Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

FDA

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Well damn!

 

First step to "Standardization", and the last nail in the coffin of the little guy.

 

Do you know how much it would cost to put in the equipment to regulate the amount of each ingredient in an herbal remedy???

 

Hundreds of Thousands if not Millions!!!!!

 

And the action is completely redundant!!! The only ones left in biz would be the giant pharmaceuticals who already produce the drugs which are killing zillions of people.

 

I think I'll move to Africa. Maybe Cuba. (Joking Guys ;o) Hmmmmmm, maybe Mexico)

 

Sheesh!

 

Doc

 

PS. Time to sharpen the old quills and get our letter writing campaigns going guys. And time to start calling our senators and congressmen. This is criminal!!!

 

Ian "Doc" Shillington N.D.505-772-5889Dr.IanShillington

 

-

Ostrowski

herbal remedies

Monday, March 10, 2003 11:48 AM

[herbal remedies] FDA

Something to watch guys...Mary O HOME Site index Web archive · Help · Other searches Nation & World: Saturday, March 08, 2003 Nation Digest FDA seeking to regulate vitamins, herbal remedies E-mail this article Print this article WASHINGTON - The federal government yesterday proposed that vitaminsand herbal remedies for the first time be subject to regulations governinghow they are manufactured and labeled. The Food and Drug Administration unveiled a long-anticipated set ofrules designed to ensure that dietary supplements are produced in cleanplants, are genuine and remain untainted with contaminants. The rules would be similar to those governing packaged foods and wouldset standards for inspections and record-keeping. The estimated 1,000supplement manufacturers also would have to ensure that their productscontain the compound, amount and strength specified on the label. However, the proposal would not require that the supplements be provedsafe and effective, as drugs must be. The proposal will be subject to public comment for three months beforetaking effect, probably next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00876.html

 

Guess that says it all. :)

----

One fourth of what you eat keeps you alive.

The rest keeps your doctor alive.

 

 

-

" Richard " <RicardoCorridor

<herbal remedies >

Monday, March 10, 2003 6:53 PM

[herbal remedies] Re: FDA

 

 

herbal remedies , " Ostrowski " <Odesign1@e...>

wrote:

> >

> The rules would be similar to those governing packaged foods

and would

> set standards for inspections and record-keeping. The estimated

1,000

> supplement manufacturers also would have to ensure that their

products

> contain the compound, amount and strength specified on the label.

>

>

 

Could you provide a URL on this topic, I'd like to read more but

could find nothing on this through multiple searches.

 

Thanks,

Richard

 

 

Federal Law requires that we warn you of the following:

1. Natural methods can sometimes backfire.

2. If you are pregnant, consult your physician before using any natural

remedy.

3. The Constitution guarantees you the right to be your own physician and to

prescribe for your own health.

We are not medical doctors although MDs are welcome to post here as long as

they behave themselves.

Any opinions put forth by the list members are exactly that, and any person

following the advice of anyone posting here does so at their own risk.

It is up to you to educate yourself. By accepting advice or products from

list members, you are agreeing to

be fully responsible for your own health, and hold the List Owner and

members free of any liability.

 

Dr. Ian Shillington

Doctor of Naturopathy

Dr.IanShillington

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
Guest guest

Here's a small query, Richard and David, plus something that was written

back in 3/8/01 (yes, March 8, 2001). Yep, you're right, it was a long, three

years ago. This must mean nobody was paying attention to the FDA except you

all, correct??

 

Lotus Herbs (Evergreen) sent a letter to all its customers about a

'break-through success' regarding nine herbs being tested for aristolochic

acid, along with a copy of the analysis report. (Granted, these herbs aren't

the ones in question today. This isn't my point.) Centre Analytical Labs

Inc, State College PA, did the analysis, dated January 31,2001. The herbs

tested negative (<0.25ppm,) using the LC/MS/MS method approved by FDA. The

report was far and away better than the FDA required. The Lotus letter

stated that both the California Food and Drug Branch and the FDA

acknowledged the tests were adequate and acceptable. These were approval

letters, yes? Wouldn't you have believed the entire matter was settled?

Both state and feds approved it! Yes, your herbs are safe to use in your

formulary. What could go awry? Obviously, some hanky panky behind the

scenes did us under regarding other major herbs.

 

At the end of Lotus' letter was a request, just as a precaution, for

practitioners to sign and mail in an enclosed AAOM petition to defend our

herb access rights. I did as requested and assumed that was the end the

matter. So please don't tell us that nobody has done anything but you two,

albeit, it was three years ago.

