It is currently Sat Dec 20, 2014 8:23 am




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 What!? Are they nuts? FDA must be working for big pharma 
Author Message
Vitamin C Master
Vitamin C Master

Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:53 pm
Posts: 254
Reply with quote
Post Re: What!? Are they nuts? FDA must be working for big pharma
Quote:
Besides, many large pharmaceutical companies are looking at diversification. Would you also consider Johnson & Johnson to be a consumer products company? They've been a diversified company for decades, but their pharmaceuticals business is still huge.


This would make sense to take a (panholistic?) attitude towards health. Vitamin consumption is (Big Vita?) is a large and growing industry, Pharma will hedge it's bets if necessary..if you can't beat them, join them


Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:12 pm
Report this post
Profile
Vitamin C Expert
Vitamin C Expert

Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:44 am
Posts: 500
Reply with quote
Post Re: What!? Are they nuts? FDA must be working for big pharma
BaronZemo wrote:
Quote:
Besides, many large pharmaceutical companies are looking at diversification. Would you also consider Johnson & Johnson to be a consumer products company? They've been a diversified company for decades, but their pharmaceuticals business is still huge.


This would make sense to take a (panholistic?) attitude towards health. Vitamin consumption is (Big Vita?) is a large and growing industry, Pharma will hedge it's bets if necessary..if you can't beat them, join them


Pharma has already entered the vitamin / supplement arena. Centrum has sales of a few hundred million dollars every year, and it is manufactured by Wyeth (now a part of Pfizer). Abbott manufacturers Niaspan (niacin extended-release), which had sales of over $700 million last year. GSK manufacturers Lovaza (omega-3 capsules), which is marketed for certain indications and is currently in clinical trials for several others.


Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:57 pm
Report this post
Profile
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9426
Location: Lisle, IL
Reply with quote
Post Re: What!? Are they nuts? FDA must be working for big pharma
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRel ... RN20091030

Apparently, now it is for real.

FDA: Procter & Gamble Unlawfully Marketing Two Vicks Cold and Flu Medicines Containing Vitamin C

I take it the FDA feels vitamin C has properties similar to arsenic or cyanide, otherwise why the concern over adding vitamin C to an OTC product?

_________________
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:52 am
Report this post
Profile
Vitamin C Master
Vitamin C Master

Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:53 pm
Posts: 254
Reply with quote
Post Re: What!? Are they nuts? FDA must be working for big pharma
Quote:
Because the agency previously determined that there are insufficient
data to show that vitamin C is safe and effective in preventing or
treating the common cold.


As they say in Brixton "complete bullocks mate"

I would be more afraid of of cough and cold medicine before C
I have used C/zinc to ward off colds and allegies

I would like to be a mind reader for people at the FDA..is it simple ignorance or are they that much under the influence of drug companies?
What's perpelexing is that they sent you an email saying the warning letter was a mistake, but then a few days leater send it out anyway..deceitful


Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:35 pm
Report this post
Profile
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9426
Location: Lisle, IL
Reply with quote
Post Re: What!? Are they nuts? FDA must be working for big pharma
Quote:
... is it simple ignorance or are they that much under the influence of drug companies?


That is the question. Obviously this move is not in the public interest, so whose interest is it?

I am finding it hard to imagine how a government bureaucrat would take the time and expend the effort to try and change an entire product line of a private company over vitamin C, of all things? So someone from the outside must have filed a complaint or be exerting influence. I mean with all the government has to do, why go after vitamin C as if it were a poison??

_________________
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:59 am
Report this post
Profile
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9426
Location: Lisle, IL
Reply with quote
Post Re: What!? Are they nuts? FDA must be working for big pharma
Dr. Hickey has contacted Christopher Kelly at the FDA (christopher.kelly@fda.hhs.gov) and we'll post a record of that conversation here.

Quote:
Dear Sir,

The article:

"FDA: Procter & Gamble Unlawfully Marketing Two Vicks Cold and Flu Medicines Containing Vitamin C"

has just been brought to my attention. It contains within it the inappropriate statement:

"Because the agency previously determined that there are insufficient data to show that vitamin C is safe and effective in preventing or treating the common cold".

Could you please supply me with the information that supports this statement? Note I expect you to be able to provide background data that meets the standards of decision science and not the usual argument based on lack of sociological statistics from trials.

Thank you in advance

Dr Steve Hickey


Quote:
I have forwarded your inqury to FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research - drug information group - they will reply directly.

Thank you,

-Chris Kelly


----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Hickey
To: Kelly, Christopher
Cc: ORFonorow ; Thomas Levy
Sent: Sat Oct 31 11:30:43 2009

_________________
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:36 am
Report this post
Profile
Vitamin C Master
Vitamin C Master

Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:53 pm
Posts: 254
Reply with quote
Post Re: What!? Are they nuts? FDA must be working for big pharma
ofonorow wrote:
Quote:
... is it simple ignorance or are they that much under the influence of drug companies?


That is the question. Obviously this move is not in the public interest, so whose interest is it?

