Marc Emery on the Police State

[eyeball]

You just can't claim it does something when there is no proof that it does.

I never claimed anything before and I don't want to now. C-51 will force me too, against my will and beyond my ability to afford to.

I guess its much easier to complain about "monopoly" than it is to actually, I don't know, prove your stuff actually works. So much for science. I guess you have no need of that, eh?

My 'stuff' is food or it was until C-51 reclassified it as being something else. As I've said over and over and over again to you, I am not trying to prove anything.

By the way, you still haven't answered the question... are you in favour of eliminating all regulations regarding health and safety (for food products, for drugs, and everything else), or is it just C-51 (and natural health product regulation) that you're concerned about? I've asked that question many times and you've never answered it.

Listen more carefully this time...I am not in favour of eliminating the existing federal and provincial regulations that have quite adequately protected you in the past. Yes it is just C-51 that I am concerned about. C-51 adds a uneccesarry layer of bureaucracy - and a straw that breaks the back of many a small business in the process, as it appears to have been deliberately designed to do so. Hundreds of small business if not thousands and several tens of thousands of individuals will be affected when you consider how this legislation will interfere in the livelihood of gathering and picking wild herbs.

Of course everyone is still at liberty to become a big corporation that can afford to bear C-51 so I suppose your beloved sacred Libertarian values have been upheld. That's all you seem to care about.

[segnosaur]

What do you mean by other such nonsense? The attitude that anything not proven is nonsense is one of my complaints. Western medicine is too myopic in that sense. Chinese acupuncture was pooh-poohed for decades.

Well, given the fact that A: We have limited resources available for health care, and B: that most alternative health care has proven to be false, we have a responsibility to direct our dollars at stuff that has the best chance of working.

If you're complaining that we're ignoring stuff that hasn't been proven, then how do you feel about faith healing? Prayer? Did you know that at one time swallowing a spider rolled in butter was considered a cure for a sore throat? Should we now include spiders in our list of acceptable cures for throat pain?

As for your claims about acupuncture...

First of all, keep in mind that the basis for acupuncture is that it somehow improves 'chi'. Yet nobody has ever given proof of the existence of this energy source. So immediately you should be skeptical (in the same way you should be skeptical if some christian faith healer said "god did it".

Secondly, acupuncture is extremely difficult to test. How exactly do you devise a 'control group' when you're sticking needles in someone during a double blind study? After all both the patient and the 'doctor' both know they're not being stuck with needles.

Thirdly, yes, there have been a few studies which have shown acupuncture works in some cases. But there have also been many studies which have shown that acupuncture does nothing for many diseases that its practitioners claim it helps.

Not sure what exactly your point is here.

Over-the-counter drugs (such as aspirin, etc.) ARE effective and HAVE been classified as 'medicine' (although medicine that's available without prescription.)

I was thinking specifically of cold remedies at the time.

From what I remember, cold remedies don't claim to 'cure' colds, but they do relieve symptoms. Relieving symptoms (even if they don't immediately fix the underlying problem) IS of value.

You're right in that they never (or at least should never) "guarantee cures". But whether they use the word 'cure' depends on the context. I'm sure most doctors won't hesitate to use the word 'cure' over, for example, using antibiotics to successfully fight bacterial infection.

Antibiotics are less and less successful.

Not exactly accurate...

It is true that some antibiotics have become less effective (due to antibiotic resistance in bacteria), we've also developed new antibiotics to fight infection. So, if penecillian doesn't work, you might have to get Cipro. But if you have a bacterial infection you still have a >99% of getting cured with antibiotics (even if the antibiotics have changed.)

Well, I did a google search based on influenza, vaccine, death rate, and effectiveness and found plenty of studies in various peer reviewed articles which show their effectiveness.

Just curious, what sites are you looking at? There are many 'anti-vaccination' sites that are based on bad science.

The only statistic that needs to be looked at is the annual death rate from influenza. I haven't noticed a significant drop that would indicate a positive intervention.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchiv...008/bigpi20.htm

Ok, a number of problems with your argument and/or analysis...

First of all, note that the graph you provided contains data for both the Flu AND pneumonia. Now, I don't know if they've restricted the incidence of pneumonia to only those related to the flu (they don't give enough information), but if they're referring to pneumonia in general then its possible that the number of pneumonia deaths far outweighs those due to flu.

Secondly, the graph you provided shows influenza deaths as a percentage of total deaths. Keep in mind however, that even if the flu vaccine does save lives, we've also had advances in treating other diseases. If the flu vaccine prevents (lets say) 10% of the deaths, but improved treatment for cancer and heart disease prevent 10% of those deaths, then the vaccine will be saving lives even if the same percentage of people die from the flu.

Thirdly (and possibly most importantly), that graph only goes back 5 years. We've had the influenza vaccine for many decades, and its been in wide use for a lot longer than 5 years. Comparing one widely-vaccinated population in one year with another widely vaccinated population in another year doesn't really give you any sort of proper 'control' group. You'd need to look at influenza deaths now as compared to, lets say, the 1960s/70s.

