Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / April 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

FDA about to make water for dehydration illegal practice of medicine

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
brightwinger - 25 Apr 2007 19:49 GMT
That's just the tip of the iceberg...so to speak...

Watch out! That water might get ya!!

The head of the FDA has issued a ruling that could take effect in 60
days that would put every supplement company out of business. It would
also make it illegal to buy supplements without a prescription.

No one dies most years from a supplement overdose, according to the
CDC. I guess the FDA wants to give us the same level of safety as they
offer for drugs, where hundreds of thousands of people are killed or
maimed each year.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55370
Carol - 26 Apr 2007 01:39 GMT
>The head of the FDA has issued a ruling that could take effect in 60
>days that would put every supplement company out of business. It would
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55370

Uh, no.  The document they reference at
http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/06d-0480-gld0001.pdf is a
clarification of current regulations.  The regulations are not
proposals, they have existed for some time.  The explanatory document
is proposed, not the regulations.  A fear-mongering reporter quoting
the comments of others who also can't read doesn't change facts.
brightwinger - 26 Apr 2007 17:31 GMT
> >The head of the FDA has issued a ruling that could take effect in 60
> >days that would put every supplement company out of business. It would
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> is proposed, not the regulations.  A fear-mongering reporter quoting
> the comments of others who also can't read doesn't change facts.

Whether it is a current regulation or a clarification of said
regulation, any regulation that says using water to cure dehydration
and supplements for health is practicing medicine, is a mite bit
draconian, doncha think? 'Cuz supplements are NOT drugs. Nor is water.

The government should not be controlling our most basic rights. Taking
care of our own health that the health of others is a basic right.
David Wright - 28 Apr 2007 03:50 GMT
>> >The head of the FDA has issued a ruling that could take effect in 60
>> >days that would put every supplement company out of business. It would
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>The government should not be controlling our most basic rights. Taking
>care of our own health that the health of others is a basic right.

I just read the thing.  There is nothing it it that even implies you'd
need a prescription to buy supplements.  Where DO you get these ideas?

 -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity.  Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher
Carol - 28 Apr 2007 20:18 GMT
>I just read the thing.  There is nothing it it that even implies you'd
>need a prescription to buy supplements.  

Well, not unless a manufacturer or seller is dumb enough to claim they
treat or cure disease, anyway.  It's mostly a matter of semantics.

>Where DO you get these ideas?

It seems people who don't understand a simple "MAY happen IF certain
criteria apply" sentence structure are the ones getting this whole
issue exactly backwards.  That, and those who tend to harbor
conspiracy theories.  Sad to see how many there are, netwide.
Mark Probert - 29 Apr 2007 04:49 GMT
>> I just read the thing.  There is nothing it it that even implies you'd
>> need a prescription to buy supplements.  
>
> Well, not unless a manufacturer or seller is dumb enough to claim they
> treat or cure disease, anyway.  It's mostly a matter of semantics.

Wrong. Let me re-write:

Well, not unless a manufacturer or seller is GREEDY enough to claim they
treat or cure disease, anyway.  It's mostly a matter of ECONOMICS.

The manufacturers of these chemicals would love to make medical like
claims to boost sales.

>> Where DO you get these ideas?
>
> It seems people who don't understand a simple "MAY happen IF certain
> criteria apply" sentence structure are the ones getting this whole
> issue exactly backwards.  That, and those who tend to harbor
> conspiracy theories.  Sad to see how many there are, netwide.
Jan Drew - 29 Apr 2007 06:16 GMT
>>> I just read the thing.  There is nothing it it that even implies you'd
>>> need a prescription to buy supplements.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Wrong. Let me re-write:

NO.

You had a change to write and one to be heard when you were disbarred.  You
were silent which means guility
Carol - 28 Apr 2007 19:45 GMT
On 26 Apr 2007 09:31:22 -0700, n
<1177605082.092297.85970@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com> brightwinger
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

>> >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55370
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>and supplements for health is practicing medicine, is a mite bit
>draconian, doncha think? 'Cuz supplements are NOT drugs. Nor is water.

It doesn't say that.  Try reading it.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.