Congressman Waxman sneaks anti-vitamin amendment into Wall Street reform bill OMG! And he's a democrat, too! I thought Dems were all about health "freedom"! I'm shocked! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! From here: And here is another article covering a recent bill introduced by none other than the Great John McCain... Of course, stuff such as the above is always touted as being much needed regulation to ensure safety and what have you. However, this could easily be used to restrict or eliminate companies in the alternative health and nutrition business. With the way the FDA operates, I wouldn't put anything past them.
Anyone, feel free to comment, and post anything of relevance to health freedom. Also, I would like to say, that there should be laws against inserting bullshit that has NOTHING to do financial reform in a bill that is ostensibly about financial reform. I mean, honestly. I don't care how much you love or hate Waxman or this or that, but WTF is that doing in this bill?
I find it interesting and telling that your reference is an industry website...hardly unbiased since they are the ones that Waxman is proposing to regulate. Today that industry is largely unregulated. The "terrorism" referenced in your article translates to being forced by the FTC to be honest in their advertising...meaning they cannot make claims that are not supported by truth. Hardly terrorism in my book, but to right wingers, I can understand how a little truth and honesty in advertising could be viewed as terrorism. As for putting unrelated admendendments into legisltation, welcome to congress. That is how it has been done in congress almost since day one. If you don't like it, I suggest starting a movement to admend the Constitution. Because that is the only thing that is going to stop it.
I have mixed feelings about this. I think that alternative products should be properly controlled. There are people who have died taking Kava Kava for example and even the Dutch have banned its use. Products such as DHEA are purchased over the counter promising all sorts of miraculous things but it can produce heart attack, loss of hair in women etc as it is a hormone precursor. There is also yohimbe which is supposed to help increase sexual desire but it has also produced hypomania in some subjects. As long as there is no regulation non of these products are forced to place labels of these negative affects. Alternative drugs and herbs are medicines and just because they are touted as natural doesn't mean they are safe, they should be regulated like any other drug. Pharmaceutical companies on the other hand needs to regulate their costs but that is another discussion all together.
I think that good nutrition and basic preventive medicine are a vital national resource, that is being subverted for dependency on the medical and pharmaceutical industries. To me dietary supplements of mild effect need no more oversight than in food safety. If an ingested substance makes us feel different or makes changes to our systems beyond nutrition, then there should be further scientific review. I'm all for the availability of broad nutritional choice, and I think that we in the USA would generally do much better to take more interest in and responsibility for our own health as individuals. I don't have a problem with the stated intent of this legislation. From Rep. Waxman's website: Sounds OK- I'm really not up in arms about that, myself. I would very much like to support an organized opposition that would challenge the intense marketing and lobbying of the pharmaceutical industry, and galvanize the public into challenging the medical industry's overbearing influence on our health thinking and healthcare regulating. I don't see this as that kind of opportunity. From what little I can make out of the Health Freedom movement, there is too much quackery involved- Not enough clarity of purpose for me too feel a lot of affinity or confidence about it. I seems like a tepid Green Tea Party that will be get nearly as far as the Greens, or the Fox Tea Party. I'm sad to say that I don't know what will move us- I can't make out any genuine and cohesive popular movement for any sort of reform at all in the USA these days- even though almost all of us think our government is overgrown. But, we're mostly just passively waiting for the news to tell us what we're doing and where we're going. Each new passage of "reform" be it in the health sector or any other just adds layers of bureaucracy and further feathers the nests of the corporate entities who are so much more energetic, so infused with healthy profits to get up there and petitioning government. Each new "movement" lately seems like a circus act, or maybe not the most cerebral groups of people to hang out with. I won't be hopping on the "Health Freedom" train. If it turns out I'm wrong about them, I'll see about getting aboard on up the line. __________________________________ NYT: Study Urges More Oversight of Dietary Items
Exactly. I'm sick of these jackasses sticking a rider that has nothing to do with the main bill onto a bill as a way of sneaking it in. Obamacare did the same thing with a provision to nationalize the student loan program. What the hell does that have to do with healthcare reform? It's also done all the time with things like bills authorizing military spending or whatever other popular bill might come down the pike. This practice should be outlawed.
Right on, madanthonywayne. Riders deeply corrupt our legislative system. It's how they churn out the pork, and it's how they compound the disproportionate representation of special interests. It would take a broad and determined populist movement to abolish legislative riders. For generations a medical-industrial complex has organized a powerful voice in Washington that completely drowns out any popular concerns or initiatives. If "health freedom" could express and articulate a popular opposition to the health cartels, it might build a broad consensus, and enjoy wider support than (for instance) a challenge to the military-industrial cartels. You have pointed out a central public cause. We should draw attention to it much more often, because it is worthy of the broadest grass-roots support. Riders are legislative and moral shortcuts- a flawed institution and we should seek the consensus and courage to abolish it once and for all.