Lastly... if you look at the data, did you notice something? For the first 4 peaks, the general trend is down. And although the last season had a fairly high 'spike', its still lower than the first spike. Lets compare the 2004 spike to the 2008 spike... the high point has decreased from 10.4% to 9.2%. That means the death rate from the flu was 13% higher at the beginning of the time period than at the end. To me, something that prevents 13% of deaths due to a particular cause is pretty significant.

Not sure why exactly you consider it a 'monopoly'. There are many respectable 'peer reviewed' journals that a proper experiment can be written up in. We have hundreds of companies that make drugs, diagnostic equipment, etc. We have thousands of researchers in private and academic settings. We have hundreds of thousands of doctors with practices. Where's the monopoly?

An analogous interpretation of what you are saying is that Macdonald's, being the only restaurant around, doesn't hold a monopoly because there are thousands of them. Where's the monopoly?

No, that's not really analogous at all. If you want to compare the drug situation to the fast food industry, consider McDonald's as one drug company, Burger King to another drug company, etc. Meanwhile, the new surgical techniques are the equivalent of the new pizza place (involving something different). Each can compete against each other with new products. In each case the government can step in to make sure their food is safe.

The monopoly in the health care industry is held by government who determine what treatments they will pay for the AMA ensures Doctors comply with government regulation. The fee schedule is set by government and Doctors will perform those duties that offer them the best return. There is no choice or option allowed to the consumer.

Again, we have limited resources for government health care spending and we should be directing our money at stuff that has the best chance at working.

Whatever is touted by science must be true. In the sixties replacing saturated fats with hydrogenated oils and transfats was healthy and it wasn't until the nineties that hydrogenated oils and transfats were worse than the things they were supposed to substitute.

Nobody said science was perfect. Heck, I can show you even more cases where science has made substantial blunders. Yes, there are flaws, but it is still the best system that we have for separating what works from what doesn't work.

Do you think what I have to say about "how to prove something works and it isn't due to the placebo effect" would ever be given consideration? You wouldn't love to hear it you would love to criticize it.

Actually I would like to hear it. But, if you do happen to grace us with your suggestion, be prepared to have any flaws in your suggestion criticized.

I would recommend they not be so myopic. Perhaps they could try and improve on the cure rate of the placebo effect.

Ummm.... you do realize that that very last sentence makes absolutely no sense? The placebo effect is basically what people imagine is happening. Any 'cure' is just the body healing itself. You're basically suggesting we cure people by doing absolutely nothing.

Edited August 19, 2008 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

I never claimed anything before and I don't want to now. C-51 will force me too, against my will and beyond my ability to afford to.

My 'stuff' is food or it was until C-51 reclassified it as being something else. As I've said over and over and over again to you, I am not trying to prove anything.

Wait a second.... something here just doesn't make sense....

Earlier on, you stated that you said you recommended people "take 2 capsules" of whatever your hawking. And, you've complained that the government is now expecting you to say why. But if you're not claiming anything, then why tell them to take 2 capsules? Why not 1? Why not 4?

When I go to the grocery store, I don't see any instructions on my hamburger patties to "Eat 2 burgers". If what you're doing is supposed to be 'food', then why would you need to give a recommended dosage?

I rather suspect that there is something you're not telling us or that you're leaving out. I rather suspect that you are making a claim, but you just aren't acknowledging it as such. Without actually seeing your product, or advertising, or product placement, or web site, its hard to form an argument.

Listen more carefully this time...I am not in favour of eliminating the existing federal and provincial regulations that have quite adequately protected you in the past. Yes it is just C-51 that I am concerned about.

Hypocrisy noted.

[eyeball]

Wait a second.... something here just doesn't make sense....

Earlier on, you stated that you said you recommended people "take 2 capsules" of whatever your hawking. And, you've complained that the government is now expecting you to say why. But if you're not claiming anything, then why tell them to take 2 capsules?

I posted why two days ago.

5. (1) No person shall manufacture, process, label, package, sell, import for sale or advertise a food in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character, value, quantity, composition, merit, safety or origin.

Powder in a capsule seems to get people excited these days, I guess they just 'naturally' get all sorts of erroneous impressions. The CFIA manager I talked with said there is no way I'll be able to simply say suggested serving, two to three capsules a day. I'll have to say take two or three capsules a day and when I do I'll have to justify why.

Why not 1? Why not 4?

Why not indeed, its just food.

One capsule is equal to 1/4 teaspoon ergo a suggested serving of 1/2 teaspoon of kelp extract is the same as saying two capsules. CFIA has told me if I want to suggest a serving size of 1/2 a teaspoon per day I have to sell it in a unencapsulated form. If I want to sell it in a capsule I am forced to use the word take or as you put it a recommended dosage. This is like an infringement on my freedom of speech in a inverse yet very selective way.

