FDA warns against natural ED supplements because . . .

Psi Baba · 14th July 2006, 12:07 PM

They contain real ingredients and there is a good chance they'll actually work. We can't have that now, can we?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/07/13....ap/index.html

empeake · 14th July 2006, 12:42 PM

The dangerous issue here is that a prescription drug is been sold under false pretenses and without prescription or regulation, endangering the lives of people that have been deceived into thinking that these are "safe" options.

One question remains:Are these ingredients similar to sildenafil and vardenafil really obtained from natural sources, as the manufacturers' claim, or are they simply "designer" versions of the real thing (i.e., slightly altered in the lab to make them appear different, while actually being the same)?

I see major lawsuits in the near future.

Psi Baba · 18th July 2006, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by empeake

The dangerous issue here is that a prescription drug is been sold under false pretenses and without prescription or regulation, endangering the lives of people that have been deceived into thinking that these are "safe" options.

I can understand that, but it riles me that while they look the other way regarding all the quack products out there, their real concern here is that people might be able to buy certain prescription drugs cheaper than the brand-name products. And the style of warning almost condones the quackery, "Be careful, this stuff is the real deal, not like those fake pseudo-medicines you're used to buying."

Mongrel · 18th July 2006, 09:13 AM

Devil's Advocate: " Dispensing prescription drugs without a prescription is illegal in most civilised countries. Prescribing them without appropriate authority is illegal. Also does the 'supplement' contain a product data sheet that contains contraindications? "

It's a lot easier to arrest people for breach of the above *shrug*

JLam · 18th July 2006, 09:24 AM

The problem would be this. Suppose you're allergic to the active ingredient in Viagra. But you still want your little soldier to be able to salute, and the wife is really getting on your case. So you go to your email account, open up your spam folder, and click on an ad for a "@@@@ AlL Na tural V!@grA alTernaTIVE...No pERs CRIption NeedED! @@@@" and you order some pills.

Then you take the pills, and have an allergic reaction, because the pill makers didn't tell you it's just Viagra.

See the problem?

empeake · 18th July 2006, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Psi Baba

I can understand that, but it riles me that while they look the other way regarding all the quack products out there, their real concern here is that people might be able to buy certain prescription drugs cheaper than the brand-name products. And the style of warning almost condones the quackery, "Be careful, this stuff is the real deal, not like those fake pseudo-medicines you're used to buying."

Have you seen the warnings for Viagra? There is a reason why it is sold only by prescription. Here we are talking about unscrupulous companies that peddle the same product in a deceitful manner, declaring that it is "safe" and "natural", without disclosing the truth, without warning the users of the risks, and with no concern for the public's health. This way of profiting is unethical and criminal. At least the pharmaceutical companies openly warn you of the risks (asides from the fact that they have invested millions of dollars in research, studies, and tests, and have a right to protect their investment from leeches that sidestep the rules to turn a fast buck).

Psi Baba · 18th July 2006, 12:42 PM

Okay, you've convinced me. It is dangerous to sell that stuff without telling someone what it is (although now that the cat is out of the bag, that changes things ever so slightly). My initial statement was coming from the notion that proponents of CAM often cite that the reason people choose that route is because of their disillusionment with the pharamaceutical industry (not that that's a logical path, but it's their logic, not mine), and they end up falling for junk that is little more than placebo. I realize that what these particular "supplement" makers are doing is tantamount to selling prescription drugs on the black market, but the FDA seemed to pounce on this much more quickly than they would have otherwise. It still sounds like they are saying that if these products contained nothing but corn starch, that would be okay. Mongrel's suggestion might well be the answer for that. JLam, you have a good point, but then anyone who buys anything from a spam ad (especially health-related!) deserves what they get.

Skeptic Ginger · 18th July 2006, 01:20 PM

Psi Baba, if I was going to complain it would be because the FDA doesn't regulate the quality and dose of dietary supplements and actually make people show evidence they do work rather than complain the FDA does regulate prescription drugs.

Kochanski · 18th July 2006, 01:55 PM

I am with you skeptigirl, it would be great if the FDA regulated all supplements of all sorts. There would be a lot less snake oil sold in all sorts of places then. There is far to much scope for abuse in the supplement category. Any snake oil salesman who wants to make bucks can create a supplement and with carefully worded ads and packaging sell useless carp and make big bucks with little chance of anyone bothering to try and stop him.

empeake · 18th July 2006, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Psi Baba

I realize that what these particular "supplement" makers are doing is tantamount to selling prescription drugs on the black market, but the FDA seemed to pounce on this much more quickly than they would have otherwise.

Herbal products are not approved or regulated by the FDA, and the FDA can only issue warnings if there is proof that these products may have harmful side effects. The FDA was empowered to act the moment the tests determined that these "herbal remedies" contained prescription drugs (or similar potentially harmful ingredients). Before then, the FDA had statutory or resource limitations (specifically, it can not test all herbal remedies out there).

Saying the reason behind the FDA's warning is pressure by the pharmaceutical corporations in order to protect their profits, and not a concern for the safety of the consumers, sounds too much like a conspiracy theory.

Psi Baba · 19th July 2006, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by empeake

Saying the reason behind the FDA's warning is pressure by the pharmaceutical corporations in order to protect their profits, and not a concern for the safety of the consumers, sounds too much like a conspiracy theory.

Not a conspiracy, just inconsistency. That's the crux of my complaint. But as I said, empeake's and JLam's earlier posts have convinced me that my original complaint was not very valid. I think it was that when I read the article, it wasn't what I was expecting to see.

Beerina · 19th July 2006, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by JLam

The problem would be this. Suppose you're allergic to the active ingredient in Viagra. But you still want your little soldier to be able to salute, and the wife is really getting on your case. So you go to your email account, open up your spam folder, and click on an ad for a "@@@@ AlL Na tural V!@grA alTernaTIVE...No pERs CRIption NeedED! @@@@" and you order some pills.

Then you take the pills, and have an allergic reaction, because the pill makers didn't tell you it's just Viagra.

See the problem?

Buffoon relies on scam-like emails for medical advice when he knows he must be careful with at least one drug in that area?

Evolution: working as intended

14th July 2006, 12:07 PM	#1
Psi Baba Homo Skepticalis Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Occupying my barstool Posts: 3,177	FDA warns against natural ED supplements because . . . They contain real ingredients and there is a good chance they'll actually work. We can't have that now, can we? http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/07/13....ap/index.html
	__________________ Save Caribbean Rum! (seriously)

14th July 2006, 12:42 PM	#2
empeake Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Querétaro Posts: 482	The dangerous issue here is that a prescription drug is been sold under false pretenses and without prescription or regulation, endangering the lives of people that have been deceived into thinking that these are "safe" options. One question remains:Are these ingredients similar to sildenafil and vardenafil really obtained from natural sources, as the manufacturers' claim, or are they simply "designer" versions of the real thing (i.e., slightly altered in the lab to make them appear different, while actually being the same)? I see major lawsuits in the near future.
	__________________ Cogito ergo dunno

18th July 2006, 08:04 AM	#3
Psi Baba Homo Skepticalis Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Occupying my barstool Posts: 3,177	Originally Posted by empeake The dangerous issue here is that a prescription drug is been sold under false pretenses and without prescription or regulation, endangering the lives of people that have been deceived into thinking that these are "safe" options. I can understand that, but it riles me that while they look the other way regarding all the quack products out there, their real concern here is that people might be able to buy certain prescription drugs cheaper than the brand-name products. And the style of warning almost condones the quackery, "Be careful, this stuff is the real deal, not like those fake pseudo-medicines you're used to buying."
	__________________ Save Caribbean Rum! (seriously)

18th July 2006, 09:13 AM	#4
Mongrel Begging for Scraps Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: 20 minutes in the future Posts: 1,640	Devil's Advocate: " Dispensing prescription drugs without a prescription is illegal in most civilised countries. Prescribing them without appropriate authority is illegal. Also does the 'supplement' contain a product data sheet that contains contraindications? " It's a lot easier to arrest people for breach of the above shrug
	__________________ “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” - Charles Darwin ...like so many contemporary philosophers he especially enjoyed giving helpful advice to people who were happier than he was. - Tom Lehrer

18th July 2006, 09:24 AM	#5
JLam Proud Skepkid Parent Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Low and away Posts: 4,165	The problem would be this. Suppose you're allergic to the active ingredient in Viagra. But you still want your little soldier to be able to salute, and the wife is really getting on your case. So you go to your email account, open up your spam folder, and click on an ad for a "@@@@ AlL Na tural V!@grA alTernaTIVE...No pERs CRIption NeedED! @@@@" and you order some pills. Then you take the pills, and have an allergic reaction, because the pill makers didn't tell you it's just Viagra. See the problem?
	__________________ Help take down Sylvia Browne. "what's dicksing? my dicksionary have no word for that" - Pillory

