Tucson Citizen.com
Medicare and More -

Sen. McCain vs. Your Vitamin Supplements

by on Feb. 17, 2010, under Health

Senator John McCain has proposed the Dietary Supplement Safety Act, S. 3002,  that would give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the power to restrict the sale of vitamin supplements, minerals, and herbs.  This bill would repeal key provisions of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) which currently treats these products as food.

I received an email from a liberal group asking me to email my representatives to oppose this legislation because it will hurt people who rely on vitamin supplements and herbal products rather than using drugs produced by pharmaceutical companies.  A link from the liberal group’s web page took me to JBS.org where I could read a lengthy explanation of how McCain’s bill would restrict the rights of Americans.  I read through this web page and then clicked the “about” link to see whose web page I was reading.  JBS.org is the web page of……The John Birch Society!

Strange bedfellows indeed!  A liberal group (http://peaceteam.net) and the John Birch Society campaigning against John McCain’s efforts to control our freedom of choice when it comes to buying pills.

Here is the link:  http://www.jbs.org/health-care-freedom-blog/5957-proposed-dietary-supplement-regulatory-bill-

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 17th, 2010 at 8:50 am and is filed under Health. Tags for this post: , , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

RSS feed for this post (comments)
  • Jonathan DuHamel

    McCain should back of this nanny state nonsense. Or is it all just a plot by the nefarious vegans to get us to eat more vegetables?

  • tiponeill

    Sadly on some issues I’m afraid that my fellow liberals have a tendency towards “nanny state” legislation – tobacco being the most prominent example but there are many others, and this is one.
    So it’s refreshing to see a liberal organization actually opposing nanny state regulation – although it appears to be a fairly small and kooky liberal group :)
    Perhaps one day the political mess will actually give us one party that truly respects the human rights of everyone, but that seems a likely as hell freezing over.

  • leftfield

    I oppose the unregulated sale of products that are used and sold as medicines but advertised as “not intended to diagnose or cure any illness”.  There is a legitimate public interest in returning to the requirement that such products be proven “safe and effective” before being offered for sale.  

    What we’re really talking about here is freedom – freedom for unaccountable private tyrannies (corporations) to sell anything they darn well please and give unlimited amounts of money to political and ad campaigns to insure their freedom to do so is never infringed upon.

    I would like the unrestricted freedom to purchase explosives. 

    • tiponeill

      I oppose the unregulated sale of products that are used and sold as medicines but advertised as “not intended to diagnose or cure any illness”.
      And I oppose the regulation of products which I may wish to purchase for whatever use I desire, as long as it doesn’t effect the rights of others.
      This includes not only Vitamin C, but marijuana and tobacco and penicillin.
      Recently it cost me $170 to obtain $4.00 worth of Keflex, and which I could have walked into a pharmacy in Mexico for $4.00
      I really don’t need a doddering political fool decide for me what medicines I am allowed to purchase.
      I would like the unrestricted freedom to purchase explosives
      The operative word is whether it affects the rights of others – as long as they can guarantee that the explosives will only blow you to smithereens you have my total support.

      • leftfield

        I see your point, but I don’t think your example is supportive.  That Keflex and other medications are priced outrageously here is not a problem that unregulated sale and production of medications would resolve in a positive manner.  

        On the issue of individual freedoms, certainly I hope we are not talking about the freedom for companies to put dangerous products on the market; thus my point about the explosives.  It would take a lot of booms to harm as many people as thalidomide did. 

        No, I don’t think you need a doddering old political fool to decide much of anything for you.  I do think you need the FDA and/or similar regulatory agencies to insure that what you do buy is “safe and effective”.    

        • tiponeill

          That Keflex and other medications are priced outrageously here is not a problem that unregulated sale and production of medications would resolve in a positive manner.
          Keflex is not priced outrageously here – it is $4. The other $166 was to pay for the regulation.
          On the issue of individual freedoms, certainly I hope we are not talking about the freedom for companies to put dangerous products on the market; thus my point about the explosives.

          And the reason for my pointing out that the explosives are not “dangerous” only to you and your desire for them, but to others.
          Of course companies should have the right to put dangerous products on the market – It is my choice whether I wish to accept that danger or not.
          Ever buy a pair of skis? Talk about dangerous products.
          As soon as you cede your right to use a dangerous product, you give the government the power to control your life and decide what is best for you – the “nanny state” which thinks that marijuana and cholesterol interfere with your ability to be a good little worker for the corporation.
           

          • tiponeill

            P.S.
            I do think you need the FDA and/or similar regulatory agencies to insure that what you do buy is “safe and effective”. 

            If you don’t mind, I would prefer to decide for myself than have that doddering old fool decide for me.
            I have no objection to the government insisting on a list of ingredients, or posting warning that a product is dangerous or not effective, but that is not what the FDA does – it outright bans products.
            And if you look at their judgment over the years (and especially at our current marijuana laws) it should be apparent to anyone that their judgment is not unbiased but is instead the collective will of cranky old politicians.