When I go to the grocery store, I don't see any instructions on my hamburger patties to "Eat 2 burgers". If what you're doing is supposed to be 'food', then why would you need to give a recommended dosage?

I've never ever used the word dosage before. Why have you and the state leapt to the erroneous impression that I need to for food?

I rather suspect that there is something you're not telling us or that you're leaving out. I rather suspect that you are making a claim, but you just aren't acknowledging it as such. Without actually seeing your product, or advertising, or product placement, or web site, its hard to form an argument.

Hypocrisy noted.

Kelp is full of minerals, so is cabbage which is about as close to kelp as you'll get in a conventional vegetable that people are familiar with. To help inform people I used the following comparison from a source of information people should be able to trust and left it at that with no trouble for years.

Component Percentage of dry weight (%)

Kelp /Cabbage

Protein - 3.03 / 1.21

Lipid - 0.64 / 0.18

Cholesterol - 0.00 / 0.00

Carbohydrate - 0.00 / 5.37

Fibre - 9.68 / 0.80

Calcium - 0.15 / 0.47

Iron - 0.002 / 0.006

Magnesium - 0.107 / 0.015

Phosphorus - 0.080 / 0.023

Potassium - 0.050 / 0.246

Zinc - 0.0004 / 0.0002

Manganese - 0.0014 / 0.0002

Source: Composition of Foods, Agriculture Handbook No. 8-11, US Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service, 1984.

I based a suggested serving of my kelp extract powder on a equivalent suggested serving of whole leaf kelp and cabbage. For the batch of extract I produced I had an analysis done by a laboratory to find out what the componant composition of the kelp I was harvesting contained. This was very expensve and I originally intended to do this once and use it as my comparison for subsequent batches. The trouble for me and I suspect many other people is that I decided to use capsules instead of 1/4 teaspoons and because of that I will now have to standardize the componant composition of each and every batch of extract I produce so it is exactly the same as the one before or print a new label for each batch. To make matters worse I will have to conduct tests that quantify an answer to things like your question of why not 1 cap or four? This is simply beyond my ability to afford.

Do you need to quantify how much a serving of cabbbage is before you eat it? I highly doubt if the cabbage you buy a month frrom now will contain the exact componant composition of the cabbage you bought last month. If the cabbage producer decided to sell you cabbage extract in a bottle and suggest you use a teaspoon a day he'd be free to to do so without the fuss and expence of testing, and labelling and so on. The minute he put it in a capsule though, he'd be in the same boat as me. That said why should the cabbage producer be exempt in any case? What is stopping the state from insisting that all food be treated the same way no matter what form its served? Why shouldn't any and all food be subject to the same standardization, testing, registration, labelling and so on so you know exactly why the suggested dose/serving is being suggested in the first place?

Why isn't my cabbage labled so I know the precise compostition of each one I buy never mind how many pesticides and so each one contains? Shouldn't you be concerned it doesn't?

Edited August 19, 2008 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

He's flogging kelp, which in some parts of the world is eaten as food, but he's flogging it for its supposed medicinal benefits....and he doesn't want to prove these probably spuious claims?

The new law is designed to protect us from snake oil salesmen like him, bully for the law. My self, when I want that salty snack, I by it by the bag, without the quackery and nonsense...

Edited August 19, 2008 by M.Dancer

[segnosaur]

I've never ever used the word dosage before. Why have you and the state leapt to the erroneous impression that I need to for food?

Because telling people to take 2 capsules is a dosage, even if you don't want to refer to it as such.

Kelp is full of minerals...

Are you telling people that? If so, aren't you now making a claim?

To help inform people I used the following comparison from a source of information people should be able to trust and left it at that with no trouble for years.

Component Percentage of dry weight (%)

Kelp /Cabbage

Protein - 3.03 / 1.21

Lipid - 0.64 / 0.18

Cholesterol - 0.00 / 0.00

...

Manganese - 0.0014 / 0.0002

Source: Composition of Foods, Agriculture Handbook No. 8-11, US Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service, 1984.

I based a suggested serving of my kelp extract powder on a equivalent suggested serving of whole leaf kelp and cabbage. For the batch of extract I produced I had an analysis done by a laboratory to find out what the componant composition of the kelp I was harvesting contained.

Ok, first of all... you still haven't said why exactly you have to have that particular amount of kelp. Yes, you're trying to link the amount of your capsules to what you'd get for a serving of 'kelp', but what exactly is one 'serving' of kelp good for? Again, I don't have actually information about how you're actually advertising or packaging your product. Why is a 'serving' of kelp is a good thing? Why should people eat kelp to begin with?

Secondly... lets look at your claims of the components of kelp.... you do know that the chemical makeup of plants can change, depending on the time of year it was harvested, the weather conditions, whether it was a different hybrid, etc. I know you claim to have had tests done, but if someone was trying to 'treat' themselves using your percentages as a guidelines they may find themselves under or over affected.

