How Should Economic Policies Address Conflicts of Interest?

[nismaratwork]

actually, we sort of do allow the sale of tonics and snake oil right now. homeopathic products get in as a sort of religious exemption, and they're really nothing more than ingredients that are watered down to the point that the original product is undetectable.

generally, supplements are food products. and yes, do not usually have real drugs that work. when they do, FDA has a tendency to shut them down (steroids, ephedrine, etc.). there are exceptions (red rice yeast, st john's wort, licorice), and often these are the types of things that come under fire from drug companies when they are in direct competition with their own products.

now, why is this an issue? people know where the "real" drugs are, and they know how to get them. it's because of something that people aren't getting from their doctors: care. or if they do, they simply don't know how to help them.

When I say, "supplements", I'm talking about everything from (for some) useful nutritional supplements, to Zicam and other absurdities, and all of the gingko biloba in between.


You also say that people know where the "real drugs are"... I say, are you KIDDING ME?! People are lucky that they don't just throw fecal balls at each other all day. These are the same people who still think that the MMR vaccine destroyed their kids, and that you can use chapstick on your head to relieve pain!

Sorry Proton, but you're telling me what is in a given capsule, when one of the major issues is that until or unless a problem emerges that is clearly linked... we don't know. The fact is that this IS what the FDA is meant to regulate... and that they don't actively screen products for efficacy as they do prescriptions is idiotic. If a product makes a claim, it shouldn't be able to simply state that the FDA didn't "evaluate" that claim and sell it. This is a case of money and lobbying defeating common sense... I'm surprised to see you on the opposite side of this issue to be blunt.

Vanadium 50: It should be considered gambling when a wager is made, otherwise you're torturing the word. Everyone you described makes forms of wagers, but this isn't about semantics... it's about regulation! It's OK to simply draw a line, like the UK (and we USED to) has, to regulate betting once it's reached a certain remove from the stakes.

*note... not in the same manner as prescriptions or medical devices.

 

[Proton Soup]

OK, so who is gambling? Our snow shovel manufacturer who is looking to expand, hoping for a snowy winter? The bank manager who loans him the money to let him do this? The depositor in the bank who provides the money that will be used for the loan? Tell me who is gambling and who is not.

what do you want to argue? that life is a gamble, therefore we must go full bore libertarian and allow ponzi schemes to run in the open? I'm sorry, but it doesn't "advance the discussion". banks and insurance companies have to meet capital requirements. yes, banks make loans, with calculated risks. they also require collateral on larger loans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_futures_modernization_act

When I say, "supplements", I'm talking about everything from (for some) useful nutritional supplements, to Zicam and other absurdities, and all of the gingko biloba in between.You also say that people know where the "real drugs are"... I say, are you KIDDING ME?! People are lucky that they don't just throw fecal balls at each other all day. These are the same people who still think that the MMR vaccine destroyed their kids, and that you can use chapstick on your head to relieve pain!

Sorry Proton, but you're telling me what is in a given capsule, when one of the major issues is that until or unless a problem emerges that is clearly linked... we don't know. The fact is that this IS what the FDA is meant to regulate... and that they don't actively screen products for efficacy as they do prescriptions is idiotic. If a product makes a claim, it shouldn't be able to simply state that the FDA didn't "evaluate" that claim and sell it. This is a case of money and lobbying defeating common sense... I'm surprised to see you on the opposite side of this issue to be blunt.

you know, zinc up the nose actually works as an antimicrobial, it just has the unfortunate side effect of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosmia#Zicam_controversy". seems like FDA did its job there, tho.

no, I'm not kidding. when people are in real pain, more than the usual niggles, they go to the doctor and get the antibiotics and opiates.

i could care less if a product makes a claim. i just want my methylcobalamin, 5-MTHF, melatonin, creatine monohydrate, fish oil, and whatever else strikes my fancy and to be left the **** alone. is that blunt enough for you?as for food in general tho... just how long ago was it that chinese sources of melamine-tainted food were killing our pets, and no one seems to give a darn. i guess we'll need a pile of dead babies before anyone gets truly annoyed about the lack of regulation there. in the meantime, enjoy your cheap chinese aspirin. or heck, even your tylenol products with a couple of shipping pallets ground up into the mix. come to think of it, there was another big time pharma company on the news just the other day (was it 60 minutes?) that had an entire plant shut down because they were doing crazy stuff like putting the wrong pills in the bottles.

 

[Vanadium 50]

what do you want to argue? that life is a gamble, therefore we must go full bore libertarian and allow ponzi schemes to run in the open?

No, I am arguing that using the word "gambling" is being used to describe "actions that I disapprove of that involve uncertainty about the future" and as such is not very helpful.

We can equally well call insurance companies "bookies" and cast fire insurance as "I am betting $500 a year that my house will burn down and Allstate is betting that it won't".

My specific suggestion is that we do not use such loaded words as they generate more heat than light.