Given our current budgetary mess, abolishing riders and earmarks should be a no brainer. A line item veto for the president would also be an excellent idea, but it would apparently require a constitutional amendment as it was passed by the Republican congress back in the nineties and ruled unconstitutional. I believe the Republicans are trying to come up with a "contract for America" similar to the "contract with America" that they rode into power back in 1994. I'm going to contact my local Representative (a Republican), the local Tea Party, and the RNC on this issue. If you and I can agree on it, it's obviously has broad appeal and is a needed reform.
Relying on our most singularly partisan branch (in Presidential veto) to control riders wasn't just unconstitutional- it was wrong-headed. Riders should be banned, and it is a worthy (and I believe potentially resonant) cause for future progressive reformist candidates to take up prominently with the people. Edit: I'm going to spin off a separate thread, because this subject is too off-topic to ride here.
What should be done, then? Giambattista Perhaps you could help me out, then. Because I've long had a question about the supplementary and alternative health product market that nobody I know can answer in any manner suitable to support your topic post. I once knew a woman who distributed a particular brand of "vitamins", though I've long forgotten the brand. But here's the thing, and it's a worldwide tragedy. They had an effective cure for HIV and AIDS. That's right. They cured AIDS. And the FDA, apparently, is the only reason their product hasn't made it around the world. So what was their miracle cure? It's simple. So simple, I can't believe no real doctor hasn't figured it out. Are you ready? (Really, it's amazingly simple.) Okay, so chlorine kills HIV. The cure, then, is to elevate the chlorine levels in your blood to the point that the virus can no longer survive. According to the vitamin company, this wasn't dangerous at all. So they went around trying to sell chlorine pills to AIDS patients. It must be a government conspiracy keeping this highly successful treatment, which bears no substantial danger to the patient, from AIDS patients around the world. Of course, there are no proper studies to support these claims, merely anecdotal revues full of testimony like, "I had AIDS, and now I don't. This product works!" How dare the government hold them down like that. So, anyway, how should we go about helping out these poor, victimized companies in their quest to sell health products while avoiding the FDA's jurisdiction?
I don't agree. Yes, it would be even better to ban them altogether. But the only president to ever enjoy the line item veto was Clinton, and it was given to him by a Republican congress. I agree.
You hit the old nail on the head. This is about truth in advertising. If you are going to claim that your product cures or does this and that, then you need to be able to demonstrate your product does cure this and that. Additionally, there is an issue with what goes in the product and the quality of what goes in the product. For example, without oversight/regulation, heavy metals and other undesirable material could show up in the product. God knows, we have had enough trouble with heavy metals showing up in all kinds of products being sourced from overseas...including toys. So I see nothing wrong with a little truth in advertising. If you are going to put heavy metals in the product, then you should say so on the label. And if you are going to make claims about what your product can or will do, you should be able to prove it. That does not seem at all unreasonable to me.
The American Marketplace We should also remember the state of the marketplace. We all know about "the fine print", but how many people actually read the fine print in advertisement? Watching the Canucks in the playoffs, I noticed that fine print is actually legible in Candian commercials. I'm not sure that says anything significant, though. However, in the U.S., I once saw a car advertisement pushing a great price on certain "cars". However, reading the fine print, one discovers that of the entire lot, there were only five cars at that price. Furthermore, with great prices on different models, that meant that in a couple of cases, there was only one of the cars available at that price. This was actually subject to some sort of regulation, because it was always hilarious listening to radio commercials for auto dealerships as a disembodied voice recited VINs and financing terms at near light speed. With vitamin supplements, how often do we see the fine print that reminds the claims aren't proven true? Recall the Cheerios box, for heaven's sake. And then, though it's not a claim of what something can cure, think of the erectile-dysfunction pills. Cialis, Viagra, and Enzyte, for instance. Ever read the fine print? "Does not protect against HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases." What, seriously? People need to be specifically advised that the drug they're taking to get a boner doesn't protect them against STD? Really? Then again, Americans need to be reminded that coffee is hot. Some, then, might see such regulation of "vitamins" as excessive, but the American marketplace is stupid. (And I just found out that Smilin' Bob is dead. Or, at least, missing for almost two years. Weird. Really, I hadn't heard before now.) ____________________ Notes: Jerry. "The Mysterious Case of Smilin' Bob". OutTakes. January 5, 2009. OzoneTV.WordPress.com. May 13, 2010. http://ozonetv.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/the-mysterious-case-of-smilin-bob/
Yeah, I have to agree some of the product warnings are pretty bizzare..but I guess there are some pretty bizzare people out there. I think those bizzare warnings are a bit questionable. But I do find it not unreasonable for sellers to be honest with their customers. And fully and fairly disclose relevant consumer information...not if fine print. If a seller makes a claim, they should be able to back it up with reason and fact.
