Vitamin B6 outlawed whaaaaaaattttttttt?! !?!?!

Page 1 of 2 [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Atomsk
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,423

06 Mar 2009, 4:20 am

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fda-declare ... ments.html

The FDA has proclaimed vitamin B6 a drug. Your thoughts on this?



monkees4va
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 379
Location: Scotland

06 Mar 2009, 4:35 am

what idiots. Lets just ban sugar and be on with it, no?


_________________
I'm a girl people!
"Do or do not; there is no try." -Yoda
Your Aspie score: 157 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 65 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

06 Mar 2009, 9:14 am

Do you have a source that isn't paranoid conspiracy nuts? I wouldn't be surprised if the FDA made some boneheaded move, but Alex Jones will say completely ridiculous things because he knows his followers don't bother with basic fact-checking.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

06 Mar 2009, 9:59 am

It should be easy enough to get it from the DFA records.



Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

06 Mar 2009, 10:35 am

0_equals_true wrote:
It should be easy enough to get it from the DFA records.


But the article does not provide any link to a FDA-Webpage. If he would just read the Wiki-Article he is referring to that he would see that an overdose is in fact harmful. This is case with a lot of this substance: The right amount is necessary for the body - to much is harmful or even fatal. It does makes a lot of sense to control such substance, especially a lot of people believe to easily promises of producers.



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

06 Mar 2009, 10:37 am

A company called Biostratum has applied to sell a form of pyridoxine as a drug - if approved, they will be allowed to make specific claims and indicate it for specific diseases (in this case, some forms of kidney disease). It also means that insurance companies will have to pay for it when it is prescribed.

The fact that something is approved as a 'drug' does not mean it will be banned in other products or forms. Saline solution (salt water) is regulated as a drug when it intended for use in an intravenous drip. Not a problem, I want the IV bags to be manufactured with pure salt, pure water, at a controlled concentration, and free of bacteria and viruses. That highly specific regulation of saline doesn't outlaw buying and selling salt and various brine solutions for other uses.

Here is some of the FDA regulatory info for one brand of contact lens solution (sterile saline):

Quote:
FDA Medical Specialty Code OP - Opthalmic
FDA Product Code LYL
FDA Classification Name ACCESSORIES, SOLUTION, ULTRASONIC CLEANERS FOR LENSES
FDA Device Classification Code Standards
FDA Regulation Number 886.5928
FDA Common Generic Name CONTACT LENSE SALINE SOLUTION
FDA Proprietary Device Name BLAIREX STERILE SALINE SOLUTION
FDA Owner / Operator Number 1825549
FDA Owner / Operator Name BLAIREX LABORATORIES, INC.
FDA Establishment Registration Number 1825549
FDA Registered Establishment Name BLAIREX LABORATORIES, INC.
FDA Operation Code(s) MS - Specification Developer
FDA Listing Date 02-21-01
FDA Listing Status Code Active



MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,052
Location: MO

06 Mar 2009, 11:28 am

I'm still taking B6...... :hmph:

What next B12?

Reminds me of when they outlawed ephedra from all the diet pills because it posed "risks" to people's hearts. Not like caffeine or Hoodia pills will do the same thing when not taken into precaution...?

Oh well, it's not like pharmaceutical companies aren't making bucks off this.


_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

06 Mar 2009, 3:34 pm

I still have not seen a legitimate source put forward for this.

0_equals_true wrote:
It should be easy enough to get it from the DFA records.

I say it's the job of the person putting the claim forward to do any tedious checking through the records. I'm too lazy.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Atomsk
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,423

07 Mar 2009, 8:05 am

Dussel wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
It should be easy enough to get it from the DFA records.


But the article does not provide any link to a FDA-Webpage. If he would just read the Wiki-Article he is referring to that he would see that an overdose is in fact harmful. This is case with a lot of this substance: The right amount is necessary for the body - to much is harmful or even fatal. It does makes a lot of sense to control such substance, especially a lot of people believe to easily promises of producers.


