[Chinese Traditional Medicine] Urgent: Please read: FDA & your health freedom!

[Guest guest]

I don't agree with your assertions! The FDA is not this benevolent

agency that is out to protect the public! Sorry, but they are just as

subject to corruption as most other governmental agency and I don't

trust them to be in control of deciding what I can consume or not. The

FDA, the AMA. big Pharma and the Industrialized Food Production &

Processing business are one big business conglomerate! The FDA plays the

role of independent overseer, but this is all a farce to make the

consumers feel safe so that they can be used as guinea pigs! Case in

point Vioxx!

 

The only reason why they are now trying to muscle in on the alternative

medicine business is because they don't like competition and they are

losing market shares. Their aim is no different than any other powerful

industry in the USA these days: They want to eliminate the little guy.

Accidental injuries caused by supplements or alternative medicine

procedures are practically ZERO when compared to those of conventional

medicine with their FDA approved pharmaceutical drugs.

 

Let's be clear about this their aim is not to legitimize Alternative

Health Care by bringing in its practitioners into their mafia like

circle, but rather to drive you out through regulation intended to make

it impossible for you to stay in business so that only the AMA certified

MDs and big pharma can be licensed to provide medical services(you can

forget about the word alternative). What will be the result of this?

Well you can see what their aim is today... not cure, not root cause,

but maintenance... symptom management!

 

Domingo

 

mrasmm wrote:

>

> I read the PDF in this link, and I don't really see any real info as

> to what they are trying to restrict and why.

>

> I feel that at the moment we are a country of regulation. I mean if

> you look at the western medical community, you will see an environment

> full of regulations. They have to get mal-practice insurance because

> of all the lawsuits, and the fact that the public demands everything

> nearly perfect all the time (ie no deaths or permanent effects for any

> procedure, surgery, medicine, or advice that has been successful for

> someone else). The fact is that " CAM " like it says in the article is

> becoming a very big deal. To quote the article, more visits were made

> to CAM providers than to all medical Dr's combined. Since everything

> else that is main stream in this society is heavily regulated... if

> CAM is being looked at to be regulated, this might be a good sign that

> it is coming out into the mainstream, which for the most part is what

> CAM providers are wanting to happen.

>

> I am not saying that I agree with what they are doing or not (I did

> not see any of that kind of info in the link that I followed, like

> what they are regulating and why). I also do believe that certain

> regulations in place will help the TCM community gain more

> creditability, because of the higher regulations, allowing less people

> to slip by that haven't learned quite enough to treat the general

> masses (ie, they can treat a few types of people well, or people that

> do not have complications).

>

> I have seen studies done on acupuncture, and I don't have the link,

> but if anyone does or has read any of them, please post them =).

> Basically what it showed is that full OMD's and MSOM's (with so many

> clinical hours, forget how many but probably something between 2,000

> and 4,000 hours) had a very very low incidence of problems associated

> with acupuncture (something like 10 in 50,000). MD's and

> chiropractors were slightly less but still had a really good track

> record (maybe 1/2 of what the trained TCM's had), which is

> surprisingly good considering their short training as far as

> acupuncture (this study did not rate effectiveness, just severe

> problems), and then the lower trained individuals (probably something

> like less than 1000 hours and not in the previous two groups) had

> something like 10 to 20 times the amount of problems. If these

> regulations made it so these people who did not have enough training

> had to have more training before they could work on their own, I think

> it would make TCM more trustable, and more likely for people to use it

> of they know that there isn't a substantial risk involved (no matter

> how rare). Again, I am not saying they are doing this or not, but

> rather that I think it would be a good idea.

>

> Another thing to think about is that if vitamins are said to have the

> power to heal, then they have the power to harm as well. There is no

> such thing as something that can heal that cannot harm equally as much

> as it has the ability to heal. It is my opinion and my experience

> that the general public does not know enough to really be prescribing

> their own vitamins. Many people do not even know what the vitamins do

> or how they work in the body.

>

> I have not seen too many healing processes through vitamins, although

> I think in certain instances they can be very helpful, and in some of

> those they can even be required in order to heal. I am not saying

> stop taking vitamins, but what I am saying is that my opinion and

> observation of vitamins is that they can do a pretty good job of

> maintaining health, but in restoring health. They generally are not

> strong enough, or don't hit the nail right on the head a fair amount

> of the cases.

>

> It might be good to have people go to someone like a dietician, an MD

> or a CAM provider to be able to explain to them what types of vitamins

> would be good for them, and why. How much to take, and when, and what

> it can interfere with. I think that if this is what they are looking

> to do that they need to make it fair so that someone in a CAM field

> can get the certification through the same process as anyone else, and

> not just grant the certification to Dr's because they are Dr's (like

> they basically do with acupuncture). I think there will be a big

> public resistance to removing the OTC status of even some of the

> vitamins and minerals, and it will likely not happen.

>

> I think we do need to fight for our rights as proficient, competent,

> and professional health care providers and I don't think the FDA

> should at anytime now or in the future be able to limit CAM providers

> from their supplies, but limiting the general public from them might,

> in some cases, be useful.