 

Perhaps you can politely answer this one question, please: If you knew

March 8 2001 or soon thereafter, that the FDA approval might take a turn for

the worst, did you notify the manufacturing companies and fellow

practitoners that there was still a serious problem that needed to be

addressed immediately? I didn't receive any other FDA information about the

problem until quite recently. Most of the info I read from Richard was about

your new group, the anti-trust law suit, and in the past couple months the

now-in-effect FDA law. Sure, I'm only in a couple of groups, but they happen

to be the same ones you're in. Did I inadvertently miss it?

 

Seriously, this is not a smart aleck comment I say to you: bless you; hope

you have deep pockets and the number of years required to work on your

anti-trust lawsuit; keep up the good work; be patient with your peers and

please treat them with the respect they deserve.

 

Respectfully,

Pam Price PhD LAc DiplAc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Dear Pam

 

One would have suspected as I did.....that Lotus Herbs et al (meaning

including at least Mayway, KPC etc) were taking care of business.

 

If you and 20,000 other US acupuncturists would like to contribute to a Legal

defense fund every month to insure your practice rights and the herbs

companies also contributed....then all of our concerns would be focused and

addressed.

 

Pam writes: Here's a small query, Richard and David, plus something that was

written

back in 3/8/01 (yes, March 8, 2001). Yep, you're right, it was a long, three

years ago. This must mean nobody was paying attention to the FDA except you

all, correct??

 

Richard answers: Your sarcasm abounds and is uncalled for!

 

Pam writes: The Lotus letter stated that both the California Food and Drug

Branch and the FDA acknowledged the tests were adequate and acceptable. These

were approval

letters, yes?

 

Richard writes: Doesn;t appear to be any kind of official approval.

 

Pam writes: At the end of Lotus' letter was a request, just as a precaution,

for

practitioners to sign and mail in an enclosed AAOM petition to defend our

herb access rights. I did as requested and assumed that was the end the

matter. So please don't tell us that nobody has done anything but you two,

albeit, it was three years ago.

 

Richard writes: Neither I nor anyone else told you that nothing was being

done or attempted. Just that the correct action was not being accomplished. I

don't think the difference between the two ideas is that difficult to comprehend

but please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Pam writes: Perhaps you can politely answer this one question, please: If

you knew

March 8 2001 or soon thereafter, that the FDA approval might take a turn for

the worst, did you notify the manufacturing companies and fellow

practitoners that there was still a serious problem that needed to be

addressed immediately? I didn't receive any other FDA information about the

problem until quite recently. Most of the info I read from Richard was about

your new group, the anti-trust law suit, and in the past couple months the

now-in-effect FDA law. Sure, I'm only in a couple of groups, but they happen

to be the same ones you're in. Did I inadvertently miss it?

 

Richard writes: As politely as you ask...I can answer. Back in 2001 I was in

the middle of defending Florida attacks and was minding the problems here

while working on the anti-trust case for over 4 1/2 years. Are you suggesting

that

I somehow be hired to handle everyone's problems everywhere? I might consider

it.

 

Pam writes: Seriously, this is not a smart aleck comment I say to you: bless

you; hope

you have deep pockets and the number of years required to work on your

anti-trust lawsuit; keep up the good work; be patient with your peers and

please treat them with the respect they deserve.

 

Richard writes: Respect is a two way street. Don't fret your little heart

about what creative financial magic I had do to get the job started and moving.

Just be thankful that you weren't asked for any contributions. What is the

fascination of how I managed this historical feat? You have seen before your

eyes

the reality of it. Trust that reality.

 

Be cognizant of the FACT that that won't be the case for every issue such as

the FDA one we are faced with now. When it came to 'alleged discriminatory &

racketeering practices'...I took that one on myself. For other issues......be

aware that each and every one of the some 20,000 US acupuncturists need to

consider putting some of their money on a monthly basis (like any other

insurance)

specifically into a legal defense fund regarding other such issues.

 

Respectfully,

Richard

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Well Pam,

 

This the reason I do not care to post much ... endless meaningless discussions.

 

At 01:43 AM 4/14/2004, you wrote:

 

>Here's a small query, Richard and David, plus something that was written

>back in 3/8/01 (yes, March 8, 2001). Yep, you're right, it was a long, three

>years ago. This must mean nobody was paying attention to the FDA except you

>all, correct??

 

The AOMNC to not exist 3 years ago. Yet I do recall the aristolochic acid

incident..... the claim being the substance had been shown to cause cancer,

kidney and other serious health problems. Even when used as directed.

