ofonorow wrote:The difference between orthomolecular and toxic substances is that after ortho substances reach "toxic" dosages, you simply stop or lower the dosage. The "bad" effect is usually not debilitating, and it quickly wears off. No one is killed or really harmed. The body knows how to get rid of any excess, and the proof is that no one is poisoned by these substances. (There is at least one case of a forum poster who might disagree w/r to vitamin A, but even he is alive to file his report.)
We use the same term, "toxicity" for prescriptions and vitamin/minerals, but these orthomolecular substances are not "deadly toxic." They are not poisons. In fact there are no known lethal dosages for either vitamin C or lysine.
Toxicity from compounds other than vitamins and minerals can also be reversible and need not be permanent. The body is capable of metabolizing and excreting many of these substances as well, and for good reason. Our diet contains millions of compounds other than nutrients, and the body needs to be able to excrete them if they are absorbed into the bloodstream.
Vitamin and mineral supplements thankfully have a large therapeutic window and are often available in dosages close to the RDI, i.e. the amount needed to treat deficiency. In effect, it is difficult to get a lethal overdose from them. Nonetheless, while deaths from vitamins and minerals are extremely rare, they have been reported in the literature (e.g. here and here, and here). So what you call "orthomolecular" can definitely be "deadly toxic", in addition to having non-fatal toxicities.
I learned long ago that most medical professionals are taught that vitamins and minerals are not much different than prescriptions, and thus should be categorized with drugs. ( I stand by the reasoning why this is taught this way, however, there is a significant distinction and that is the value of Pauling's orthomolecular classification.)
Vitamins and minerals are not poisons - drugs are.
[/color]
While vitamins and minerals are generally safer than drugs, they too can be poisonous, as the literature shows.
The problem with this is who decides? Government bureaucrats don't have a clue, and this kind of thinking, while protecting well-funded interests who can afford to run studies, does little to protect the public interest. And as we have discussed, there is too much money involved to trust the "science" unfortunately. (I might remind you of the fact that "At least 70 pharmaceutical drugs are on the market after passing clinical trials based on fraudulent data provided by a California doctor," said Kurt Eichenwald, an investigative reporter for The New York Times...)
Fraud happens, but your argument is really just attempting to poison the well. There have no doubt been cases of rotten apples who have committed fraud, sometimes on a shockingly large scale, but it is fallacious to conclude that this describes the entire scientific and medical community (just as I'm sure you would agree that Kevin Trudeau is not reflective of all proponents of "alternative" medicine)
The solution is not to throw to find better ways of minimizing fraud and detecting it before the perpetrators become more brazen.
A much preferable approach is to allow the marketing unless a significant body of evidence indicates the marketing is false. You seem to want a priori proof, or up front. I completely agree w/r to poisonous toximolecular drugs!
How is this a preferable system? That would mean that anybody can market a concoction as a cure for cancer, and unless and until somebody else provides evidence against this, it would remain on the market.
Regarding the generally safe and possibly remarkable substances, I would rather have the well -funded drug companies funding studies to prove the competing substance doesn't work, e.g. vitamin C doesn't work for colds, before a claim is denied. (Of course, this isn't perfect either.)
If the company is marketing that product, then I would agree that they should conduct the studies. In this case, P&G should conduct studies to show that their combination is safe and more effective than Nyquil/Dayquil alone. But I don't agree that other pharmaceutical companies should conduct studies - that would be absurd.
The fundamental difference is that you trust pharmaceutical companies, and their well funded research, and I generally distrust them.
It's not a case of black or white. I'm not oblivious to the selective reporting, ghostwriting, methodological biases, etc that can occur in pharmaceutical research - especially when marketing people get involved. The difference is that I do not write off all this research as fraudulent and I try not to make hasty generalizations.
In my simple world, 2 plus 2 equals 4. Physicians in the USA, in general, have no real idea what CoQ10 is used for, or which drugs deplete it. Dr. Langsjoen is an expert on CoQ10, and his opinion makes a great deal of sense, the more you know about CoQ10 and its crucial role in energy production in all cells. Out of curiosity, what is your theory of the cause of the epidemic of heart failure?
Well, let's look at the rise in heart failures more closely. Lovastatin was approved in 1987. On the other hand, epidemiological data shows that the rising trend in incidence of heart failure in the US began rising as early as the late 70s, before statins were even on the market.
So even in a simple 2+2=4 world, this ought to suggest that there are other factors at play. As for what these other factors are, without evidence I am hesistant to try and pinpoint them.