 

[nismaratwork]

what do you want to argue? that life is a gamble, therefore we must go full bore libertarian and allow ponzi schemes to run in the open? I'm sorry, but it doesn't "advance the discussion". banks and insurance companies have to meet capital requirements. yes, banks make loans, with calculated risks. they also require collateral on larger loans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_futures_modernization_act



you know, zinc up the nose actually works as an antimicrobial, it just has the unfortunate side effect of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosmia#Zicam_controversy". seems like FDA did its job there, tho.

no, I'm not kidding. when people are in real pain, more than the usual niggles, they go to the doctor and get the antibiotics and opiates.

i could care less if a product makes a claim. i just want my methylcobalamin, 5-MTHF, melatonin, creatine monohydrate, fish oil, and whatever else strikes my fancy and to be left the **** alone. is that blunt enough for you?


as for food in general tho... just how long ago was it that chinese sources of melamine-tainted food were killing our pets, and no one seems to give a darn. i guess we'll need a pile of dead babies before anyone gets truly annoyed about the lack of regulation there. in the meantime, enjoy your cheap chinese aspirin. or heck, even your tylenol products with a couple of shipping pallets ground up into the mix. come to think of it, there was another big time pharma company on the news just the other day (was it 60 minutes?) that had an entire plant shut down because they were doing crazy stuff like putting the wrong pills in the bottles.

I feel like you're making my case for me, and just saying that you personally want this stuff... and this somehow means you shouldn't see they be controlled for quality and efficacy? You're right that the FDA struggles to do just a part of its job, which is a good argument for reorganization and funding, not against regulating billions in mostly useless kidney-wash.

Vanadium 50: What would you call it... preferably a single word that we can use in lieu of "gambling"? I'll call it, a wager, a bet, or even: "fnrbz", if that will turn down the heat on the conversation. Honestly the outrage I noticed seems to be directed at the actions taken, not the appellation used, but I could be wrong. So... what's the word we use?

P.S. We could call insurance companies bookies, but frankly the economy of illegal gambling is far more self-regulating and fair than insurance. The difference is that a bookie is fairly transparent, and generally will break your body, not take your home. Oh, and bookies don't get a government bailout when they place wagers!

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, this is irony. http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/07/arizona.transplants/index.html?iref=allsearch

She seems to see the need to ration healthcare, and she chooses bone-marrow, lung, and LIVER transplants?! I think I hate her.

 

[Al68]

yes, the industry prefers that you call it "gaming". which is just as well, since the odds are usually stacked much in favor of the house, making it not much of a gamble at all.

It's no gamble for the house at all, even with very low odds advantages. Unlike the patron, the house gets to take advantage of the fact that as the number of individual bets increases, the results get closer and closer to predicted results.

In blackjack, for example, a gambler's odds for each hand is about 52%/48% (depending on specifics). If a gambler only plays a few hands, he's almost equally likely to leave a winner or a loser.

But as the number of hands increase (thousands of hands), the margin of error becomes very small compared to the 4% advantage, and the odds of the house coming out behind approach zero, eliminating the risk to the house completely.

 

[nismaratwork]

It's no gamble for the house at all, even with very low odds advantages. Unlike the patron, the house gets to take advantage of the fact that as the number of individual bets increases, the results get closer and closer to predicted results.

In blackjack, for example, a gambler's odds for each hand is about 52%/48% (depending on specifics). If a gambler only plays a few hands, he's almost equally likely to leave a winner or a loser.

But as the number of hands increase (thousands of hands), the margin of error becomes very small compared to the 4% advantage, and the odds of the house coming out behind approach zero, eliminating the risk to the house completely.

Indeed, and that's why the motto in vegas is to keep them coming back to the table. The longer someone plays, the better it is for the house.

 

[WhoWee]

Well, this is irony. http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/07/arizona.transplants/index.html?iref=allsearch

She seems to see the need to ration healthcare, and she chooses bone-marrow, lung, and LIVER transplants?! I think I hate her.

Why hate the Arizona politician? The Feds mandate expansions of Medicaid - and the states can't pay the bill.

""It's a shock to me," said Randall Shepherd, who thought he would receive Medicaid funding for the heart transplant he needs.

"There's a bit of a personal loss and the realization that this could be me in time if something's not changed here," Shepherd said, referring to the two who have died. "Until I get a new heart, my life is in a holding pattern."

Shepherd, like many others outraged by the state decision to slash $1.2 million from the state's Medicaid funding, said he believes the cuts could have come from elsewhere. Nonetheless, he said he understands the reasoning behind the decision.

"It's obvious. If the state's broke, it is broke," he said. "I can kick and scream all I want, and if there's no money for a transplant, it is just not going to happen."[/I]

 

[nismaratwork]

Why hate the Arizona politician? The Feds mandate expansions of Medicaid - and the states can't pay the bill.

""It's a shock to me," said Randall Shepherd, who thought he would receive Medicaid funding for the heart transplant he needs.

"There's a bit of a personal loss and the realization that this could be me in time if something's not changed here," Shepherd said, referring to the two who have died. "Until I get a new heart, my life is in a holding pattern."

Shepherd, like many others outraged by the state decision to slash $1.2 million from the state's Medicaid funding, said he believes the cuts could have come from elsewhere. Nonetheless, he said he understands the reasoning behind the decision.

"It's obvious. If the state's broke, it is broke," he said. "I can kick and scream all I want, and if there's no money for a transplant, it is just not going to happen."[/I]

It's ironic, is what it is, especially when you see this woman on TV explaining that bone-marrow transplants, and other recognized medical procedures are dismissed as not-too-useful. That's simply untrue, so blame the death panel-scare-governor for not saying, "We have to ration care in AZ", instead of blaming the fed.

Either way, it's hilarious that this bumbling fool of a governor would be so blind in this. California and many other states are past bankrupt, but they manage to recognize the value of liver transplants.


This is idiocy, and it's going to just further degrade the standard of care for those who are least able to provide it for themselves, and least able to support a career politician with votes and money.