18th July 2006, 11:00 AM	#6
empeake Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Querétaro Posts: 482	Originally Posted by Psi Baba I can understand that, but it riles me that while they look the other way regarding all the quack products out there, their real concern here is that people might be able to buy certain prescription drugs cheaper than the brand-name products. And the style of warning almost condones the quackery, "Be careful, this stuff is the real deal, not like those fake pseudo-medicines you're used to buying." Have you seen the warnings for Viagra? There is a reason why it is sold only by prescription. Here we are talking about unscrupulous companies that peddle the same product in a deceitful manner, declaring that it is "safe" and "natural", without disclosing the truth, without warning the users of the risks, and with no concern for the public's health. This way of profiting is unethical and criminal. At least the pharmaceutical companies openly warn you of the risks (asides from the fact that they have invested millions of dollars in research, studies, and tests, and have a right to protect their investment from leeches that sidestep the rules to turn a fast buck).
	__________________ Cogito ergo dunno

18th July 2006, 12:42 PM	#7
Psi Baba Homo Skepticalis Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Occupying my barstool Posts: 3,177	Okay, you've convinced me. It is dangerous to sell that stuff without telling someone what it is (although now that the cat is out of the bag, that changes things ever so slightly). My initial statement was coming from the notion that proponents of CAM often cite that the reason people choose that route is because of their disillusionment with the pharamaceutical industry (not that that's a logical path, but it's their logic, not mine), and they end up falling for junk that is little more than placebo. I realize that what these particular "supplement" makers are doing is tantamount to selling prescription drugs on the black market, but the FDA seemed to pounce on this much more quickly than they would have otherwise. It still sounds like they are saying that if these products contained nothing but corn starch, that would be okay. Mongrel's suggestion might well be the answer for that. JLam, you have a good point, but then anyone who buys anything from a spam ad (especially health-related!) deserves what they get.
	__________________ Save Caribbean Rum! (seriously)

18th July 2006, 01:20 PM	#8
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,508	Psi Baba, if I was going to complain it would be because the FDA doesn't regulate the quality and dose of dietary supplements and actually make people show evidence they do work rather than complain the FDA does regulate prescription drugs.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

18th July 2006, 01:55 PM	#9
Kochanski Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Anonymous Unimportant Place (not a secret Scorpion training facility for Shosuro ninjas) Posts: 2,656	I am with you skeptigirl, it would be great if the FDA regulated all supplements of all sorts. There would be a lot less snake oil sold in all sorts of places then. There is far to much scope for abuse in the supplement category. Any snake oil salesman who wants to make bucks can create a supplement and with carefully worded ads and packaging sell useless carp and make big bucks with little chance of anyone bothering to try and stop him.
	__________________ The faith of a skeptic is always in doubt Ninja weasel courtesy of http://www.cheeseweasel.net I-con 31 - March 30 - April, 1, 2012 - There is no place like home - Stony Brook http://www.iconsf.org/

18th July 2006, 02:19 PM	#10
empeake Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Querétaro Posts: 482	Originally Posted by Psi Baba I realize that what these particular "supplement" makers are doing is tantamount to selling prescription drugs on the black market, but the FDA seemed to pounce on this much more quickly than they would have otherwise. Herbal products are not approved or regulated by the FDA, and the FDA can only issue warnings if there is proof that these products may have harmful side effects. The FDA was empowered to act the moment the tests determined that these "herbal remedies" contained prescription drugs (or similar potentially harmful ingredients). Before then, the FDA had statutory or resource limitations (specifically, it can not test all herbal remedies out there). Saying the reason behind the FDA's warning is pressure by the pharmaceutical corporations in order to protect their profits, and not a concern for the safety of the consumers, sounds too much like a conspiracy theory.
	__________________ Cogito ergo dunno

19th July 2006, 05:40 AM	#11
Psi Baba Homo Skepticalis Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Occupying my barstool Posts: 3,177	Originally Posted by empeake Saying the reason behind the FDA's warning is pressure by the pharmaceutical corporations in order to protect their profits, and not a concern for the safety of the consumers, sounds too much like a conspiracy theory. Not a conspiracy, just inconsistency. That's the crux of my complaint. But as I said, empeake's and JLam's earlier posts have convinced me that my original complaint was not very valid. I think it was that when I read the article, it wasn't what I was expecting to see.
	__________________ Save Caribbean Rum! (seriously) Last edited by Psi Baba; 19th July 2006 at 06:04 AM.

19th July 2006, 09:41 AM	#12
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by JLam The problem would be this. Suppose you're allergic to the active ingredient in Viagra. But you still want your little soldier to be able to salute, and the wife is really getting on your case. So you go to your email account, open up your spam folder, and click on an ad for a "@@@@ AlL Na tural V!@grA alTernaTIVE...No pERs CRIption NeedED! @@@@" and you order some pills. Then you take the pills, and have an allergic reaction, because the pill makers didn't tell you it's just Viagra. See the problem? Buffoon relies on scam-like emails for medical advice when he knows he must be careful with at least one drug in that area? Evolution: working as intended
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?