Hey, maybe you are being 100% honest when you say you don't make any 'claims'. In that case, the person with the government may have actually given you wrong information. But if you really didn't make any such claims, then you'd probably be in the minority. I did a quick search of online 'natural' pharmacies... every one of them that I came across had at least one false claim on their site. (Even if that 'claim' involves simply giving the disease/symptoms the stuff is supposed to handle).

Do you need to quantify how much a serving of cabbbage is before you eat it? I highly doubt if the cabbage you buy a month frrom now will contain the exact componant composition of the cabbage you bought last month.

The difference is, the people who grow and market cabbage are not necessarily making claims as to the percentage of any particular components. (The figures you gave were estimates by the FDA, they weren't requirments, minimums, or maximums.) If some farmer wanted to slap a label on his cabbage to show how much protien, fiber, etc. was in his product, then he should be responsible for doing the tests to show his label is accurate.

[eyeball]

He's flogging kelp, which in some parts of the world is eaten as food, but he's flogging it for its supposed medicinal benefits....and he doesn't want to prove these probably spuious claims?

The new law is designed to protect us from snake oil salesmen like him, bully for the law. My self, when I want that salty snack, I by it by the bag, without the quackery and nonsense...

If you can find even one reference to medicine or snakeoil on my website I'll send you a free bag. Visit My Website. Some people don't like the taste but they still want to eat it, why is their business - I would like to meet their demand which seems to be for powder in a capsule without the quackery and nonsense but...C-51 suddenly reared its ugly head.

[M.Dancer]

If you can find even one reference to medicine or snakeoil on my website I'll send you a free bag. Visit My Website. Some people don't like the taste but they still want to eat it, why is their business - I would like to meet their demand which seems to be for powder in a capsule without the quackery and nonsense but...C-51 suddenly reared its ugly head.

No of course it's not medicine (and I truly mean that) you just package like medicine....or do people just prefer the medicinal look and feel of a capsule over the real thing.

You are truly sucking and blowing on this and I'm thankful that your scheme and others who try to dupe the public may be put out of business.

[M.Dancer]

To put it bluntly, if you sell the kelp like cabbage, you are selling food. If you sell the kelp in pills, at very best you are selling a nutritional supplement and you should be regulated and monitored just like any vitamin manufacturer.

[M.Dancer]

Why should the idyllic kelp farmer have his kelp capsules regulated.....?

Um ..no reason

They don't call it snake oil for nothing

Edited August 20, 2008 by M.Dancer

[DrGreenthumb]

Why should the idyllic kelp farmer have his kelp capsules regulated.....?

Um ..no reason

They don't call it snake oil for nothing

I'm pretty sure the list of people who have suffered negative side effects up to and including death from government approved, legal medicines is a lot longer than those who have any negative reaction to plant based medicines or nutritional supplements. A person should be free to buy or sell whatever they wish unless the government can provide very ample and concrete evidence that the product is some kind of threat to the pulic at large. In other words, while I can understand the government prohibiting the sale of assault rifles, I cannot accept that they have any business prohibiting the sale of cannabis or sea kelp capsules. The onus should be on the government to provide proof of harm being caused by your product if they want to interfere in your business, not up the the seller to provide proof of anything. The government should feel free to provide any information that they have gathered about any product to the public through the media. If the people decide to continue to purchase said product anyways, that is their business

[M.Dancer]

I'm pretty sure the list of people who have suffered negative side effects up to and including death from government approved, legal medicines is a lot longer than those who have any negative reaction to plant based medicines or nutritional supplements. A person should be free to buy or sell whatever they wish unless the government can provide very ample and concrete evidence that the product is some kind of threat to the pulic at large. In other words, while I can understand the government prohibiting the sale of assault rifles, I cannot accept that they have any business prohibiting the sale of cannabis or sea kelp capsules. The onus should be on the government to provide proof of harm being caused by your product if they want to interfere in your business, not up the the seller to provide proof of anything. The government should feel free to provide any information that they have gathered about any product to the public through the media. If the people decide to continue to purchase said product anyways, that is their business

I'm sure you're sure. I'm also sure you don't know what you are talking about. Pharmeceuticals are rigourlessly tested and patients are informed of the risks. What is more, they are insured.

Eyeballs customers are uniformed, his products untested, and I doubt if someone died using his snakeoil his liabity wouldn't cover the award against him.

Edited August 20, 2008 by M.Dancer

[DrGreenthumb]

I'm sure you're sure. I'm also sure you don't know what you are talking about. Pharmeceuticals are rigourlessly tested and patients are informed of the risks. What is more, they are insured.

Eyeballs customers are uniformed, his products untested, and I doubt if someone died using his snakeoil his liabity wouldn't the award.

Eyeball's customers have likely already "informed themselves", and have decided that they would like to purchase some sea kelp capsules. Canadians aren't a bunch of illiterate morons. We have internet access, libraries, and the ability to research our purchases. Pharmaceuticals kill thousands of Canadians every year even when used according to doctor's instructions. If people wish to purchase supplements so that they stay healthy and do not need to gamble on using the government approved medicines that kill thousands of people annually then that should be their right.