 

[WhoWee]

It's ironic, is what it is, especially when you see this woman on TV explaining that bone-marrow transplants, and other recognized medical procedures are dismissed as not-too-useful. That's simply untrue, so blame the death panel-scare-governor for not saying, "We have to ration care in AZ", instead of blaming the fed.

Either way, it's hilarious that this bumbling fool of a governor would be so blind in this. California and many other states are past bankrupt, but they manage to recognize the value of liver transplants.


This is idiocy, and it's going to just further degrade the standard of care for those who are least able to provide it for themselves, and least able to support a career politician with votes and money.

Are you familiar with Medicare's rules for End Stage Renal Disease? ESRD is the only pre-existing medical condition that can prevent someone from purchasing a Medicare Advantage Plan.

http://www.medicare.gov/Publications/Pubs/pdf/10128.pdf

 

[nismaratwork]

Are you familiar with Medicare's rules for End Stage Renal Disease? ESRD is the only pre-existing medical condition that can prevent someone from purchasing a Medicare Advantage Plan.

http://www.medicare.gov/Publications/Pubs/pdf/10128.pdf

I am, what's your point? I recognize that rationing resources under our current system is the inevitability, not rationing fears with reform. Are you familiar with the statistics for ESRD, including recurrence, vs. lung, partial lung, liver, partial liver, and bone marrow transplants? Bone Marrow is about 43% after 5 years I think... not bad.

 

[WhoWee]

I am, what's your point? I recognize that rationing resources under our current system is the inevitability, not rationing fears with reform.

I agree with you about rationing - except for the part about fears. The Government model (Medicare) already controls healthcare through re-imbursement schedules. We know what the working model (and finances) of Government health care look like. It's time for an honest discussion of what to expect in the future - as all of the states run deficits over Medicaid. There is no funding for mandated Medicaid expansion.

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree with you about rationing - except for the part about fears. The Government model (Medicare) already controls healthcare through re-imbursement schedules. We know what the working model (and finances) of Government health care look like. It's time for an honest discussion of what to expect in the future - as all of the states run deficits over Medicaid. There is no funding for mandated Medicaid expansion.

Yeah, and the private sector just raises the price to the sky, until it becomes nearly predatory around the elderly. I won't argue that medicaid (et al) is not seriously broken, and that the system needs to be scrapped and rebuilt, not propped-up.

 

[Proton Soup]

No, I am arguing that using the word "gambling" is being used to describe "actions that I disapprove of that involve uncertainty about the future" and as such is not very helpful.

We can equally well call insurance companies "bookies" and cast fire insurance as "I am betting $500 a year that my house will burn down and Allstate is betting that it won't".

My specific suggestion is that we do not use such loaded words as they generate more heat than light.

the fact is, there is a legal distinction here. it's not simply about use of a word that you don't like.

 

[Proton Soup]

I feel like you're making my case for me, and just saying that you personally want this stuff... and this somehow means you shouldn't see they be controlled for quality and efficacy? You're right that the FDA struggles to do just a part of its job, which is a good argument for reorganization and funding, not against regulating billions in mostly useless kidney-wash.

well, you shouldn't feel that way.

i think that what you really object to is people making decisions for themselves. i happen to disagree. but i really don't have a problem with FDA going after fraud and mislabeling. "efficacy" is another matter entirely. "supplements" are supplements to food. i don't want supplements regulated as drugs anymore than i want food regulated as drugs. if i happen to be wrong in my thinking for the efficacy of something i ingest, then so what? it's my right. one of the most basic of human rights, in fact.

 

[nismaratwork]

well, you shouldn't feel that way.

i think that what you really object to is people making decisions for themselves. i happen to disagree. but i really don't have a problem with FDA going after fraud and mislabeling. "efficacy" is another matter entirely. "supplements" are supplements to food. i don't want supplements regulated as drugs anymore than i want food regulated as drugs. if i happen to be wrong in my thinking for the efficacy of something i ingest, then so what? it's my right. one of the most basic of human rights, in fact.

You shouldn't discard reason because you personally want something, and fear the loss of access to that thing. You can't root for the wild west because 'the law' is going to ruin the fun; you still get to go to saloon, just no more gunning down your neighbor. Interestingly *to me*, I'm in the midst of a discussion about human rights... I don't believe they exist. They're good to construct if you want to live a decent life, but I don't believe in a divine mandate or the like.

All of that is beside point, because I'm not saying that anything should be made illegal for people to TAKE. In fact, if you want to smoke week, shoot anabolic steroids, drink, and smoke... GO FOR IT! I think our war on drugs is one of the great shames of this country. I'm saying that claims of efficacy should be set to a standard, if not the same as then certainly modeled on the drug approval system.

I don't want food regulated as a drug, or supplements regulated like a drug, just the same rigor given to claims of efficacy, and care to the potential adverse effects. If you insist on the efficacy of these products, then logic dictates controls on their contents, manufacture, and marketing as with EVERYTHING ELSE. You can't just sell someone a bag of shredded cardboard labeled "carrots"... without getting in trouble that is. So with this.

 

[Proton Soup]

You shouldn't discard reason because you personally want something, and fear the loss of access to that thing. You can't root for the wild west because 'the law' is going to ruin the fun; you still get to go to saloon, just no more gunning down your neighbor. Interestingly *to me*, I'm in the midst of a discussion about human rights... I don't believe they exist. They're good to construct if you want to live a decent life, but I don't believe in a divine mandate or the like.