          • leftfield

            Well, I disagree with the idea that business interests should be free to offer any product whatsoever, regardless of effectiveness, contents, etc.  The original Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 came about because, prior to this, so-called “patent medicines” filled the shelves and food was often unsafe.  The patent medicines of the time were mostly and at best, simply ineffective.  At worst, they were harmful. 

            I am not unsympathetic with the idea that we should be free to put whatever we want into our bodies.  On the other hand, when a third party, like a manufacturer, comes into the picture, that freedom can come in conflict with the public’s safety and right to know.  If and when they legalize drugs, I would like to know that the marijuana, or whatever, that is sold is not laced with strychnine or some other adulterant.

        • Maria Louisa

          Thalidomide was a prescription drug.  All pregnant women should be very wary of using any drugs – this has been well established.
           

    • Tim

      All that sounds lovely. Tell me, however, who you are going to trust to decide what is “safe and effective?” Would this be the same corrupt government agency who have approved such wonders of the chemical age as Vioxx and Aspartame? How many deaths have been reported from the unregulated use of vitamin C or saw palmetto? John McCain is a tool, in almost every sense of the word.

  • leftfield

    I wish the reactionary elements could have their freedom to use misleading words and phrases like “Nanny State” restricted.  With the use of two words, they attempt to short circuit debate on this important issue.  It is a common and effective form of agitprop for them.

  • tiponeill

    I wish the reactionary elements could have their freedom to use misleading words and phrases like “Nanny State” restricted.

    Kinda funny – I didn’t realize that I was a “reactionary element” – I kinda think of myself as a person who opposes the government dictating what I do with my life.

    • leftfield

      This is the first time I’ve heard you use the phrase.  The criticism is not directed specifically at you.  It facilitates understanding in this small context, but also is a form of propaganda used most effectively by reactionary elements.

  • http://ewebsmith.com/health/betterhealthcareplan.html Web Smith

    This is the way that the government has systematically eliminated competition and caused the cost of health care to rise in this country on behalf of major health care industry corporations that donate heavily to political campaigns. If you were able to track all of the money that was involved in getting this bill introduced, you would discover that it not only found its way to the RNC directly, but 100s of smaller PACs and non-profits that support McCain and his buddies as well. You would see McCain and his buddies eventually getting paid enormous amounts for speaking engagements just as Clinton is now getting paid by foreign countries for his trade agreements. It’s a game that these people who milk the population on behalf of the corporatists have learned to play well.
    Destroying alternative medicine by paying for studies and press releases not only drives the population into big pharmaceutical hands, but it also deprives people of what could be less intrusive, less dangerous, and less costly medical breakthroughs.
    Every time a seemingly small bill like this is turned into law to in order to “protect” us, it is used to generate reams and reams of  supporting regulation within bureaucracies like the FDA, NHS, and every other federal monster that can find an opening.
    Your child’s chewy vitamin C caricature company will get a letter saying something like, “Your vitamin C tablet does not conform to federal law S3002″. The next thing you know, your pediatrician will be saying, “Um hmm. It looks like Ronny needs a shot of vitamin C”, and you will get a bill for $200.

    • Mike Brewer

      Right on Web! There is currently a petition authored by the folks at the Community Acupuncture Clinic on Broadway that addresses this very theme.  In order to pull off a pre-emptive attack on all alternative health care, which has changed its moniker to “Integrative Health Care,” corporate interests, that includes the very big business of education, would like to see all acupuncturists be PhD’s.  Control to the 10th power!
      I know many veterans that get tremendous pain relief from both acupuncture, and other potent modalities, like applied kinesiology and the Bowen method.  The civilian docs and the VA fight this stuff, tooth and nail, erstwhile their very withholding of support is violating the Hippocratic oath of  “physician do no harm.’
       
      Incidentally, a year supply of Prozac via the Veterans Administration is about $140. Up the street at your family doc’s office it is $480.  Waaass up?

      • tiponeill

        I want to make it very clear that there is a difference between a person being able to legally buy something with their own money, and having the government or an insurance company pay for it.
        This is often confused.
        I think I have the right to obtain any medicine I want to even if the official verdict is that it is ineffective or even harmful, if I chose to take that risk.
        I don’t think that as a taxpayer I should have to pay for someone else’s poor judgement though.
        It is mor than reasonable – it is neccessary – for the government to only pay for therapies which have been shown to be effective.
        I’ll pay for my own marijuana – I don’t expect Blue Cross to do it.
        But I do expect to be able to buy it legally.

  • tiponeill

    The original Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 came about because, prior to this, so-called “patent medicines” filled the shelves and food was often unsafe.  The patent medicines of the time were mostly and at best, simply ineffective.  At worst, they were harmful. 

    And and some were effective but were used by blacks and jazz musicians, so banning them was a good way to throw undesirables in jail.

    I am not unsympathetic with the idea that we should be free to put whatever we want into our bodies.  On the other hand, when a third party, like a manufacturer, comes into the picture, that freedom can come in conflict with the public’s safety and right to know.
    I have no problem with the right to know – and to put warnings on packages (as is done with tobacco). I am not sympathetic to prohibition. That is what we are discussing.
     

