...I could go on and on, but I haven't the time.

Here's a few things to chew on:

A. "Nutritional Supplement" is nothing more than a cleverly-crafted weasel-word designed to skirt the laws everyone else has to follow when selling products with a purported health benefit. Companies that market "supplements" are very knowledgable about food and drug law, and can quote chapter and verse what they can say legally (at the moment) and what will set off alarm bells at the FDA.

Look- Hypochondriacs, people who can't afford legit health care, and the desperately ill flock to alternative medicine because they expect to take some kind of treatment that will cure them. They are not looking for "support" or "supplements." I'm sorry, that is medicine, and to call it anything else is DISHONEST. It's one thing to prey on wealthy hypochondriacs, it's quite another thing to peddle false hope to people who are either desperate or who don't know any better. There is a special place in hell for those kinds of purveyors.

B. If you want to learn how to jump on this bandwagon and make a dishonest fortune, try Googling "Alternative Health Marketing." You too, can become a snake-oil hawker overnight, and maybe make a lot of money if you are the first to craft a creative enough MLM enterprise!

C. The most visible "Alternative" purveyors spout some of the most patently false, egregious BULLSHIT I have ever heard in my life- Don't believe me? then find the next "Alternative Health" expo in your town, and look at all the slick operators there. (For the full effect, bring along a trained scientist to silently observe as you ask questions, and ask them afterward what THEY think!) Of course, if you don't "believe" (!)in Science then don't bother. You are beyond hope.

------------------

Finally- There are nuggets of truth all over the place, and on both sides of the debate. To recap:

1. For-profit health care is evil. Poor people shouldn't have to be refused vital care. Big Pharma advertising is unethical and drives up the price of drugs. Many "new" drugs are introduced to create new markets (and vast profits). Finally, the worst offender: the Insurance Industry, putting profits before people every time.

On the other hand, fast-buck operators who hawk nostrums of dubious value to neurotics, the desperate, or the ill-informed, are every bit as evil. This is a vast, vast enterprise, estimated in the tens of billions of dollars. It is not as centralized as big pharma, and so still has the appearance of small-time selfless mavericks who are out to help the "little guy." They all circulate the same memes, though, and look our for each other, so don't be fooled.

2. The FDA is, no doubt, and especially after 7 years of the Shrub admin, too cozy with Big Pharma. Still, the FDA does provide a vital role, and as imperfect as it is, I'd rather have it than not. Baby? Bathwater, anyone?

On the other hand, the efficacy of "Dietary Supplements" are not validated at all. A company can infer all the claims they want, using carefully-chosen weasel-words to avoid prosecution. I don't care about the chosen words- the intent is crystal clear that alternative purveyors expect the public to regard their products the same way that people regard drugs. Therefore, they should be made to play by the same rules.

3. Controlled testing using the best application of the Scientific Method is still the BEST way to establish the efficacy of drugs. It is a lengthy, complicated process, and takes a lot of money to do properly. It's not perfect, but it's the best system we have.

On the other hand, testimonials and anectdotal evidence are a poor substitute for rigorous science. Most people, however, don't know what Science is, what it's for, or how it works, and are therefore easily bamboozled by logical fallacies such as post-hoc reasoning.

4. Finally, there are "alternative" therapies that may actually be effective. I submit that, for such therapies, their purveyors should have absolutely no problem with submitting their methods to proper scientific scrutiny. I will accept any therapy that is scientifically tested, can stand up under rigorous double-blind testing. and given the opportunity in peer-reviewd journals for further study.

In any case, if one is making extraordinary claims, they ought to be prepared to back them up with substantial evidence. The burden of proof is upon the purveyor, not upon me to disprove it.

Thanks for listening to my screed. This kind of stuff really gets mine in a knot!

I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV.

Do be well, everyone.

That's a fine idea with one problem: The media wouldn't report the candidate's actual response, they'd merely report -- loudly -- that s/he "... refused to respond to questions about [x]."

I'm sure you can write the rest of that script.

-- bearpaw1

------------------

No problem!

Simply state that "I will be more than happy to answer that question at the END of the debate, after responding to your questions about policy."

Am I the only one who notices that nearly every so-called "Woman's Magazine" on sale at the local stupidmarket checkout reliably features a front page splashed with a carefully-styled photo of yet another decadent desert idea, while the self-same front page announces some such or other new diet "breakthrough?"

Binge and purge, right there in print, folks! Amazing.

>>The core problem is the thousands of unnamed compounds the food industial complex puts into our food under various terms including "natural flavors" (cyanide is natural too) for instance. This onslaught, similar to what they do to cigarettes to make people addicted to smoking chemicals, making our bodies have to fight those toxins by encasing them in fat globules. Let's not even get into the metabolic shock these compounds place on our bodies, detroying our bodies from the inside-- diabetes, heart disease-- on their way to making us obese.<<

OMG! You're kidding me, right?

Fat? Cut your portions.

*Handing you an Occam's Razor for said task*

...for shooting the poor barrel fish. My bad.