All of that is beside point, because I'm not saying that anything should be made illegal for people to TAKE. In fact, if you want to smoke week, shoot anabolic steroids, drink, and smoke... GO FOR IT! I think our war on drugs is one of the great shames of this country. I'm saying that claims of efficacy should be set to a standard, if not the same as then certainly modeled on the drug approval system.

I don't want food regulated as a drug, or supplements regulated like a drug, just the same rigor given to claims of efficacy, and care to the potential adverse effects. If you insist on the efficacy of these products, then logic dictates controls on their contents, manufacture, and marketing as with EVERYTHING ELSE. You can't just sell someone a bag of shredded cardboard labeled "carrots"... without getting in trouble that is. So with this.

in the same breath you tell me it isn't rational for me to fear loss of a right, then tell me that you don't believe in human rights. well, if there are more people like you, then i think that makes me completely rational.

now, as for efficacy. this applies only to drugs. if you make a claim about a product, you expose it to regulation by the FDA as a drug and you are held to different standards. supplements are not drugs and are not allowed to make efficacy claims. mislabeling is a different issue than efficacy.

 

[nismaratwork]

in the same breath you tell me it isn't rational for me to fear loss of a right, then tell me that you don't believe in human rights. well, if there are more people like you, then i think that makes me completely rational.

now, as for efficacy. this applies only to drugs. if you make a claim about a product, you expose it to regulation by the FDA as a drug and you are held to different standards. supplements are not drugs and are not allowed to make efficacy claims. mislabeling is a different issue than efficacy.

It's irrational to fear of the loss of something that never existed, and it's irrational to make an argument based on your assertion that "supplements aren't drugs". Well, they're not food for the most part, but something in between; I'd say that deserves a measure of oversight, not just action after the fact. This can only degenerate into a semantic argument, when in reality we're talking about a change of definition made in congress, not by anyone with a brain. This is a manufactured loophole, and it's going to close eventually... I'd probably start to reconcile myself to that.

 

[Proton Soup]

It's irrational to fear of the loss of something that never existed, and it's irrational to make an argument based on your assertion that "supplements aren't drugs". Well, they're not food for the most part, but something in between; I'd say that deserves a measure of oversight, not just action after the fact. This can only degenerate into a semantic argument, when in reality we're talking about a change of definition made in congress, not by anyone with a brain. This is a manufactured loophole, and it's going to close eventually... I'd probably start to reconcile myself to that.

but they're not drugs for the most part, they're vitamins and minerals for the most part. as for some of the others, almost all plants have some active substances that we would classify as drugs. if you think there is a grey area with supplements and food, then consider that some kids have tried to get high on nutmeg. i think I'm being completely rational in defending the line as currently drawn. history has shown that if you give an inch, you'll probably be asked to give another inch.

and quite frankly, i'd prefer that people like you, who are simply arrogant without understanding a whit of what they're talking about simply stay out of it. don't start lecturing me about what i should reconcile to when you come in here not knowing either the science or how FDA regulates these products.

 

[nismaratwork]

but they're not drugs for the most part, they're vitamins and minerals for the most part. as for some of the others, almost all plants have some active substances that we would classify as drugs. if you think there is a grey area with supplements and food, then consider that some kids have tried to get high on nutmeg. i think I'm being completely rational in defending the line as currently drawn. history has shown that if you give an inch, you'll probably be asked to give another inch.

and quite frankly, i'd prefer that people like you, who are simply arrogant without understanding a whit of what they're talking about simply stay out of it. don't start lecturing me about what i should reconcile to when you come in here not knowing either the science or how FDA regulates these products.

OK, now here we bifurcate:

Creatine, Protein powders, Vitamins, Minerals... HAVE been studied to, I think, a reasonable person's satisfaction of safety. Yes, you can hurt yourself with anything, but they can be effective and harmless.

That's just a tiny BIT of the crap that gets sold under that name! I'd think you'd be desperate to have the active products you use and believe in, separated from the snake oil. I think you believe that I want things regulated that are already safe (Flintstones vitamins... or GMC... whatever) beyond quality control and disclosure of ingredients and manufacturing.

For the rest...

Your logic again, is that if you're "asked to give an inch"... i.e. a slippery slope. The thing is, the state of affairs now is the anomaly... we already know that this inch doesn't lead to a foot, in fact, it's been tossed out once already.

Oh, and good on you for standing up for congressmen... they need it man... really...

 

[Proton Soup]

OK, now here we bifurcate:

Creatine, Protein powders, Vitamins, Minerals... HAVE been studied to, I think, a reasonable person's satisfaction of safety. Yes, you can hurt yourself with anything, but they can be effective and harmless.

That's just a tiny BIT of the crap that gets sold under that name! I'd think you'd be desperate to have the active products you use and believe in, separated from the snake oil. I think you believe that I want things regulated that are already safe (Flintstones vitamins... or GMC... whatever) beyond quality control and disclosure of ingredients and manufacturing.

For the rest...

Your logic again, is that if you're "asked to give an inch"... i.e. a slippery slope. The thing is, the state of affairs now is the anomaly... we already know that this inch doesn't lead to a foot, in fact, it's been tossed out once already.

Oh, and good on you for standing up for congressmen... they need it man... really...

actually, i spend a lot of time on PubMed for a reason. snake oil is not something i personally have much use for. as for the rest of this, i guess we're not going to see eye to eye on it. i'd just ask that maybe you consider extending to supplement use&availability some of that commendable zeal you have for freedom and responsibility as it pertains to literature.

 

[nismaratwork]

actually, i spend a lot of time on PubMed for a reason. snake oil is not something i personally have much use for. as for the rest of this, i guess we're not going to see eye to eye on it. i'd just ask that maybe you consider extending to supplement use&availability some of that commendable zeal you have for freedom and responsibility as it pertains to literature.

Look, I just want to make one thing clear:

I think that even if the FDA bans something, you should be able to take it freely without fear of criminal prosecution. NOTHING I'm talking about should be criminalized, and as I've said I'm against the war on drugs. I am FOR your freedom, but I'm also for informing and protecting people who, believe it or not and arrogant or not... aren't as smart or well informed as you.

 

[Proton Soup]

Look, I just want to make one thing clear:

I think that even if the FDA bans something, you should be able to take it freely without fear of criminal prosecution. NOTHING I'm talking about should be criminalized, and as I've said I'm against the war on drugs. I am FOR your freedom, but I'm also for informing and protecting people who, believe it or not and arrogant or not... aren't as smart or well informed as you.

ok, but I'm not sure what you mean by this. do you mean fear of criminal prosecution for possession and use, but not fear of prosecution for sale and distribution?

informing is fine. FDA could write all the warning labels for all i care. (just look what it's done for smoking and alcohol). stupid is hard to cure, though. and some warnings are issued and interventions made, you just probably don't notice them. i don't have any on me at the moment, but if you go buy some SAMe(adomet), i think you'll find warnings somewhere in the packaging to not take it if you're bipolar/manic. potassium supplements are pretty much impossible to buy in doses more than 3% RDA, but you can still go buy NoSalt (potassium chloride) and measure out whatever dose you like. but then they'll turn around and ban sale of ephedrine as a diet drug when it is safe and effective when used as directed.

oh yeah, i just thought of a food that would maybe need a warning label: grapefruit.

 

[nismaratwork]

ok, but I'm not sure what you mean by this. do you mean fear of criminal prosecution for possession and use, but not fear of prosecution for sale and distribution?

informing is fine. FDA could write all the warning labels for all i care. (just look what it's done for smoking and alcohol). stupid is hard to cure, though. and some warnings are issued and interventions made, you just probably don't notice them. i don't have any on me at the moment, but if you go buy some SAMe(adomet), i think you'll find warnings somewhere in the packaging to not take it if you're bipolar/manic. potassium supplements are pretty much impossible to buy in doses more than 3% RDA, but you can still go buy NoSalt (potassium chloride) and measure out whatever dose you like. but then they'll turn around and ban sale of ephedrine as a diet drug when it is safe and effective when used as directed.

oh yeah, i just thought of a food that would maybe need a warning label: grapefruit.

I would setup a class of store, much like a liquor store which sells those supplements deemed to be fraudulent (if people want it and they KNOW... ok), or to be too risky for use by kids or people who are generally uninformed, but are not inherently dangerous. I don't see how the worst protein concoction is any worse than a shot of whiskey.

For those which are found to be genuinely harmful... need I say more? I don't count ephedrine in that category by the way, I'd sell that in the "special store", I mean flat-out harmful, impure, or not-as-labeled products. In other words, let's not have moonshiners making people go blind.

 

[Proton Soup]

I would setup a class of store, much like a liquor store which sells those supplements deemed to be fraudulent (if people want it and they KNOW... ok), or to be too risky for use by kids or people who are generally uninformed, but are not inherently dangerous. I don't see how the worst protein concoction is any worse than a shot of whiskey.

For those which are found to be genuinely harmful... need I say more? I don't count ephedrine in that category by the way, I'd sell that in the "special store", I mean flat-out harmful, impure, or not-as-labeled products. In other words, let's not have moonshiners making people go blind.

ok. most of the stuff that is kind of "out there" doesn't show up on the shelf at walmart, tho. you have to go to GNC or a health food hippy store, or get it online.

"state stores" for liquor i think are sort of interesting because state control is more about taxing and generating revenue. alcohol would be extremely cheap were it not taxes. because of the tax issue, a supplement ghetto does concern me. if someone thinks supplements are "bad" (and a pharma lobbyist wouldn't need much convincing), then it is easy enough to curb use with punitive tax rates.

the worry over kids is a moral panic argument mostly. i assume that you're talking about bodybuilding here. it is true that there is a huge industry catering to the body-dysmorphic teen male. it is also true that almost all of it (legal stuff) doesn't work, or has such a negligible effect that the average teen seeking a quick fix without putting in the actual work will get no benefit for it. actually, he's more likely to just get fat with some of it. if you want to get big quickly, you've got to seek out drugs on the black market. to this end, FDA is already active. educating the teenage male is another matter entirely. that takes years of failure and tons of lost money.

and... i think your bigger supplement market may be unseen: elders. check out lef.org to see what i mean. this is also why i think you may have a hard time tightening the screws on the supplement market. elderly people have money, like to spend it on things like glucosamine/chondroitin/etc., are politically active, and they vote. you'll have to pry their nostrums from their cold, bony fingers.

 

[nismaratwork]

ok. most of the stuff that is kind of "out there" doesn't show up on the shelf at walmart, tho. you have to go to GNC or a health food hippy store, or get it online.