  • Pingback: uberVU - social comments

  • http://tucsoncitizen.com:80/community/2010/02/15/lincoln-day-dinner-on-feb-19/ Jennifer

    While you say it may hurt people on vitamins, it actually could SAVE LIVES!  If you know someone who has been killed b/c of a supplement, I believe you would feel less annoyed.   We expect to feel safe when taking them b/c it seems like it is good for you, they are NOT all good for you and can harm your body or even KILL YOU!  There is no reason to blame McCain for caring about lives saved!  I give the guy kudos for actually caring about what happens to us.

    • tiponeill

      He could save more lives by banning skiing. And motorcycles. I suppose we should ban everything that is dangerous,

      • leftfield

        This is really a big issue for you, isn’t it, Tip?  For me, it’s just too essentially libertarian in approach.  IMO, the “withering away of the state” can only come after the dictatorship of the proletariat is established.  For the state to be “withered away” prior to this, under conditions of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, would only contribute to further strengthening the bourgeoisie and become yet another instrument of oppression of the people.  In any proposition or question, I always ask myself, “which class stands to gain and which to lose”? 

        • tiponeill

          In any proposition or question, I always ask myself, “which class stands to gain and which to lose”?
          And just which class do you think has lost with our war on drugs ?

          • leftfield

            I’m going to assume that this is a rhetorical question.  As you alluded to above, drug prohibition originated as an instrument of state oppression of minority groups, particularly blacks and latinos.  I favor an end to drug prohibition. 

            I also favor strict regulation of business, partly as a result of observation and partly because I believe the working class and the capitalist class have no common interests and class antagonism is in play in every interaction between the classes.

  • http://tucsoncitizen.com:80/community/2010/02/15/lincoln-day-dinner-on-feb-19/ Saul

    Thank you McCain!  I have been trying to get Washington to hear me on this major issue!  There are far too many bottles with faulty claims and no danger warnings.

  • tiponeill

    I favor an end to drug prohibition. 

    I also favor strict regulation of business,
    Then you must be arguing in favor of drug prohibition because you don’t realize that these laws do not “regulate business” but instead “prohibit drugs”.
    I repeat that I have no objection to – in fact I support – “regulation” such as listing ingredients, prohibiting false claims, warning labels, and prohibiting sales to minors.
    It is prohibition that I oppose – and that the McCain law proposes

  • Thomas B. Diekneit

    Doesnt this prove that OUR politicians DONT work us but instead listen to who ever puts up the MOST cash ?  We all know that the PHARMACEUTICAL industry is one of the largest if not thee largest contributing LOBBYIST in Washington.  I think McMain ought to be nick-named ( THE KITE ) because he goes with the wind a.k.a. the flow of cash in Washington D.C. .

  • David Wooten

    It is the height of hypocrisy for Senator McCain to be introducing this legislation. McCain left his first wife (who waited for him while he was a POW) to marry Cindy Hensley, a drug queen pin. Yep, Cindy McCain not only made millions selling alcoholic beverages that have caused the deaths of thousands of innocent children on the highways of Arizona but her millions helped launch Senator McCain’s career. Alcohol is just as bad as any illegal drug, including heroin. But people have the right to use it if they do so responsibly. If McCain gets his way, however, the right of people to take nutritional supplements to improve their health will be in jeopardy. No doubt Senator McCain will get big donations from pharmaceutical companies whose products have to compete with nutritional supplements.

    • Ferraribubba

      So David, You have have just paid our beloved Senator McCain the ultimate complement that a polititian can ever get. You called him a hipocrite.
      Do as I say, not as I do. The White House and Congress are filled with this kind of trash.  Always was, and always will be, unless we do something about it in November.
      If you think that the other side if the aisle is any different, I’ve got some ocean-front property for sale just about 5 miles south of Eloy for you.
      Yer pal, Ferrari Bubba

  • Pingback: McCain And I Agree? On New Regulations, No Less? The Government Should Regulate Supplements. | Right Wing News

  • Maria Louisa

    I oppose this bill by John McCain. It will have disastrous effects.
    Let freedom ring.

  • Melzbellz

    I agree, regulation, not prohibition– regulation meaning still allowing people to make their own choices: informed ones.  You think this is bad, look up “Codex Alimentarius.”
    This video sums up everything I could possibly say.  When you have the time, I highly recommend watching it:  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634#

  • http://www.glenwoodfin.com/ Glen Woodfin

    Clearly John McCain is being paid off by lobbyists.

  • CHARLES YAUN JR.

    Things that were not even thought of yesterday are now reality, visible to everyone. Herbs used for centuries and todays vitamins are the result of visionaries who could see the benefits to man long before John Mccain was wearing diapers.  I voted for John and didn’t think he would infringe on our rights to use our own vision to  help ourselves in one of the best social movements in the country. The use of Vitamins and supplements and herbs is a self- evolving movement of the american people that he just can’t help but want to control like they did to our great Doctors by tyeing their artful hands to the laws and procedures of the insurance and drug industries.  What a disastrous waste of time and money.

  • Pingback: integrative clinic

«
»