>

> One note about that: when the FDA was limiting the use and sale of

> ephedra (not sure if it was ephedra or ephedrine, but something along

> those lines), and the country was in a huge weight loss craze with it,

> and it was causing a lot of problems. The recognized that

> applications with this herb specific to TCM did not have the same

> effect, consequently TCM practitioners were still allowed to use it.

>

> I think what it amounts to is that our governing agencies want to make

> sure that providers are capable and proficient to reduce risk to the

> uneducated public (You'll see this all over our society as a whole.

> There are protections everywhere for the uninformed, even the people

> that are uninformed because they choose not to find out), and it does

> this through regulations, and certifications. They just need to

> remember to allow a reasonable way for CAM providers to obtain the

> same sorts of status and position.

>

> What are they regulating? And who are they regulating (professionals

> and what type, or general public)? Are they making it so that the CAM

> sector does not have the power to do what they need to do to help

> people out? Or are they raising the bar and requiring providers are

> tested to assess their abilities? A good practitioner should be able

> to walk in and take some sort of skill or written or whatever other

> test on their subject any hour and any day of the week IMPO. This

> should be the kind of knowledge that they should carry with them, and

> if it is, taking the test or whatever it is shouldn't be but an

> inconvenience.

>

> As far as outlawing v8 and bottled water and being prosecuted as a

> drug dealer by the FDA, this is quite an extreme view. I don't feel

> this is a view with just the facts on the table, but rather a use of

> words to explain something in a very passionate dramatic way to get

> people up and doing something about the world they live in. This is

> exactly what makes you a good author. I feel that this info is quite

> extreme though, and it would serve the community better having the

> hard facts laid out so that we can see exactly what we are up against

> and the best method to approach it.

>

> " ...if a person decides to produce and sell raw vegetable juice for

> use in juice

> therapy to promote optimal health... [and] if the juice therapy is

> intended for

> use as part of a disease treatment regimen instead of for the general

> wellness,

> the vegetable juice would also be subject to regulation as a drug

> under the

> Act. "

>

> Translation: Raw vegetable juice will be regulated as a drug and must

> be FDA

> approved as a drug if it has any health effect whatsoever. Handing a

> cup of raw

> vegetable juice to someone and telling them it's good for the

> detoxification of

> their liver will get you arrested for practicing medicine without a

> license and

> promoting an " unapproved drug. "

>

> I do not believe this is the case. I believe what they are trying to

> do is say if you are a provider and telling someone to follow this

> regimen (ie how much to take and when and of what type), then you are

> responsible for it as if you were prescribing them a drug. I read

> this as being the FDA's way of regulating accountability to the

> practitioner to protect the public. Just telling your friend that you

> heard this was good for that is not prescribing for someone and you

> are not in the position of a health provider, and would not fall under

> what they are outlining, and you would not be arrested. If you were a

> health professional and you recommended something, it would likely

> fall under a different category. Again this rule I feel is to protect

> the uninformed public rather than take away our healing methods and

> supplies.

>

> I feel that if a practitioner is prescribing something for a certain

> disease or condition, they should be held responsible for it. Also if

> a practitioner already knows what they are doing and how to apply

> things to certain conditions, they will not have a problem with being

> accountable for their treatment.

>

> If there is something that is truly at risk here, I think we could

> band together as a group and accomplish some really good things. We

> would need to know what they are and how they will affect us, and who

> we need to contact about it. I noticed that you already provided at

> least one good contact =)

>

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> <Chinese Traditional Medicine%40>, " skyheights "

> <mattpolly wrote:

> >

> > Thank you Twyla, for the heads up on this. I want to include the full

> > links for everyone on this list, that they may access source material

> > and submit comments to be included in public record.

> >

> > Here is the FDA Docket being referred to:

> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/06d0480/06d0480.htm

> <http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/06d0480/06d0480.htm>

> >

> > On the surface it seems relatively benign, perhaps even beneficial.

> > Beware! How else do you take candy from a baby? Their strategy as

> > mentioned in Twyla's post seems to be to reclassify dietary

> > supplements out from under the protection of DSHEA 1994, if not just

> > outright ignore it. (There is no mention of DSHEA at all in the online

> > docket.)

> >

> > Please consider following this link (or pasting it into your browser)

> > to include your comments as a part of public record.

> >

>

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/dockets/comments/COMMENTSMain.CFM?EC_DO\

CUMENT_ID=1451 & SUBTYP=CONTINUE & CID= & AGENCY=FDA

>

<http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/dockets/comments/COMMENTSMain.CFM?EC_D\

OCUMENT_ID=1451 & SUBTYP=CONTINUE & CID= & AGENCY=FDA>

> >

> > Also, please consider writing your elected official and expressing

> > your concern that non-elected FDA appointees are in effect usurping

> > their legislative authority. That might help get their attention!

> >

> > In health,

> >

> > Matthew Polly, L.Ac.

> >

>

>