"state stores" for liquor i think are sort of interesting because state control is more about taxing and generating revenue. alcohol would be extremely cheap were it not taxes. because of the tax issue, a supplement ghetto does concern me. if someone thinks supplements are "bad" (and a pharma lobbyist wouldn't need much convincing), then it is easy enough to curb use with punitive tax rates.

the worry over kids is a moral panic argument mostly. i assume that you're talking about bodybuilding here. it is true that there is a huge industry catering to the body-dysmorphic teen male. it is also true that almost all of it (legal stuff) doesn't work, or has such a negligible effect that the average teen seeking a quick fix without putting in the actual work will get no benefit for it. actually, he's more likely to just get fat with some of it. if you want to get big quickly, you've got to seek out drugs on the black market. to this end, FDA is already active. educating the teenage male is another matter entirely. that takes years of failure and tons of lost money.

and... i think your bigger supplement market may be unseen: elders. check out lef.org to see what i mean. this is also why i think you may have a hard time tightening the screws on the supplement market. elderly people have money, like to spend it on things like glucosamine/chondroitin/etc., are politically active, and they vote. you'll have to pry their nostrums from their cold, bony fingers.

I think it's definitely unwise to allow supplements to be subject to vice taxing of the alcohol or gambling variety. For starters, there isn't anything like the impact on society from tobacco, alcohol, and gambling. Then it just goes on to drive rubber-stamping "NO" on everything so they can be sold by special stores.

THAT however, is better than paying an outrageous sum for crap that doesn't even have the active ingredients in the concentrations claimed, right? Wouldn't it be better than the laws for marijuana and anabolic steroids that we have now? I'm not Ayn Rand... I don't think I have some ultimate answer to drill into you... I just really dislike the current state of affairs for many reasons, and think there IS a better way. I'm not naive enough to think that's likely to happen however.

 

[Al68]

Interestingly *to me*, I'm in the midst of a discussion about human rights... I don't believe they exist. They're good to construct if you want to live a decent life, but I don't believe in a divine mandate or the like.

Are you referring only to contractual or social (constructed) entitlements here? Or natural rights, which involve nothing more than being left alone?

Clearly "being left alone" exists to varying degrees, even if not universal, and requires no divine mandate or construction by humans, or any obligation on the part of others.

 

[Proton Soup]

THAT however, is better than paying an outrageous sum for crap that doesn't even have the active ingredients in the concentrations claimed, right? Wouldn't it be better than the laws for marijuana and anabolic steroids that we have now? I'm not Ayn Rand... I don't think I have some ultimate answer to drill into you... I just really dislike the current state of affairs for many reasons, and think there IS a better way. I'm not naive enough to think that's likely to happen however.

Ron White said "you can't fix stupid". and i believe he is right. you might as well try to stop people from wasting tons of money on self-help books or diet cookies. it's always something. and if i wanted to give you an Ayn Rand rational self-interest argument, i'd say that all those stupid people keep the stuff i want fairly cheap and available by irrational exuberance for the market.

i honestly don't know what to tell you. in several years, I've only run into one guy working in a health food store that seemed to have any scientific background at all. he was even telling me about a recent melatonin study that came from my university. mostly they just go on about natural vs. manmade blah blah blah...

 

[nismaratwork]

Ron White said "you can't fix stupid". and i believe he is right. you might as well try to stop people from wasting tons of money on self-help books or diet cookies. it's always something. and if i wanted to give you an Ayn Rand rational self-interest argument, i'd say that all those stupid people keep the stuff i want fairly cheap and available by irrational exuberance for the market.

i honestly don't know what to tell you. in several years, I've only run into one guy working in a health food store that seemed to have any scientific background at all. he was even telling me about a recent melatonin study that came from my university. mostly they just go on about natural vs. manmade blah blah blah...

Yes he did, although my favorite line from that set was, "It's the kind of scotch you drink where you die PENNILESS... it's good though *swig*." I agree with him, and you as well, but I think we can take the minimal effort to protect the lives of idiots (much as it galls me). I'm not for the government making something a CRIME because of idiots, but I don't mind seeing the product pulled from grocery or convenience store shelves.

I say for idiots, we give them a basic net, and if they're SO dumb they fall through... well... *shrug*.

 

[WhoWee]

actually, i spend a lot of time on PubMed for a reason. snake oil is not something i personally have much use for.

I know this is off topic, but I've been looking for something to safely increase testosterone levels - and everything looks and smells like snake oil - any pointers?

 

[Proton Soup]

I know this is off topic, but I've been looking for something to safely increase testosterone levels - and everything looks and smells like snake oil - any pointers?

get some exercise (not excessive) and don't be fat^*. adipose tissue will cause excessive aromatization of testosterone to estrogens. this will lower your T directly (aromatization), and the excessive E creates negative feedback in the hypothalamus so that your pituitary signals the testes to slow down T production (some E is normal in males, too much indicates overproduction of T).

i don't think there's been anything on the market that works, really. aromatase inhibitors tend to shut down sex drive and dont' work for hypertrohpy either, since E is still important. some drugs pushed as T enhancers really seem to be more of a dopamine agonist thing. i don't follow along as much as i used to, but the only thing I've seen come along that was truly fascinating is the discovery of an endogenous right-handed amino acid, that was before thought to not exist.

just try to eat right and exercise. get decent sleep, and try to stay in good spirits. having a defeatist mindset really doesn't help.

*edit: i should add, dont' be too skinny, either. trying to look like a bodybuilder will put your hormones in the crapper.