[M.Dancer]

Eyeball's customers have likely already "informed themselves", and have decided that they would like to purchase some sea kelp capsules. Canadians aren't a bunch of illiterate morons. We have internet access, libraries, and the ability to research our purchases.

Oh because of the extensive third party clinical studies I'm sure....

Pharmaceuticals kill thousands of Canadians every year even when used according to doctor's instructions.

1000s? Cite please

If people wish to purchase supplements so that they stay healthy and do not need to gamble on using the government approved medicines that kill thousands of people annually then that should be their right.

So instead you feel that gambling on some untested product from a backwoods supplier is a better option.

[JB Globe]

If drug traffickers were given a choice, between the status quo and legalization, which do you think they'd choose?

BBC journalist Misha Glenny asked just this very question to various drug traffickers in BBC for part one of the (very good) radio series "When Crime Took on the World" (available on itunes in PRI - The Changing World)

The vast majority of them wanted to keep it illegal, because legalizing it would kill their profits and put many of them out of business.

I don't think there's a bigger blow to the whole notion of the "war on drugs" than the fact that the people it's supposed to be eliminating actually WANT to maintain the policy because it keeps them in business and makes them rich.

[segnosaur]

If you can find even one reference to medicine or snakeoil on my website I'll send you a free bag. Visit My Website. Some people don't like the taste but they still want to eat it, why is their business - I would like to meet their demand which seems to be for powder in a capsule without the quackery and nonsense but...C-51 suddenly reared its ugly head.

Ok, after reviewing your site, I have not found where you actually make claims. (Well, other than perhaps the problem with the component listing I mentioned earlier.)

But that does not mean that C-51 is a bad bill... what it means is that you would probably not be affected by the sections dealing with product labeling, etc. I had suggested this as a possibility earlier... that whomever you talked to with the Canadian government may have thought that you were making claims.

Like I said, you are in the minority... most sellers of 'natural health' products do make claims.... they state that "this product is good for insomnia", or "this is good for helping your immune system". And how often have we received spam email for 'herbal viagra'? How many times have we seen "Smilin' Bob" in those cheesy late night commercials for "Male Enhancement"? It is those type of claims that will require proof. You're not making claims, you won't be subject to the same provisions of C-51 that others are.

Assuming that I'm correct (and that you won't be affected by the labeling requirements of C-51), then what exactly is wrong with making sure people who do make claims about their products are actually valid in their claims?

[segnosaur]

I'm pretty sure the list of people who have suffered negative side effects up to and including death from government approved, legal medicines is a lot longer than those who have any negative reaction to plant based medicines or nutritional supplements.

I've already dealt with that issue in a previous post.

Yes, many people have died through using "western" medicine (maybe even more that have died from taking 'natural health' cures.) But then, the list of people who have actually been helped by western medicine is actually longer than those helped by 'natural' cures. Modern drugs work, and they usually work quite well. Most 'natural' health treatments do not work, and we have example after example of various herbs, homeopathic concoctions, and other 'treatments' that have no effect.

A person should be free to buy or sell whatever they wish unless the government can provide very ample and concrete evidence that the product is some kind of threat to the pulic at large.

I see...

So, does that mean that any large drug company can start selling any drugs they want in Canada, even if it hasn't even been tried in animal tests before? After all, if we assume everything is 'good' until its been proven 'bad', then Pfiser or Merc can actually use Canada as a testing ground for all their drugs that haven't even been tried in other countries.

So does that mean you favor getting rid of all regulations for food safety? For drug safety?

And how do you define 'some kind of threat'? We know, for example (through various double blind studies) that many 'natural' cures just don't work. (Not just that the stuff is untested, but that its actually been shown to have no effect.) Yet many sellers of natural remedies continue to sell their merchandise while making false claims. Isn't that actually fraud? And isn't fraud something that we should protect Canadians against?

In other words, while I can understand the government prohibiting the sale of assault rifles, I cannot accept that they have any business prohibiting the sale of cannabis or sea kelp capsules.

Once again, the government is not prohibiting the sale of sea kelp capsules. What they will be preventing is people selling sea kelp capsules claiming they have some medical properties if they don't.

And if you think people should be allowed to use products until proven dangerous, why should the government prohibit the sale of assault rifles to me? After all, if you think that we should be assuming things are safe until proven otherwise, then shouldn't they assume that I'm going to handle that assault rifle safely, and it should be up to the government to prove that I won't be handling it safely?

Eyeball's customers have likely already "informed themselves", and have decided that they would like to purchase some sea kelp capsules. Canadians aren't a bunch of illiterate morons. We have internet access, libraries, and the ability to research our purchases.

Well, here's the problem... people do have an unprecidented amount of access to information these days. If people wanted to, they could find accurate information on pretty much any subject.

