Institute of Medicine to evaluate supplements

[Guest guest]

Institute of Medicine to evaluate supplements

July 24, 2002 Posted: 3:24 PM EDT (1924 GMT)

 

 

 

 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Institute of Medicine has picked six

controversial dietary supplements for a new evaluation program it

developed for the Food and Drug Administration.

 

The six, which may pose health hazards, will serve to test the

framework for determining the safety of supplements, which have

become a major industry in recent years but face only limited

government regulation.

 

The institute, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, said in

a preliminary report Wednesday that it had selected the supplements

chaparral, chromium picolinate, glucosamine, melatonin, saw palmetto

and shark cartilage for reviews.

 

The final version of the report is expected to go to the FDA in the

fall, IOM committee chairman Barbara O. Schneeman said.

 

At that time, the FDA will make the final decision on doing the six

studies, said Schneeman, of the University of California, Davis.

 

The FDA could do the evaluation internally or contract it out, she

said, adding that it would also be appropriate to ask manufacturers

for data, although it would be voluntary for them to provide it.

 

The FDA estimates that as many as 29,000 different dietary

supplements are available and that Americans spend an estimated $700

million per year on supplements.

 

However, a 1994 law specifically exempted supplement makers from

having to prove their products are safe before selling them. The FDA

has to prove that a supplement is unsafe before it can be removed

from the market.

 

The herb ephedra is a prime example of the agency's problems in

dealing with supplements.

 

At least 54 deaths and about 1,000 reports of complications have

been linked to the popular supplement since the mid-1990s, according

to an analysis in the New England Journal of Medicine two years ago.

 

But, after two years of FDA work developing rules seeking to bar

certain ephedra doses, industry protests killed the move. The agency

then began working on warning labels, but last month the Bush

administration ordered a new safety review of the stimulant before

any action can be taken. Supplement makers praised the step.

 

Schneeman said the committee did not include ephedra in its list

because " there is a lot of activity going on around ephedra and I'm

not sure we would help the process by putting it into a prototype

evaluation. "

 

Frustrated in its efforts to regulate supplements, the FDA asked the

Institute to develop a method for evaluating their safety.

 

In its report, the institute established guiding principles in

reviewing supplements, including a credible report of a serious

adverse event in humans associated with the supplement; evidence of

harm in laboratory animal studies and the presence of constituents

similar to known toxic or harmful compounds.

 

The supplements chosen for the first safety evaluations cover a

variety of types and uses, the institute noted. The selected

supplements and the reason they were chosen, are:

 

 

Chaparral, because of concerns about liver toxicity. Used in an

herbal tea.

 

 

Chromium picolinate, because of reports of kidney toxicity and

effects on insulin regulation in diabetics. Promoted to reduce body

fat.

 

 

 

Melatonin, because of reports of complications. Used to treat sleep

disorders and jet lag.

 

 

Saw palmetto, because of reports of heart problems. Sold as a

prostate treatment.

 

 

Shark cartilage, because of a report of hepatitis following

ingestion. Promoted as a treatment for cancer and other health

conditions.

[Guest guest]

and how can we trust them to give us a true unbiased account of whether these

supplements are good for us?

 

I know of many people who have taken glucosamine for years and far from

causing them problems have been relieved of so much pain from arthritis -

what a load of rubbish these tests are. What we really need is a test on

each and every supplement out there that is totally unbiased so that we can

continue to purchase the ones that will help keep us off those horrible

murderous meds.

 

marianne

 

 

> The institute, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, said in

> a preliminary report Wednesday that it had selected the supplements

> chaparral, chromium picolinate, glucosamine, melatonin, saw palmetto

> and shark cartilage for reviews.

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Let us say I am highly distrustful the motivation & good will

these people have towards tools for self-help which can be used

instead of the exalted priestcraft of the pharm companies & the

allopaths.

 

-

" mrsjoguest " <jguest

 

Friday, August 02, 2002 9:17 PM

Institute of Medicine to evaluate supplements

 

 

> Institute of Medicine to evaluate supplements

> July 24, 2002 Posted: 3:24 PM EDT (1924 GMT)

>

>

> The supplements chosen for the first safety evaluations cover a

> variety of types and uses, the institute noted. The selected

> supplements and the reason they were chosen, are:

 

> Chromium picolinate, because of reports of kidney toxicity and

> effects on insulin regulation in diabetics. Promoted to reduce body

> fat.

 

 

HA! It seems they are worried that if a person with diabetes

on allopathic meds takes Chromium picolinate, that person will need

less meds & that means less profits for the drug companies & more

work for the allopathic docs recalibrating the dose. Awwww. Poor

overworked MD's. They don't want to actually work to earn their

money. All they want to do is read a flier from the pharm

companies, and then write a prescription.

 

 

 

Alobar

[Guest guest]

Well, Alobar, they will pick the most popular ones and run them into the ground

with their test methods. I live within a few miles of UCD and know a lady in

the St. John's Wart study. They are given sudden high doses and asked if they

notice any unusual bruising. That's the point of that test. They feel better,

but are afraid of the real or imagined bruising. The one herb, SJW, is the only

supplement they are taking during the test. Duh. The tests are doomed, indeed

planned, to fail to prove the necessity of artificial chemical drugs. Otherwise

they would not do the freaking tests/studies.

 

Bitterly,

Starris

 

 

-

" Alobar " <alobar

 

Saturday, August 03, 2002 10:01 AM

Re: Institute of Medicine to evaluate supplements

 

 

> Let us say I am highly distrustful the motivation & good will

> these people have towards tools for self-help which can be used

> instead of the exalted priestcraft of the pharm companies & the

> allopaths.