I am finding it hard to imagine how a government bureaucrat would take the time and expend the effort to try and change an entire product line of a private company over vitamin C, of all things? So someone from the outside must have filed a complaint or be exerting influence. I mean with all the government has to do, why go after vitamin C as if it were a poison??



I think at some point you may have watergate with regrds to vitamins, the fda and the drug companies...this all seems bizarre to say the least


Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:30 am
Report this post
Profile
Vitamin C Expert
Vitamin C Expert

Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:44 am
Posts: 500
Reply with quote
Post Re: What!? Are they nuts? FDA must be working for big pharma
ofonorow wrote:
Quote:
... is it simple ignorance or are they that much under the influence of drug companies?


That is the question. Obviously this move is not in the public interest, so whose interest is it?

I am finding it hard to imagine how a government bureaucrat would take the time and expend the effort to try and change an entire product line of a private company over vitamin C, of all things? So someone from the outside must have filed a complaint or be exerting influence. I mean with all the government has to do, why go after vitamin C as if it were a poison??


The FDA goes after drug companies for all sorts of things pertaining to how they market their products. According to FDA regulations, someone cannot produce bottled water that claims to cure cancer, no matter how safe water is. If the manufacturer feels that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that water does indeed cure cancer, the burden of proof falls on the manufacturer, not the FDA. It'll be interesting to see what Procter & Gamble's response is.

I find the suggestion that the FDA is doing this because of pharma company influence to be completely unfounded, considering it is a pharma company that is the target of the warning in the first place. IIRC, the FDA issued a warning to consumers about using cough medicines in toddlers, and many products aimed at toddlers were subsequently taken off the market. They're not just after vitamins.


Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:07 am
Report this post
Profile
Vitamin C Master
Vitamin C Master

Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:53 pm
Posts: 254
Reply with quote
Post Re: What!? Are they nuts? FDA must be working for big pharma
[]
Quote:
I find the suggestion that the FDA is doing this because of pharma company influence to be completely unfounded, considering it is a pharma company that is the target of the warning in the first place. IIRC, the FDA issued a warning to consumers about using cough medicines in toddlers, and many products aimed at toddlers were subsequently taken off the market. They're not just after vitamins./


proctor and gamble is not a drug company

It is classified as a "Personal Care Products Manufacturing " by Hoovers as is J and J, Kimberly Clark ,Unilever etc


Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:01 pm
Report this post
Profile
Vitamin C Expert
Vitamin C Expert

Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:44 am
Posts: 500
Reply with quote
Post Re: What!? Are they nuts? FDA must be working for big pharma
BaronZemo wrote:
[]
Quote:
I find the suggestion that the FDA is doing this because of pharma company influence to be completely unfounded, considering it is a pharma company that is the target of the warning in the first place. IIRC, the FDA issued a warning to consumers about using cough medicines in toddlers, and many products aimed at toddlers were subsequently taken off the market. They're not just after vitamins./


proctor and gamble is not a drug company

It is classified as a "Personal Care Products Manufacturing " by Hoovers as is J and J, Kimberly Clark ,Unilever etc


That may be their principal business, but they still have a pharmaceutical/healthcare division. Would you consider over-the-counter Prilosec to be a "personal care product"?

And it's funny that you mention J&J, because despite having personal care products business, they also have a pretty sizeable pharmaceutical and medical device business. They are both diversified companies, who also happen to be in the business of selling medicines. Both companies are members of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, alongside companies like Bayer and Pfizer.


Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:59 pm
Report this post
Profile
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9426
Location: Lisle, IL
Reply with quote
Post Re: What!? Are they nuts? FDA must be working for big pharma
Quote:
The FDA goes after drug companies for all sorts of things pertaining to how they market their products. According to FDA regulations, someone cannot produce bottled water that claims to cure cancer, no matter how safe water is. If the manufacturer feels that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that water does indeed cure cancer, the burden of proof falls on the manufacturer, not the FDA. It'll be interesting to see what Procter & Gamble's response is.


Which clearly illustrates the problem with the FDA, as illustrated by this case. They are not acting in the public interest and where are the checks and balances? And whether or not P&G is "big pharma" is completely irrelevant to the issue of the government prying into a product formula of a private company and forcing a change. In this case, a cold medicine because it contains vitamin C! On what basis? A technicality? Believe me, this is an absurdity that most ordinary Americans can understand!

I view this as an obvious attempt by someone exerting influence to set the agenda that vitamin C is "useless" visa vis colds. It is part of the deliberate campaign to libel and slander vitamin C, a campaign I have been recording and documenting, and one that has been going on at least since Pauling first published his books in the 1970s.

_________________
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:11 am
Report this post
Profile
Vitamin C Expert
Vitamin C Expert

Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:44 am
Posts: 500
Reply with quote
Post Re: What!? Are they nuts? FDA must be working for big pharma
ofonorow wrote:
Quote:
The FDA goes after drug companies for all sorts of things pertaining to how they market their products. According to FDA regulations, someone cannot produce bottled water that claims to cure cancer, no matter how safe water is. If the manufacturer feels that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that water does indeed cure cancer, the burden of proof falls on the manufacturer, not the FDA. It'll be interesting to see what Procter & Gamble's response is.