However, what we as a society have failed to do is install any sort of logical or reasoning ability in people during their education. As a result, when they read something, they may not have the proper ability to judge a source on its merits. As a result, they will accept bogus claims on some idiot's web site as having the same legitimacy as a properly peer-reviewed article involving double blind studies. Or they will listen to inaccurate analysis rather than dealing with actual data. In short, we need to teach people to be proper skeptics.

You yourself are a prime example of this... early on you were making multiple false claims about C-51. The source of your 'information' were people who actually sell natural medicine. Given the fact that your 'source' was someone who had reason persuade people against supporting C-51, you should have been suspicious. A 30 second google search would have given you the actual text of C-51, where you could have seen that the claims against C-51 were false.

So, with all the potential for accurate information on C-51, why did you decide to believe in someone who would have reason to be biased?

[eyeball]

Eyeballs customers are uniformed, his products untested, and I doubt if someone died using his snakeoil his liabity wouldn't cover the award against him.

Oh my products are tested alright but I've never seen a uniformed customer. In the meantime can you actually provide an example of someone or anyone who has ever died from eating kelp?

As for arsenic...

Arsenic in Seaweed - Organic versus Inorganic

Not all forms of arsenic are associated with serious health concerns. Organic arsenic, the less toxic form, is commonly found in most seaweed and other marine foods. Exposure to organic arsenic from most seaweed and other marine foods has not been associated with human illness, therefore organic arsenic from these sources is considered to be relatively non-toxic.

Inorganic arsenic compounds are relatively toxic. Sample results have shown that hijiki seaweed is high in inorganic arsenic. Sample results for several other sea vegetables, including dulse, nori, kombu have been low.

The Federal Government's Role

The CFIA, Health Canada, and food safety authorities in other countries where sea vegetables make up a significant portion of the diet, share information on test results and guidelines for inorganic arsenic. All appropriate action will be taken to protect the health of Canadian consumers.

All appropriate action will also be taken to ensure the $178 billion that was spent in the United States on dietary supplements (in 2001) is redirected towards big corporations.

As for snakeoil and liability...

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP is a leader in a defective drug litigation. We are currently evaluating cases involving the prescription drugs listed below.

Abilify

Accutane

Accutane (IBD)

ACE Inhibitors

Actonel

Actos

Adderall

Advair

Advanced Medical Optics (AMO) Complete MoisturePlus

Advil

Aldara

Ambien

Amiodarone

Aptivus

Aranesp

Arava

Aredia

Aricept

Avandia

Avelox

Avonex

Baycol

Betaseron

Bextra Lawsuit

Bismacine

Bitter Orange

Botox

Byetta

Campath

Cardizem

Celebrex Lawsuit

Celexa

CellCept

Chantix

Cipro

Cleocin

Clozaril

Complete MoisturePlus

Concerta

Cordarone

Coreg

Crestor

Cylert

Cymbalta

Cytotec

Darvocet

Darvon

Daypro

Definity and Optison

Depakote

DES

DES - Third Generation

Desmopressin

Dexedrine

Digitek

Dilantin

Diltiazem

Ditropan

Dostinex

Duragesic Patch

Effexor

Elidel

Enbrel

Ephedra

Epilepsy Drugs

Epogen

Estratest

Ethex Morphine

Evista

Fen Phen

Fentora

Fleet Enema

Foradil

Fosamax

Gadolinium

Gardasil

Geodon

Gleevec

Heparin

Herceptin

Humira

Hydrocodone

Interceed

Intergel

Ketek

Lamictal

Lariam

Levaquin

Levitra

Levodopa

Lexapro

Luvox

Lymerix

Lyrica

Macugen

Maxipime

Mellaril

Menactra

Meningitis Vaccine

Meridia

Metabolife

Metadate

Methazolamide

Methylin

Mirapex

Mobic

Motrin

Natrecor

Neurontin

NeutroSpec

Nexium

Novantrone

NovoSeven

Nuva Ring

Omniscan Gadolinium

Ortho Evra Patch

Ortho Prefest

Pacerone

Palladone

Paxil

Paxil Birth Defects

Permax

Plavix

PPA

Premarin

Premphase

Prempro

Prevacid

Prilosec

Procrit

Proton Pump Inhibitors

Protonix

Protopic

Provigil

Prozac

Raptiva

Reglan

Regranex

Relafen

Remeron

Remicade

Reminyl

ReNu MoistureLoc

Renu MultiPlus

Requip

Rezulin

Risperdal

Ritalin

Rituxan

RotaTeq

Serevent

Seroquel

Simvastatin and Amiodarone

Sinemet

Soriatane

Strattera

Symbyax

Tamiflu

Tamoxifen

Tequin

Terbutaline

Thimerosal

Tiazac

Topamax

Trasylol

Trileptal

Tysabri

Viagra

Vincristine

Vioxx

Vytorin

Wellbutrin

Xenadrine

Xigris

Xolair

Zelnorm

Zevalin

Zicam

Zithromax

Zoloft

Zometa

Zyprexa

[eyeball]

Ok, after reviewing your site, I have not found where you actually make claims. (Well, other than perhaps the problem with the component listing I mentioned earlier.)