 

[nismaratwork]

get some exercise (not excessive) and don't be fat^*. adipose tissue will cause excessive aromatization of testosterone to estrogens. this will lower your T directly (aromatization), and the excessive E creates negative feedback in the hypothalamus so that your pituitary signals the testes to slow down T production (some E is normal in males, too much indicates overproduction of T).

i don't think there's been anything on the market that works, really. aromatase inhibitors tend to shut down sex drive and dont' work for hypertrohpy either, since E is still important. some drugs pushed as T enhancers really seem to be more of a dopamine agonist thing. i don't follow along as much as i used to, but the only thing I've seen come along that was truly fascinating is the discovery of an endogenous right-handed amino acid, that was before thought to not exist.

just try to eat right and exercise. get decent sleep, and try to stay in good spirits. having a defeatist mindset really doesn't help.

*edit: i should add, dont' be too skinny, either. trying to look like a bodybuilder will put your hormones in the crapper.

I know this isn't what WhoWee asked, but what is it that you want from from testosterone WhoWee? After all, it may be that whatever is causing you to believe that such an increase would be beneficial may have another solution... or not.

 

[WhoWee]

I know this isn't what WhoWee asked, but what is it that you want from from testosterone WhoWee? After all, it may be that whatever is causing you to believe that such an increase would be beneficial may have another solution... or not.

We are clearly off-topic - if we need to delete - I understand.

As Proton suggested, the first problem was weight loss and lack of excercise. I gained a significant number of pounds after dislocating my shoulder and injuring my knee in a nasty 2 story fall through my building (long story). Before that, I enjoyed running and lifting weights.

Unable to run, I started a weight re-hab program (mostly rubber band machines) and rebuilt my strength. In the process, I lost the extra weight.

Problem two is I have a Hypothyroidism condition as well as hypertension - business-stress related more than likely. My doctor awarded me the best cholesterol designation amongst his patients and my sugar is correct. Accordingly, I take synthroid, lisinopril, and clonidine. I also take a daily vitamin and a baby aspirin.

The specific problems are very restless sleep, lethargy, (yes) reduced sex drive/stamina, and a clear drop-off of strength.

 

[nismaratwork]

We are clearly off-topic - if we need to delete - I understand.

As Proton suggested, the first problem was weight loss and lack of excercise. I gained a significant number of pounds after dislocating my shoulder and injuring my knee in a nasty 2 story fall through my building (long story). Before that, I enjoyed running and lifting weights.

Unable to run, I started a weight re-hab program (mostly rubber band machines) and rebuilt my strength. In the process, I lost the extra weight.

Problem two is I have a Hypothyroidism condition as well as hypertension - business-stress related more than likely. My doctor awarded me the best cholesterol designation amongst his patients and my sugar is correct. Accordingly, I take synthroid, lisinopril, and clonidine. I also take a daily vitamin and a baby aspirin.

The specific problems are very restless sleep, lethargy, (yes) reduced sex drive/stamina, and a clear drop-off of strength.

Gotcha, and for the record, that's a good medical reason to explore your options in my view. I'm very sorry for your fall, but I'm glad you're alive... so there's that. I don't see that testosterone overseen by a doctor would be an issue... in fact, this is precisely why things like anabolic steroids, testosterone, HGH... aren't BAD, they're just bad to abuse or use in a bad risk-reward scenario. (for me, that means no bulging biceps... oh well). I'm going to do a bit of research on the medications you're taking, your injury, and see if there might be more than testosterone which could help.

The thing is... treating each symptom (take the sex drive) would probably place you at risk due to your BP, whatever the cause. Hormone therapy carries some increased risk of stroke and other clotting disorders, but... well... risk-reward.

That was, needless to say, JUST MY OPINION and not a professional assessment.

 

[CAC1001]

i should add, dont' be too skinny, either. trying to look like a bodybuilder will put your hormones in the crapper.

It will... If you lift weights with the proper poundages and repetitions, eat right, and get proper sleep, looking like a bodybuilder shouldn't hurt your hormones.

 

[CAC1001]

We are clearly off-topic - if we need to delete - I understand.

As Proton suggested, the first problem was weight loss and lack of excercise. I gained a significant number of pounds after dislocating my shoulder and injuring my knee in a nasty 2 story fall through my building (long story). Before that, I enjoyed running and lifting weights.

Unable to run, I started a weight re-hab program (mostly rubber band machines) and rebuilt my strength. In the process, I lost the extra weight.

Problem two is I have a Hypothyroidism condition as well as hypertension - business-stress related more than likely. My doctor awarded me the best cholesterol designation amongst his patients and my sugar is correct. Accordingly, I take synthroid, lisinopril, and clonidine. I also take a daily vitamin and a baby aspirin.

The specific problems are very restless sleep, lethargy, (yes) reduced sex drive/stamina, and a clear drop-off of strength.

I don't know if you can or not because of your injuries, but if you can, heavy barbell squats and deadlifts will naturally boost testosterone.

 

[WhoWee]

As off topic as this is, a point is illuminated that a void exists between the research and review of the FDA and the consumer. Foods and supplements might be discussed with a doctor but, in so much as they are not regulated, managed by the individual.

We all know that when a vacuum exists (in this case information readily available to the public) something will fill it (in this example literature from supplement suppliers) - snake oil can also seep in.

 

[nismaratwork]

As off topic as this is, a point is illuminated that a void exists between the research and review of the FDA and the consumer. Foods and supplements might be discussed with a doctor but, in so much as they are not regulated, managed by the individual.

We all know that when a vacuum exists (in this case information readily available to the public) something will fill it (in this example literature from supplement suppliers) - snake oil can also seep in.