Which clearly illustrates the problem with the FDA, as illustrated by this case. They are not acting in the public interest and where are the checks and balances? And whether or not P&G is "big pharma" is completely irrelevant to the issue of the government prying into a product formula of a private company and forcing a change. In this case, a cold medicine because it contains vitamin C! On what basis? A technicality? Believe me, this is an absurdity that most ordinary Americans can understand!

I view this as an obvious attempt by someone exerting influence to set the agenda that vitamin C is "useless" visa vis colds. It is part of the deliberate campaign to libel and slander vitamin C, a campaign I have been recording and documenting, and one that has been going on at least since Pauling first published his books in the 1970s.


So I take you would not think it is the FDA's business to prevent a company from marketing bottled water as a cure for cancer? Or would you not think it is the FDA's business if a company started marketing Drug X for liver cancer when it's only been approved to treat lung cancer?

The basis for the FDA's decision is pretty clear - the evidence that vitamin C (and probably at the dose found in the Nyquil formulation) is effective for colds simply isn't enough to meet its standards. Therefore, no company should be marketing it as such. If it were a foregone conclusion that the vitamin C in Nyquil is effective, then their warning would be based on a mere technicality. But there's more to it, and it's the same legislation that aims to keep drug companies in check and ensures that snake oil salesmen don't have their way.

Who exactly do you think it is that is "exerting an influence" on the FDA?? :?:


Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:56 am
Report this post
Profile
Vitamin C Master
Vitamin C Master

Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:53 pm
Posts: 254
Reply with quote
Post Re: What!? Are they nuts? FDA must be working for big pharma
Quote:
That may be their principal business, but they still have a pharmaceutical/healthcare division. Would you consider over-the-counter Prilosec to be a "personal care product"?


No, just a product that doesn't work


Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:41 pm
Report this post
Profile
Vitamin C Expert
Vitamin C Expert

Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:44 am
Posts: 500
Reply with quote
Post Re: What!? Are they nuts? FDA must be working for big pharma
BaronZemo wrote:
Quote:
That may be their principal business, but they still have a pharmaceutical/healthcare division. Would you consider over-the-counter Prilosec to be a "personal care product"?


No, just a product that doesn't work


I'm not sure why you felt the need to interject your opinion on its efficacy, but at least we agree that P&G manufactures more than just personal care products. :wink:


Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:23 pm
Report this post
Profile
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9426
Location: Lisle, IL
Reply with quote
Post Re: What!? Are they nuts? FDA must be working for big pharma
Quote:
So I take you would not think it is the FDA's business to prevent a company from marketing bottled water as a cure for cancer?


Are you asking my opinion whether I believe there should be an FDA? My answer is no. I believe the FDA has cost thousands if not millions of lives. (In your contrived example, you must think people are generally pretty stupid.)

If there has to be such a thing, it should be restricted to verifying that products have in them what the manufactures say is in them.



Quote:
Or would you not think it is the FDA's business if a company started marketing Drug X for liver cancer when it's only been approved to treat lung cancer?

Maybe we should start a new thread because this could grow into a long discussion. You think doctor's are stupid too? And how does the FDA, a government bureaucracy, know whether the drug works for liver cancer? And as you probably know, once a drug is approved for any purpose, a doctor in the USA can legally prescribe it for anything. (At least that is how it used to be, and I am not aware of any recent changes.)

The discussion here is why a bureaucracy would endeavor to keep vitamin C out of cold medicines. I cannot think of any action more absurd on its face.


Quote:
The basis for the FDA's decision is pretty clear - the evidence that vitamin C (and probably at the dose found in the Nyquil formulation) is effective for colds simply isn't enough to meet its standards. Therefore, no company should be marketing it as such.

What?! What standards do existing cold medicines meet?

If the issue was merely marketing, I would not have such a problem with this action. But I infer that the government is preventing P&G from adding vitamin C because the "combination has not been proven safe and effective." The issue is the government using force to prevent companies from adding vitamin C to cold meds, not the "marketing" of a benefit as such, even though it is crazy not to allow that. (Now I haven't watched or read the regular media for years. Has anyone seen a Vick's commercial? Are they touting any special benefit from vitamin C? I doubt it, because it wouldn't be worth the money and effort. Anyone could simply take vitamin C separately)

But you are comfortable with the idea of having to prove every benefit before it is allowed on the market? In this case, that argument is patently absurd. The only substance studied more than vitamin C the past century is aspirin.


Quote:
If it were a foregone conclusion that the vitamin C in Nyquil is effective, then their warning would be based on a mere technicality. But there's more to it, and it's the same legislation that aims to keep drug companies in check and ensures that snake oil salesmen don't have their way.

You focus on whether vitamin C is effective (which it is!) but why is that even an issue? Why shouldn't a private firm be entitled to add the vitamin for reasons of safety, if not efficacy reasons. It is simply nuts, and you seem quite satisfied with the nut house.
Quote:
Who exactly do you think it is that is "exerting an influence" on the FDA?? :?:

I don't know. However, I plan to use the United States Freedom of Information Act to try and find out :lol:

_________________
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:33 am
Report this post
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.