But that does not mean that C-51 is a bad bill... what it means is that you would probably not be affected by the sections dealing with product labeling, etc. I had suggested this as a possibility earlier... that whomever you talked to with the Canadian government may have thought that you were making claims.

Like I said, you are in the minority... most sellers of 'natural health' products do make claims.... they state that "this product is good for insomnia", or "this is good for helping your immune system". And how often have we received spam email for 'herbal viagra'? How many times have we seen "Smilin' Bob" in those cheesy late night commercials for "Male Enhancement"? It is those type of claims that will require proof. You're not making claims, you won't be subject to the same provisions of C-51 that others are.

Assuming that I'm correct (and that you won't be affected by the labeling requirements of C-51), then what exactly is wrong with making sure people who do make claims about their products are actually valid in their claims?

Nothing I suppose, its just that avenues for doing something about false claims already exist, they're just not being applied effectively. C-51 will affect me and others by adding another regulatory layer intended to make us conform to standards that are applicable to corporate drug manufacturers, many of which it appears are no safer a source of accurate information or products than anyone else. As I have pointed out numerous times CFIA has told me that I'll have to make some sort of a claim if I want to put my product into a capsule...that's about it in a nutshell. The company that made my one and only batch of extract agreed with CFIA's assessment of my case as did the company that tested and analysed my extract. Both of these companies seemed quite aware of the implications of C-51 for me and others.

I guess the CFIA is anticipating a wave of hysteria of the type Morris is displaying. These are fearful times we live in and the Nanny-state is on guard for thee...

...in a pig's eye. Or maybe a snake's eye I should say.

[eyeball]

I trust at least a few of the folks who have participated in these C-51/pot threads will get a chuckle out of this.

I just concluded a sale of a good amount of extract to a compassion society that distributes (government approved) marijuana cookies, cakes and bread and so on. They heard kelp was good for you and want to use it as a substitute for whatever salt their recipes called for.

They said they'd spread the word

A friend with weed is a friend indeed.

[M.Dancer]

I trust at least a few of the folks who have participated in these C-51/pot threads will get a chuckle out of this.

I just concluded a sale of a good amount of extract to a compassion society that distributes (government approved) marijuana cookies, cakes and bread and so on. They heard kelp was good for you and want to use it as a substitute for whatever salt their recipes called for.

They said they'd spread the word

A friend with weed is a friend indeed.

Well, if they're already dying what's some unregulated arsenic going to do to them....

[eyeball]

Well, if they're already dying what's some unregulated arsenic going to do to them....

So now you think your Nanny should regulate every bit of arsenic that's in your food? Do you realize how much your food would cost you if every bit of arsenic you eat had to be accounted for through testing and labelling etc etc? What about all the cadmium, lead and mercury that's in the food you and your family eat every day?

By the way have you found anyone who's died from kelp yet?

[M.Dancer]

Subsequent laboratory tests finally revealed arsenic in the patient's blood and urine. At her physician's suggestion, the patient discontinued the kelp supplement. Within weeks, her symptoms disappeared, and within several months arsenic was no longer detected in her urine and its levels had dropped significantly in her blood. She later was referred to the UC Davis Occupational Medicine Clinic as a follow-up to her primary care.

"It's unfortunate that a therapy that's advertised as contributing to 'vital living and well-being' would contain potentially unsafe levels of arsenic," said Schenker, who is a professor of Public Health Sciences and a leading authority on occupational and environmental diseases and respiratory illness. "Concentrations of materials contained in herbal supplements, including both the expected benefits and potential side effects, should be studied, standardized, monitored and accurately labeled."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70406140955.htm

Perhaps had she went to a new age quack she would have died...I suppose a death is what it will take, just making people sick doesn't seem good enough for you.

[segnosaur]

Oh my products are tested alright but I've never seen a uniformed customer.

First of all, I assume you mean 'uninformed'. Unless of course you're claiming that you haven't seen any cops or soldiers buying your product (which would probably be more accurate.)

Secondly, how exactly do you know how informed your customers are? Do you ask them if they have a degree in biology or chemistry? Do you ask them where they get their information on nutrition? Your product is on the web... just how much information can you get on a customer's knowledge based on that? Frankly, claiming that your customers are all 'informed' is a rather bogus statement.

Perhaps we have different concepts about what it means to be 'informed'. You see, when I think of someone being 'informed', I assume that they have examined data, applied logic and reason to filter out sources that were less than reputable, and come to an appropriate deduction about what is most likely true based on the quality and quantity of data provided. It seems that your definition of 'informed' is "Someone who has read and believes anything written, even if the person doing the writing is either a fraud, or less knowledgable than the reader, as long as they are gullible enough to fall for it."

In the meantime can you actually provide an example of someone or anyone who has ever died from eating kelp?