>

> -

> " mrsjoguest " <jguest

>

> Friday, August 02, 2002 9:17 PM

> Institute of Medicine to evaluate supplements

>

>

> > Institute of Medicine to evaluate supplements

> > July 24, 2002 Posted: 3:24 PM EDT (1924 GMT)

> >

> >

> > The supplements chosen for the first safety evaluations cover a

> > variety of types and uses, the institute noted. The selected

> > supplements and the reason they were chosen, are:

>

> > Chromium picolinate, because of reports of kidney toxicity and

> > effects on insulin regulation in diabetics. Promoted to reduce body

> > fat.

>

>

> HA! It seems they are worried that if a person with diabetes

> on allopathic meds takes Chromium picolinate, that person will need

> less meds & that means less profits for the drug companies & more

> work for the allopathic docs recalibrating the dose. Awwww. Poor

> overworked MD's. They don't want to actually work to earn their

> money. All they want to do is read a flier from the pharm

> companies, and then write a prescription.

>

>

>

> Alobar

>

>

>

> Getting well is done one step at a time, day by day, building health

> and well being.

>

> list or archives: Gettingwell

>

> ........ Gettingwell-

> post............. Gettingwell

> digest form...... Gettingwell-digest

> individual emails Gettingwell-normal

> no email......... Gettingwell-nomail

> moderator ....... Gettingwell-owner

> ...... Gettingwell-

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

---Marianne,

That's the point. Most people tend to put their trust in these

government agencies for everything from their healthcare to facts on

their supplements. The very fact that the govm't has singled these

certain supplements out to run tests on, points to the fact that

they are on the warpath regarding their usage.

Rest assured, they'll find something detrimental there.

 

They've been going after chromium for quite some time now. There

were several news segments regarding how harmful it is supposed to

be for us. According to certain sources (?) it's quite harmful. Well

I must say... I've been taking it for five years or more and I have

yet to experience any of these harmful side effects. On the other

hand, both, my husband and I have greatly benefitted from taking GTF

chromium on a daily basis.

For one thing,it has greatly reduced his risks of stroke, heart

attack,etc. from his diabetes. The tests that were run recently

determined that he had NO arterial blockages (and in addition, no

breathlessness at all) although his sugar levels were over 350 at

one point in time. Now, I ask you... is that a miracle or what?

LOL

 

You can believe that these studies are indirectly, if not

directly funded by the major drug companies. Our government is so

corrupted by special interests, everybody knows there's no truth

coming out of washington.

You can count on it...any benefits they find from the use of

chromium or any of these other supplements will be suppressed.

 

This is the way it's been done in the past and I don't expect it to

change now. They are out to destroy our freedom to supplement.

Hmmm..just wondering. Could it be corporate greed, or what??

 

 

JoAnn Guest

angelprincessjo

Friendsforhealthnaturally

http://canceranswer.homestead.com/AIM.html

 

 

 

In Gettingwell, marianne2406@a... wrote:

> and how can we trust them to give us a true unbiased account of

whether these

> supplements are good for us?

>

> I know of many people who have taken glucosamine for years and far

from

> causing them problems have been relieved of so much pain from

arthritis -

> what a load of rubbish these tests are. What we really need is a

test on

> each and every supplement out there that is totally unbiased so

that we can

> continue to purchase the ones that will help keep us off those

horrible

> murderous meds.

>

> marianne

>

>

> > The institute, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences,

said in

> > a preliminary report Wednesday that it had selected the

supplements

> > chaparral, chromium picolinate, glucosamine, melatonin, saw

palmetto

> > and shark cartilage for reviews.

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I know that I am very naive but I can understand why the gov would want to

keep the drug companies happy in places where they do not have a health

service such as in the UK. We are in dire straits with our health service

being so overworked and the cost of the drugs being so high. We pay a very

small amount for our drugs in comparison to the true cost. My husband gets 2

months supply of Zirtek for £6.20 ($8.90 approx) but if he were to buy them

over the counter they would cost him more than that for just 1 WEEK's supply.

If he was able to take alternative health advice, he would have been told

many years ago to cut dairy and sugar from his diet and the cost would have

been a fraction of the cost of the meds over the last 10 years at least.

Also, I give him supplements every single day to prevent certain problems,

alzheimers, prostate etc - if I didn't he could cost the health service a

fortune in allopathic 'care' (if you can call anything allopathic care) - why

don't they wake up and smell the roses just for a change.

 

Marianne

 

 

> That's the point. Most people tend to put their trust in these

> government agencies for everything from their healthcare to facts on

> their supplements. The very fact that the govm't has singled these

> certain supplements out to run tests on, points to the fact that

> they are on the warpath regarding their usage.

> Rest assured, they'll find something detrimental there.

>

> They've been going after chromium for quite some time now. There

> were several news segments regarding how harmful it is supposed to

> be for us. According to certain sources (?) it's quite harmful. Well

> I must say... I've been taking it for five years or more and I have

> yet to experience any of these harmful side effects. On the other

> hand, both, my husband and I have greatly benefitted from taking GTF

> chromium on a daily basis.

> For one thing,it has greatly reduced his risks of stroke, heart

> attack,etc. from his diabetes. The tests that were run recently

> determined that he had NO arterial blockages (and in addition, no

> breathlessness at all) although his sugar levels were over 350 at

> one point in time. Now, I ask you... is that a miracle or what?

> LOL

>

> You can believe that these studies are indirectly, if not

> directly funded by the major drug companies. Our government is so

> corrupted by special interests, everybody knows there's no truth

> coming out of washington.

> You can count on it...any benefits they find from the use of

> chromium or any of these other supplements will be suppressed.

>

> This is the way it's been done in the past and I don't expect it to

> change now. They are out to destroy our freedom to supplement.

> Hmmm..just wondering. Could it be corporate greed, or what??

>