 

 

>Lotus Herbs (Evergreen) sent a letter to all its customers about a

>'break-through success' regarding nine herbs being tested for aristolochic

>acid, along with a copy of the analysis report. (Granted, these herbs aren't

>the ones in question today. This isn't my point.) Centre Analytical Labs

>Inc, State College PA, did the analysis, dated January 31,2001. The herbs

>tested negative (<0.25ppm,) using the LC/MS/MS method approved by FDA. The

>report was far and away better than the FDA required. The Lotus letter

>stated that both the California Food and Drug Branch and the FDA

>acknowledged the tests were adequate and acceptable.

 

Great! John did a great job... he showed the our herbs did not contain

AA for all intents and purposes.

 

> These were approval

>letters, yes? Wouldn't you have believed the entire matter was settled?

 

The AA matter was settled.

 

>Both state and feds approved it! Yes, your herbs are safe to use in your

>formulary. What could go awry? Obviously, some hanky panky behind the

>scenes did us under regarding other major herbs.

 

Looks like it ...so what is news about that??

 

 

>At the end of Lotus' letter was a request, just as a precaution, for

>practitioners to sign and mail in an enclosed AAOM petition to defend our

>herb access rights. I did as requested and assumed that was the end the

>matter. So please don't tell us that nobody has done anything but you two,

>albeit, it was three years ago.

 

We never said that ... in AA case it was not the letters that did the trick

.....but the scientific evidence that AA was not present.

 

 

>Perhaps you can politely answer this one question, please: If you knew

>March 8 2001 or soon thereafter, that the FDA approval might take a turn for

>the worst, did you notify the manufacturing companies and fellow

>practitoners that there was still a serious problem that needed to be

>addressed immediately?

 

As I said the AOMNC did not exist at that time. But it was clear to me that

the FDA would use any opening to restrict natural medicine and had been

doing so for years.... mostly losing cause the right actions were taken by

.... for one... the LEF.

 

> I didn't receive any other FDA information about the problem until quite

> recently.

 

The FDA only stated recently it was going to ban ephedra... and floated the

rumor CMH would be exempt. But until the rule was made public ... no one

including us knew what it said. that very day I down loaded the document

..... did you or John do that??

 

It took hours.... I guess the FDA computers were slow that day .... yea

right. Then it was a jpeg... which meant it hat to be read in it entirety

to find and figure out what it said it was 300 plus pages... do you do

that?? I believe Richard posted that day or the very next about the

danger. And continued to expand on it from that point on ... and clue John

in... did you do that?? Not to speak of the behind the scenes stuff ...

which Richard may or may not want to talk about at this time.

 

 

>Most of the info I read from Richard was about

>your new group, the anti-trust law suit, and in the past couple months the

>now-in-effect FDA law. Sure, I'm only in a couple of groups, but they happen

>to be the same ones you're in. Did I inadvertently miss it?

 

Are you talking about 2001 here??.... But then you are mixing apples and

oranges, AA and its issues Vs ephedra and what and how the FDA has handled

it. I do not have the time or the will to go into that... got to go to may

office now and see patients. You reasoning is faulty ... maybe Richard will

expand here or not ;-)

 

 

>Seriously, this is not a smart aleck comment I say to you: bless you; hope

>you have deep pockets and the number of years required to work on your

>anti-trust lawsuit; keep up the good work; be patient with your peers and

>please treat them with the respect they deserve.

 

It is a two way street....and " our peers " have shown the AOMNC very little

respect......

 

 

>Respectfully,

>Pam Price PhD LAc DiplAc

 

 

David Sontag, OMD, NMD, CNC

Former Member of Technical Staff Bell Laboratories

 

 

 

 

>Membership requires that you do not post any commerical, swear, religious,

>spam messages,flame another member or swear.

>

>To change your email delivery settings,

><Chinese Medicine/>http://groups.yaho\

o.comChinese Medicine/

>click 'edit my membership' on the right hand side and adjust accordingly.

>

>If you , it takes a few days for the messages to stop being

>delivered.

>

>

>

>

>----------

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Pam

 

 

Pam writes: Perhaps you can politely answer this one question, please: If

you knew March 8 2001 or soon thereafter, that the FDA approval might take a

turn for

the worst, did you notify the manufacturing companies and fellow practitoners

that there was still a serious problem that needed to be addressed

immediately? I didn't receive any other FDA information about the problem until

quite

recently. Most of the info I read from Richard was about your new group, the

anti-trust law suit, and in the past couple months the now-in-effect FDA law.

Sure, I'm only in a couple of groups, but they happen to be the same ones you're

in. Did I inadvertently miss it?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Last fall everyone was lobbying their congressmen about the ephedra issue

and apparently it didn't help. I'm new to the group and am surprised no one

knew about the law going into effect.

 

Roy Edward Brown, Jr., D.C.

14391 Manchester Rd.

Manchester, MO 63011

636-230-3783

drbdc

www.ChiroDoc.Org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...