Ummm... why exactly is it necessary for the person to have died from eating kelp? Earlier on you were provided with a reference to an individual who was made very sick from eating kelp. Is it not enough that they became severely ill from it? Are you assuming any side effects are OK, as long as the patient doesn't eventually die?

Severe vomiting? Limbs falling off? Severe brain damage? Patient in a coma? No problem... they're still alive... no problem because they're still breathing.

As for arsenic...

Arsenic in Seaweed - Organic versus Inorganic

Not all forms of arsenic are associated with serious health concerns. Organic arsenic, the less toxic form, is commonly found in most seaweed and other marine foods. Exposure to organic arsenic from most seaweed and other marine foods has not been associated with human illness, therefore organic arsenic from these sources is considered to be relatively non-toxic.

Inorganic arsenic compounds are relatively toxic. Sample results have shown that hijiki seaweed is high in inorganic arsenic. Sample results for several other sea vegetables, including dulse, nori, kombu have been low.

A totally irrelevant statement.

It is true that some arsenic-containing compounds are safer than others. However, That doesn't mean that a person eating kelp or seaweed (or any other 'natural' product) isn't consuming the more dangerous form. In fact, the link you provided even points out that some species of seaweed have high levels of inorganic arsenic and should be avoided. However, without proper controls, how is the consumer to know that whomever was harvesting the seaweed did not accidentally use the wrong type?

All appropriate action will also be taken to ensure the $178 billion that was spent in the United States on dietary supplements (in 2001) is redirected towards big corporations.

So tell me... if C-51 becomes enacted, and the world doesn't collapse, and you continue to sell your little 'capsules', are you going to admit that you were wrong?

You know, since you claim to be quite careful about your product, I'm kind of surprised you'd be so upset about C-51. After all, even you should recognize that there are at least some scam artists in the 'natural health' field... you should be happy that people are taking action to get rid if the bad apples in the field.

As for snakeoil and liability...

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP is a leader in a defective drug litigation. We are currently evaluating cases involving the prescription drugs listed below.

Abilify

Accutane

(long list of drugs removed)...

Ok... first of all, you really need to look up the definition of 'snake oil salesman'. The term (in modern usage) applies to people selling stuff that is either a fraud, or simply does not work.

The drugs in your list likely did work. (Admittedly I'm not a doctor so I don't recognize all the drugs on the list, but I did recognize a few to know their history.) The basis of the law suit is not that the drugs didn't work, its that they had unexpected side effects. In fact, many of the drugs on the list are still safe and effective for the majority of people taking them, but it was simply necessary to update the list of potential side effects or recommendations for usage.

Most people, if they were told "take this pill and we're 99% sure you'll feel better/live longer, but there is a tiny (<0.1%) chance you'll die" would agree that that risk is acceptable. That's the nature of modern pharmeceuticals. On the other hand, with natural medicine, if you're told "take this pill... it won't actually do anything for you, but there is a tiny chance you'll die", people would consider that unacceptable.

A large potential benefit justifies a small risk. A total lack of benefits (as with many 'natural' remedies, although not with all), does not justify any risk.

You know, I've already brought this issue of risk vs. effectiveness up before. Heck, I myself even mentioned drugs on that list in this very thread. I've admitted the potential failings of the scientific approach, and pointed out why its still the best method. Do you really think it enhances your case to bring up stuff that's been handled and debunked before? What does it say about how 'informed' you are if you can't even remember stuff that's been mentioned in this thread?

Secondly... keep in mind that this list is from a law firm (not from some reputable medical group) that earns its income (or at least some of it) from lawsuits... They're trying to drum up business, but even they can't claim that any lawsuit launched as a result of their web site will actually result in the drug company being considered guilty. Heck, even some of the information in their web site admits that some of the drugs they've considered as 'dangerous' have never actually been proven to be dangerous.

Lastly, you may think your list looks impressive. I estimate that there are a couple of hundred drugs on the list. However, the fact is that there are thousands of drugs available, and this list of 'risky' drugs represents only a small percentage of the total number of drugs available.

I did a bit of searching and found a list of medicines available through webmd. While your list has approximately 200 names on the list, I found that there were over 3 times that number available that just started with the letter A.

And in most cases, the number of people adversely affected was often a small minority of those taking the drugs (with many more people helped than harmed). So, you have a tiny minority of people taking a tiny minority of drugs that can be considered "at risk". For the billions of people actually helped by modern pharmecuticals, that seems to be a pretty reasonable risk for the potential rewards.

[segnosaur]

So now you think your Nanny should regulate every bit of arsenic that's in your food? Do you realize how much your food would cost you if every bit of arsenic you eat had to be accounted for through testing and labelling etc etc? What about all the cadmium, lead and mercury that's in the food you and your family eat every day?

Ummm... I think they already do have regulations regarding various contaminants, as well as established procedures for random sampling to ensure that those standards are not exceeded.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cr/C....A-gb:s_A_01_050

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/chem-...ectives-eng.php

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/fssae.shtml

Edited August 21, 2008 by segnosaur