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Is my assumption incorrect that most pharmacuetical companies have a > sizable stake in the vitamin and mineral markets as well. If so, > wouldn’t that be cutting into their profits by taking this position? > Just curious. > frank > Moses here: This is just the orthodox opinion all dressed up. There > is > nothing new whether it’s true or false. You are naive to think that > the > drug companies and the orthodox quacks don’t want this potential cash > cow in the pen. Just read a nutrition > text…..bias….invective……error and half truths. It’s about > control and money. > them that’s got the gold make the rules……Moses Clarke > Before you buy.
Before you buy.
Response:
Just read in Consumer Reports(May issue) that in the U.S. alone 14.7 billion dollars were spent by consumers on vitamins and supplements in 1999. I don’t consider that small potatoes!! frank * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
>> Is my assumption incorrect that most pharmacuetical companies have a > sizable stake in the vitamin and mineral markets as well. If so, > wouldn’t that be cutting into their profits by taking this position? > Just curious. > frank >compared to their synthetic drugs, i doubt their ‘natural’/ nutritional >supplements share of the market is all that huge…..
I suppose the billions that a handful of companies make on vitamins alone is too trivial for them to consider? I think it was Roche that just paid millions on a huge antitrust suit the US brought against them for price-fixing on vitamins. Yeah, billions of dollars. Vitamins are big business, and those handful of companies are where just about everyone gets their supply. — David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct. The Millennium actually begins on January 1, 2001 So Get Ready for a Second Round of Parties
Response:
> Is my assumption incorrect that most pharmacuetical companies have a > sizable stake in the vitamin and mineral markets as well. If so, > wouldn’t that be cutting into their profits by taking this position? > Just curious. > frank
compared to their synthetic drugs, i doubt their ‘natural’/ nutritional supplements share of the market is all that huge….. interestingly enough, yesterday at my son’s immunologist appt, almost every pad, calender (and even their scale for weighing patients) had a zyrtec tag on it….. Remove one ‘m’ from mpinet to use your reply option….. "Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." Mark Twain Never hate your enemies, it affects your judgement. the Godfather movie
Response:
Is my assumption incorrect that most pharmacuetical companies have a sizable stake in the vitamin and mineral markets as well. If so, wouldn’t that be cutting into their profits by taking this position? Just curious. frank > Moses here: This is just the orthodox opinion all dressed up. There is > nothing new whether it’s true or false. You are naive to think that the > drug companies and the orthodox quacks don’t want this potential cash > cow in the pen. Just read a nutrition > text…..bias….invective……error and half truths. It’s about > control and money. > them that’s got the gold make the rules……Moses Clarke
Before you buy.
Response:
Moses here: This is just the orthodox opinion all dressed up. There is nothing new whether it’s true or false. You are naive to think that the drug companies and the orthodox quacks don’t want this potential cash cow in the pen. Just read a nutrition text…..bias….invective……error and half truths. It’s about control and money. them that’s got the gold make the rules……Moses Clarke – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Is the implication that data was being manipulated or fraudently > twisted by NAS to achieve some agenda – political or otherwise?? > frank > —– Original Message —– > IAHF LIST: For a long time now I’ve felt like a lone voice crying in > the > wilderness in calling for an oversight hearing on the National > Academy of > Sciences horribly biased paper "A Risk Assessment Model for > Establishing > Upper Levels for Nutrients" This news article from the Washington > Post about > a new bogus NAS "finding" underscores my vehement assertion that an > effort > is being made to set us up via CODEX. > Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw have pointed out to me that the > Administrative > Procedures Act forbids any Federal Agency from adopting international > standards without first going through propoer rulemaking procedures, > comments periods, etc, but I reminded them that the FDA thinks its > above the > law, as they should clearly be able to see given that they’re > currently > having to sue them for contempt of court due to their totally > ignoring the > Judges decision in the Pearson case. > Currently I am trying a new idea to try to get an oversight hearing > and I’ll > be able to tell you more soon. If my idea pans out I’ll really need > all of > your help to bring it to fruition, so please forward this– it is > essential > that we reach out to more people if we are to succeed in stopping the > evil > that is the pharmaceutically manipulated and funded so called > "National > Academy of Science"! > Panel Calls Antioxidant Megadoses Ineffective > By Sally Squires > Washington Post Staff Writer > Tuesday, April 11, 2000; Page A01 > There is no convincing scientific evidence that taking large amounts > of > vitamin C, vitamin E, or the nutrients selenium and beta carotene can > reduce > the chances of getting cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s > disease > or other illnesses, a National Academy of Sciences panel announced > yesterday. > <snip> >