"Miracle in a Bottle"

[Rolfe]

Interesting article in the New Yorker on nutraceuticals and their regulation (or rather, lack thereof).

Miracle in a Bottle. (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040202fa_fact)

Rolfe.

[cbish]

Interesting,
Lengthy, but interesting.

This was one of the major contributors to the increase in quack abuse.
Since 1994, when Congress passed a law that deregulated the supplement industry and opened it to a flood of new products, the use of largely unproved herbal remedies—from blueberry extract for impaired vision to saw palmetto for the treatment of enlarged prostates and echinacea to prevent colds

I've that many scientific associations such as the AMA have been lobbying congress to amend the law.

I think this pretty much says it all

Since that legislation, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, became law, companies have been able to say nearly anything they want about the potential health benefits of what they sell. As long as they don’t blatantly lie or claim to have a cure for a specific disease, such as cancer, diabetes, or aids, they can assert—without providing evidence—that a product is designed to support a healthy heart (CardiAll, for example), protect cells from damage (Liverite), or improve the function of a compromised immune system (Resist). There are almost no standards that regulate how the pills are made, and they receive almost no scrutiny once they are, so consumers never truly know what they are getting. Companies are not required to prove that products are effective, or even safe, before they are put on the market.

And this is why

Natural Products Alliance, and a principal architect of the 1994 legislation, told me not long ago. “This is really a belief system, almost a religion. Americans believe they have the right to address their health problems in the way that seems most useful to them. Often, that means supplements. When the public senses that the government is trying to limit its access to this kind of thing, it always reacts with remarkable anger—people are even willing to shoulder a rifle over it. They are ready to believe anything if it brings them a little hope.

I do think there are other issues as well. There is intellectual laziness coupled with ignorance that allows people to be duped. I also, IMO, think there is a link between a belief in the effectiveness in alternative medicines/homeopathy and spirituality. I have found that people who are really in to the alternative scene have a deep spirituality rather it be religious or some other form of mysticism. Therefore, science/medicine can't know everything and must be fallable. "If science knows everything then my mysticism looks pretty foolish" is the mindset I believe draws many of these people to these products

[tracer]

With a title like "Miracle in a Bottle", I thought this thread was going to be about those penis enlargement pills I keep getting spammed about.

[Zep]

It's REALLY a return to carny snake-oil sellers.

http://www.bottlebooks.com/questions/July%202001/snakeoil%202.jpg

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by cbish
I have found that people who are really in to the alternative scene have a deep spirituality rather it be religious or some other form of mysticism. Therefore, science/medicine can't know everything and must be fallable. "If science knows everything then my mysticism looks pretty foolish" is the mindset I believe draws many of these people to these products A non-threatening approach to this attitude can be to point out that science answers the "how" questions. Even if all the "how" quesitons are completely answered to absolute certainty, that still leaves religion/spirituality with a free run at the "why" questions.

Rolfe.

[Pyrrho]

Here's what happens when a "supplement" seller steps over the line:

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2004/NEW01009.html


FDA Warns Consumers Not to Feed Infants “Better than Formula Ultra Infant Immune Booster 117”
The Food and Drug Administration is warning consumers that a product, Better Than Formula Ultra Infant Immune Booster 117, sold over the internet as a dietary supplement should not be fed to infants. NSP Research Nutrition of Mt. Clemens, Michigan, sells the product as a dietary supplement. Even though NSP Research Nutrition labeled their product as "a dietary supplement," as a result of its labeling claims FDA is concerned that the product may be an infant formula. The term "Better than Formula," in the product name describes this product as a substitute for, or alternative to, other infant formulas.

[cbish]

I'll try to keep this differentiation in mind and approach it this way when the situation arises. Some thoughts however.

1) The people whom I've encountered who will bite your head off for speaking poorly of AM or HP have a deep commitment to their mysticism. More so than the average Joe going to church on sunday. They can't separate the "how" from the "why". Which is why they attack the "how".

2) As a scientist and a skeptic, I personally have a hard time defining and/or discussing a "why". I don't do well in those discussions because I feel it ultimately degrades to an apples/oranges argument. It's hard for me to accept "meaning" and I've found that mystics cannot accept the opposite. So there's no basic premise to build on.

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Interesting article in the New Yorker on nutraceuticals and their regulation (or rather, lack thereof).

Miracle in a Bottle. (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040202fa_fact)

Rolfe.
Great article. Thanks for posting the link, Rolfe. I didn't have time to finish it yesterday when I saw the post, so I printed it out to read it on the way home (and to hang onto it). The only thing I thought the writer missed out on was the fact that the Zantrex-3 huckster kept touting his Money-Back Guarantee pointing out that drug companies don't do that (a strawman argument if ever I saw one). The writer never pressed him as to whether they've ever honored anyone's request for a refund. I seriously doubt they have. In fact, most of the things that guy said were strawman arguements or other logical fallacies ("Say you do a small study of 150 people and you find that 85% of the women who take this who would otherwise get breast cancer don't"; "Let's say I've got 99 people that have a fatal form of cancer"; and so on).

I don't know why, but of all the skepticism topics, this one gets me riled more than most. Perhaps it's because the public is being used as guinea pigs to test the effects of unknown substances. I don't know whether I'm more pissed off at the snake oil salemen who peddle this crap, at the gub'ment for allowing it to happen (I hope Orrin Hatch gets what he deserves), or at the millions of idiots who allow themselves to be used as guinea pigs.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Aw crap. I thought this thread was about Beer.