Too true... doctors can't warn patients if the information isn't there to begin with! Then of course people don't listen to their doctor's caution, and end up playing games with their bodies. If the FDA were empowered, staffed, and funded with a broader mandate, the result would in part be doctors having more information to offer.

We've all seen how effective it is to tell people that marijuana turns them into killers, perverts, and... piano-players oddly enough. People get scared, listen, find they've been tricked, and it takes DECADES to stop the mutual reactionary process of feedback between over-regulation, and snake-oil.

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't know if you can or not because of your injuries, but if you can, heavy barbell squats and deadlifts will naturally boost testosterone.

I'm familiar with this concept... that sustained heavy lifts increase serum testosterone. I'm given to understand that effect is a matter of the weight and duration of the lift, and the exercises that you mentioned are the best for joints and health.

I'm not asking this because I think you're dicking about, I just couldn't find... a paper? A study? I found plenty of links on bodybuilding and even "medical faq" sites, but not a peer reviewed study.

 

[Proton Soup]

I'm familiar with this concept... that sustained heavy lifts increase serum testosterone. I'm given to understand that effect is a matter of the weight and duration of the lift, and the exercises that you mentioned are the best for joints and health.

I'm not asking this because I think you're dicking about, I just couldn't find... a paper? A study? I found plenty of links on bodybuilding and even "medical faq" sites, but not a peer reviewed study.

most of those hormonal effects from squats are very short-lived. but if you want to get very strong, then by all means, squat. the comment about looking like a bodybuilder was a reference to extreme leanness (don't do that).

 

[nismaratwork]

most of those hormonal effects from squats are very short-lived. but if you want to get very strong, then by all means, squat. the comment about looking like a bodybuilder was a reference to extreme leanness (don't do that).

I understand... people don't seem to grasp that it's a % of body fat issue OVERALL, not some mystical gut-magic. I was just a little surprised to hear it floated as a means of raising serum testosterone in the vein of WhoWee's needs.

Personally, I'm happy to be lean... not hugely muscular, not flabby... not six-packed from a mile away... but lean. It takes enough work in terms of proper diet, exercise, and sleep to keep that going.

BTW... when you say "bodybuilder", is there a specific term for the 'bulk' bodybuilders vs. the more genuine seeming, 'form' bodybuilder? The former always struck me as a huge outpouring of resources, and risk, for a very VERY specific goal. The second... is something more akin to a good hobby. Would that be fair to say?

 

[WhoWee]

Can we split this thread?

 

[CAC1001]

I'm not asking this because I think you're dicking about, I just couldn't find... a paper? A study? I found plenty of links on bodybuilding and even "medical faq" sites, but not a peer reviewed study.

Don't know of any peer-reviewed studies on the issue of weightlifting increasing testosterone, it was something I had read somewhere a while back.

 

[mugaliens]

Personally, I'm happy to be lean... not hugely muscular, not flabby... not six-packed from a mile away... but lean. It takes enough work in terms of proper diet, exercise, and sleep to keep that going.

I envy you. Last time I resembled your condition was after 9 months of cycling my butt off. Barring a repeat performance, I think my report on the scale will remain dismal!

 

[nismaratwork]

I envy you. Last time I resembled your condition was after 9 months of cycling my butt off. Barring a repeat performance, I think my report on the scale will remain dismal!

Ah, but we BOTH know it isn't the scale, but the ratio of body fat that matters. Still, as the French say so well.. "Life, eh?"


CAC1001: OK, I was just curious. I've read the same, heard the same and it's not often treated as nonsense. From what I've heard from Proton, a few colleagues and read... it seems to accurate, but that the boost is short-lived. It makes sense given a healthy endocrine system, but I wonder what the effect of telling your body: "muscle-priority!" is, if you DO have an endocrine disorder relating to testosterone production or binding.

 

[rcgldr]

Can we split this thread?

Yes please split off the medical stuff into another thread.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Just wanted to add a couple suggested regulations relating to OP. When it comes to campaign funding, lobbying should not be allowed. Who stands to gain from this activity except the obvious. Lobbying is basically a kind of political auction. If every candidate was only given a certain amount of money for there campaign out of the federal budget it would level the playing field dramatically. I am also sick of the media(news stations mainly)electing candidates instead of the people. Though if enough people realized they were being brainwashed it wouldn't work, but just like laws that replace the lack of morality and self discipline in some, there could be laws that protect the stupid and impressionable. Though we are all guilty of that at one point or another.

Also if companies were not allowed to hire outside of they're country of origin then companies like walmart couldn't take advantage of Chinese 'slave labor'. That gives them an unfair advantage over smaller companies putting them out of business. I guess there are those that have worked for that though, currency manipulation is hard work too! Then we could make the stuff we buy. Then 'stimulating the economy' by spending would actually work. I love how blame gets put on the lack of consumer confidence. Like if we all start spending our money on chinese goods from big box stores that we are eventually going to see the benefits. HA!

 

[WhoWee]

Just wanted to add a couple suggested regulations relating to OP. When it comes to campaign funding, lobbying should not be allowed. Who stands to gain from this activity except the obvious. Lobbying is basically a kind of political auction.

Ironically, the recent events in AZ may increase the acceptance of lobbying - as a buffer between the elected officials and the general public - further insulating Washington from the voters.

 

[nismaratwork]

Ironically, the recent events in AZ may increase the acceptance of lobbying - as a buffer between the elected officials and the general public - further insulating Washington from the voters.

I believe we can absolutely count on the cowardice of our elected officials, their greed, and the ability of lobbyists to capitalize on both.