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
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.
Still, "the findings lend further credence to the possibility of harm associated with increased use of supplements," Dr. Christian Gluud of Copenhagen University Hospital and Dr. Goran Bjelakovic of Serbia's University of Nis wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The previous Director of the Institute is Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, who has been tapped by the administration to head the FDA replacing Lester Crawford. The NCI, in partnership with pharmaceutical companies, funds research into new drugs. These drugs may appear before the FDA for approval, and some anticipate that the FDA cannot be impartial if its head has an interest in seeing the drug approved because of another relationship.
According to the Center for American Progress, shortly after Dr. Eschenbach was appointed Director in 2002, he changed an informational fact sheet on breast cancer on the NCI site which for years had stated that there was no causal link between abortion and breast cancer. The new text said that "tests disproving the abortion - breast cancer link are inconclusive." One hundred NCI scientists signed a statement taking issue with that change, citing many studies, none of which found any such causal link. Dr. Eschenbach eventually relented and the original text in the fact sheet was restored.
The previous Director of the Institute is Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, who has been tapped by the administration to head the FDA replacing Lester Crawford. The NCI, in partnership with pharmaceutical companies, funds research into new drugs. These drugs may appear before the FDA for approval, and some anticipate that the FDA cannot be impartial if its head has an interest in seeing the drug approved because of another relationship.
According to the Center for American Progress, shortly after Dr. Eschenbach was appointed Director in 2002, he changed an informational fact sheet on breast cancer on the NCI site which for years had stated that there was no causal link between abortion and breast cancer. The new text said that "tests disproving the abortion - breast cancer link are inconclusive." One hundred NCI scientists signed a statement taking issue with that change, citing many studies, none of which found any such causal link. Dr. Eschenbach eventually relented and the original text in the fact sheet was restored.
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
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.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I heard that cancer and vitamins could be linked quite awhile ago.
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.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
edited May 2007
So you need these experts to determine whether these drugs are safe.
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.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
A dude on PBS was making a link between having too much protein in your diet and cancer. How long until they figure breathing polluted air causes cancer?
I'm really happy that someone trustworthy like Squirrel Ninja is here to expose the lies of the National Cancer Institute. I've always said that doctors have way too much to gain from disease to not be secretly working against us.
durandal4532 on
We're all in this together
0
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
edited May 2007
Doctors are the third leading cause of death in America. Why would I want to believe them anyways?
I hear that being born has a 100% mortality rate. Someone should look into that.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
That study isn't about vitamins causing cancer. It's about vitamins causing death from cancer, which is a completely different thing. It makes perfect sense, and the opposite result would be surprising: tumor cells need good nutrition to reach their full proliferation potential. It's been shown long ago that malnutrition slows down the growth of tumors in mice.
So he fails at being both a squirrel, and a ninja?
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.
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.
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.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Actually, on second thought, maybe Hurt and Burn is right. Maybe we shouldn't have people with ties to the pharmacy industry regulating products. Naw, people who have worked in pharma and are experts on the subject couldn't possibly be the best people to approve new drugs. Instead, maybe we recruit people who have as little experience in pharma as humanly possible for the FDA. Like, say, kindergarteners. Or maybe hippies.
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.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Actually, on second thought, maybe Hurt and Burn is right. Maybe we shouldn't have people with ties to the pharmacy industry regulating products. Naw, people who have worked in pharma and are experts on the subject couldn't possibly be the best people to approve new drugs. Instead, maybe we recruit people who have as little experience in pharma as humanly possible for the FDA. Like, say, kindergarteners. Or maybe hippies.
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.
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: