The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
FDA says that Vitamins cause Prostate Cancer, I call BS
Squirrel Ninja
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
A report came out on many news stations and papers today saying that the FDA has completed a study that claims taking "too many vitamins may increase men's risk of prostate cancer. Does anyone else think this is a scare tactic that the FDA is throwing out in an attempt to decrease the sale of vitamins, off which they make no profit, and further promote drug use, off of which they make a cut. It wouldnt be the first time they tried to pull crap like this:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55370
http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest60.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F0CE6DF103EF936A25755C0A965958260
Todays News:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1621240,00.html
The FDA has been over steeping it's authority through the corruption of the American legislature. They take an anything goes attitude in regards to food additives as long as the price is right, and as a publicly traded company, there main agenda is the needs of the stockholders, not the safety of the American people.
Edit: (SP) in subject line
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55370
http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest60.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F0CE6DF103EF936A25755C0A965958260
Todays News:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1621240,00.html
The FDA has been over steeping it's authority through the corruption of the American legislature. They take an anything goes attitude in regards to food additives as long as the price is right, and as a publicly traded company, there main agenda is the needs of the stockholders, not the safety of the American people.
Edit: (SP) in subject line
Squirrel Ninja on
0
Posts
It was posted in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. What do they have to do with the FDA?
Some people get prostate cancer
OMG PEOPLE WHO TAKE VITAMINS GET PROSTATE CANCER!!!1!!!one!!1!!
That's criticizing the FDA, not the NCI.
Your understanding of the FDA is incredibly disconnected from reality.
First off, they're not a publically traded company. They're a governmental agency.
Second, they don't make a profit. See above.
Third, it's not the FDA that's drawing a link between multivitamins and cancer, it's the NCI.
Fourth, do you have any evidence to suggest that the NCI study is wrong?
Fifth, the FDA does not make a "cut" off of drug use. They receive fees from pharmaceutical companies to cover fast-track drug approval expenses. This is a controversial practice, but it is not the same as making a "cut."
Sixth, if the proposed changes to the FDA were to go through, they would gain some regulatory power over vitamins. This would cost them money, unless they collected fees from the supplement industry (see my fifth point above), in which case it would not be in their best interest to limit supplement sales unnecessarily.
Seventh, I think you want the thread that Glael linked.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's not exactly surprising, considering cancer is just cells, and cells tend to like vitamins.
Too much of a vitamin or the wrong proportion of vitamins can cause disease, too, and most first world citizens who eat an average diet get almost all of the vitamins they need just from food. the majority of healthy first-worlders do not need to take a full multivitamin every day. (I take a half of a vitamin only if I've been undereating or eating poorly.) Besides, vitamin supplements can interfere with the absorption and action of certain drugs. Since the the particular form of cancer involved was advanced, I'm wondering if the issue is not that the vitamins caused the cancer, but merely sped the progression to advanced/fatal cancer or interfered with other therapies the men were on to combat the cancer.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It just so happens that these guys that are experts in pharmacy, and as such invest in pharmacy and have ties with drug companies, are the perfect guys to determine the safety of these drugs.
Tryptophan (naturally occuring, necessary to produce serotonin) suppliments kill people. Illegal to sell.
The tryptophan that ACTUALLY caused deaths was from a batch made in Asia with shitty lab practices?
Naw.
Go go SSRI!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prozac
If excessive use of vitamins causes some form of cancer, I won't be terribly surprised. The conspiracy portion of this thread, though, is pretty silly.
Because their spokesperson is the first leading cause of death, Chuck Norris!
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Actually that's only 99.9% because actor Gary Johnston on Team America promised he'd never die.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
I remember reading a good six years back that there was a link between people who took megadoses of vitamin C (more than five grams a day) and increased risk of cancer.
Vitamin supplements come from magical communist fairies who want to shower the world with nutritious pixie dust just from the goodness of their hearts, and not from yet another multibillion dollar corporate industry driven by its own profit motive. Which is great, because that means we don't need to worry about regulating the supplement industry at all, since we can just take it on faith that they're totally honest about the purity and efficacy of their products.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I've got a better idea. Maybe we should go ahead and keep pharma professionals in the FDA, but institute an oversight committee and objective standards defining what does and does not constitute a conflict of interest. Oh shits, somebody beat me to it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Case closed then!
Sounds completely fucking foolproof to me!
Got a better idea?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Off the top of my head, no. But once you get pharma people into THAT, then it's just back to square one.... potentially.
It's the most common form of cancer.
Not masturbation specifically, but ejaculation in general, yeah.
No, I'm pretty sure that was for real. I could like, do a search to dredge up some articles or some shit, but that would take effort.
If I recall correctly, 5 times a week was minimum necessary to see benefits.
I just wonder how the fuck they found a control group of men who didn't jerk it at least five times a week.
Oh, and I think sex counts too. Anything that presses your buzzer, if you get my drift.
For those who don't: