I'm sorry.  It wasn't really clear, was it.

The supplement is called "Kan Jang."

Here's a link.  Don't be afraid to plug the supp's name into PubMed:

 http://www.proactivebio.com/viewproduct.php?id_product=8

Thanks for the lead on Beta-Glucan.  Didn't know that one.

Wow!  Quick RCCT PubMed search really yields really good info on that
one ... on all sorts of fronts: LDL, FBG, immune ....!  [reaches for
credit card ... yet again.  This stuff is SO much cheaper than ONE
darned co-pay :-)]

I KNOW that supplements are NOT zero risk, but ... I gotta tell you:
I'm not aware of any harm that any has ever caused me.  OTOH, I do
make sure to let anybody who might give me an Rx know what I'm
taking ... just in case.

Some are ... at least according to PubMed-published RCCT trials.  You
simply may put that bar in a different place than do I.

I know people who've used it for decades, with no apparent ill
effects.  You and I both know (of) people who've used Afrin (or
corticosteroids up their noses) for years, similarly, with "no
apparent ill effects."  I don't know that your over-simplification, in
the case of colloidal silver, holds up to closer scrutiny.  I simply
don't know.

Well, Google turned up a couple of instances right away, so ... I
dunno.

I call "post hoc ergo propter hoc" on that one, Steven.  Maybe the
"unsafe or ineffective" standard simply wasn't there.  I don't know
anything about the ephedra specifics, for example, but what I remember
is that people died by basically OD'ing .... as they well could on
aspirin.

I don't necessarily expect that -- given /only/ what I stated above
(let's call it a hypothetical) -- they /should/ recall, without
evidence of a widespread issue when "safe as directed" isn't the case.

I guess ... in a way ... we have to agree to disagree, though quite
mildly.

1) If BigPharma could "filter out those chemicals that are identified
to have

They do.

2) While it's not tough to find people, in the literature, who look
like Soviet Era Eastern Europe because of colloidal silver, how much
different is the incidence of that than is the incidence of death by
BigPharma products?  Besides, what's "toxicity," anyway, and where do
you create /that/ line.  Anybody know what all these pills that they
hand us are doing to /our/ bodies over, say, a ten-year period?

3) In my opinion, and (biasing and un-representative) experience,
Western Med really has virtually no clue, broadly, about WHO gets
WHICH "adverse events" to the degree that they can exclude on the
front end.  At one very high level (monitoring LFT's, and the like),
they do, but ... we're back to sample size issues.  "Postmarketing
data" (when they try it out on NON-volunteer humans, for profit) is
their first look at reasonable sample sizes.

4) Just like the arguments about medical marijuana, or legalization
vs. not: I'm more concerned that consistency and standardization be
brought to the dietary supplement industry, so that you know /what/
you're getting and /how much/ of it, in every capsule.  I'm not sold
on the notion that the FDA needs to protect me from those products.
Not yet.

5) As to "identify the specific chemical(s) in these preparations that
have the desired effect, and purify those chemicals into higher
concentrations so they're more effective"

Okay.  Maybe.  But if smoking a joint removed a chemo patient's pain
and stimulates their appetite, and Marinol is proven far less
effective, then ... what was the gain?  The losses are easy to
characterize: access, cost, efficacy.

If garlic /really/ works to lower cholesterol, or as a mild
antimicrobial, or if raw sauerkraut (or yogurt) is loaded with
probiotics, then ... what's the gain, really?

Part of the problem -- /very/ broadly -- is that Western Medicine/Big
Pharma (virtually a unified organism, IMO) doesn't /really/ try to get
ahead of the issues.  It's hard to argue against the notion that there
is .... no .... real .... money .... in .... healthy people.

I heard Bill Maher word it this way: "No money in healthy people.  No
money in dead people.  The money is in the middle."

That's NOT conspiracy theorist talk.  It's an economic fact.
Everybody can draw their own conclusions about whether, and to what
degree, that fact influences policy, marketing, R&D, or overall
business strategy.

If the profit motive were suddenly unimportant (more than a
hypothetical -- simply dreaming out loud -- but ... work with me
here), but the passion, commitment, funds, and fervor were unchanged,
then wouldn't you think that prevention could be HUGELY quantified,
classified, understood, and implemented, at DRAMATICALLY lower cost,
and with incalculable societal benefits?

I've worked at the VP level for two different NYSE companies.  Most of
my friends are, or have been, in biotech (IT geeks mostly, but....).
I understand how business decisions are made.  It's disheartening to
watch, but it rather pokes holes, pre-emptively, in any claim of
"conspiracy theorist" on my part.

I'd rather be healthy (I'm not being intentionally trite or
condescending here).

I think that -- in MY case -- all of the Tx modalities done to me,
over years, have been a BIG net negative.  I hear lots of talk that
leads me to believe that many of you feel similarly.

Hopefully, that all came across as "Socratic," not combative.  I have
much respect for those of you who post on this NG (naso-gastric?), so
I don't mean to degrade that with any differing opinion.

Neil

The medical establishment has recently admitted that prescription
antibiotics have never been effective for sinus infections. The blood
supply to the area is so poor the antibiotic never makes it to the
infection. Where were the heads of the FDA and the AMA? In The sand?
See my "Sinus Drainage Methods" post in this group. You have also made
several factual inaccuracies in your analysis of orthodox vs.
alternative medicine safety.

Paul

patent,