So, following that logic, caffeine and alcohol should be outlawed too, right?



Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

07 Mar 2009, 9:14 am

Atomsk wrote:
Dussel wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
It should be easy enough to get it from the DFA records.


But the article does not provide any link to a FDA-Webpage. If he would just read the Wiki-Article he is referring to that he would see that an overdose is in fact harmful. This is case with a lot of this substance: The right amount is necessary for the body - to much is harmful or even fatal. It does makes a lot of sense to control such substance, especially a lot of people believe to easily promises of producers.


So, following that logic, caffeine and alcohol should be outlawed too, right?


No - because you need, e.g. for caffeine, anything between 2 g and 10 g to have a fatal effect. This would mean you need to drink litres of espresso. The intoxication during this process would be so strong that after the first litre of espresso you be not able to bring the cup on your mouth.

With alcohol the issue is a bit different, but even here you body warns you in the most cases prior a potential deadly dose that had enough.

With substances which do not have such strong effects the deadly dose can be reached much easier. In some respect there is even a danger with Paracetamol, so in the UK no pharmacy will sell you above a certain amount of Paracetamol without prescription.



Atomsk
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,423

07 Mar 2009, 9:48 am

Dussel wrote:
Atomsk wrote:
Dussel wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
It should be easy enough to get it from the DFA records.


But the article does not provide any link to a FDA-Webpage. If he would just read the Wiki-Article he is referring to that he would see that an overdose is in fact harmful. This is case with a lot of this substance: The right amount is necessary for the body - to much is harmful or even fatal. It does makes a lot of sense to control such substance, especially a lot of people believe to easily promises of producers.


So, following that logic, caffeine and alcohol should be outlawed too, right?


No - because you need, e.g. for caffeine, anything between 2 g and 10 g to have a fatal effect. This would mean you need to drink litres of espresso. The intoxication during this process would be so strong that after the first litre of espresso you be not able to bring the cup on your mouth.


You do realize, that caffeine comes in pills too, right?

There have been many people who have died due to caffeine overdose from taking too many caffeine pills. Depending on your body weight and other factors, it could take as little as 16 or so pills, perhaps up to 20-ish.

EDIT: It would be pretty funny to imagine someone drinking several liters of espresso :lol: .



ed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 79
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

07 Mar 2009, 12:19 pm

I used to take 1600 mg of caffeine pills daily :)


_________________
How can we outlaw a plant created by a perfect God?


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

07 Mar 2009, 7:32 pm

Dussel wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
It should be easy enough to get it from the DFA records.


But the article does not provide any link to a FDA-Webpage. If he would just read the Wiki-Article he is referring to that he would see that an overdose is in fact harmful. This is case with a lot of this substance: The right amount is necessary for the body - to much is harmful or even fatal. It does makes a lot of sense to control such substance, especially a lot of people believe to easily promises of producers.

If that in itself is a requirement to be classified many more drugs would require a script.

Methanol is not so good to drink so why does surgical spirit the UK version of rubbing alcohol have it in it? It would be safer just to be pure ethanol like in the states, and there is no good reason for it to be in there. One would get you drunk the other could potentially cause organ failure and blindness even if you only take a small amount. Of course that is if you are unluckily and don't get treatment. One of the treatments for that is more ethanol such as whiskey.

I like how some drugs that are not strictly prescription you can get a prescription for especially if the total would be more.

For instance anyone can buy calcium but mempasal women can get it a decent quantity with a NHS script.



just-me
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,178

08 Mar 2009, 2:50 am

well I suppose one of us can go to the store to see if its still there. I don't drive so any volunteers?

BTW be carefull of falling for tricks of faulty news on the net.
Here is a perfect example. it looks real and scary but is fake. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diwjpkwa ... re=related

really well done if you ask me. Dont believe everything you see, read, and hear.



just-me
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,178

08 Mar 2009, 2:52 am

I'm not discounting what your saying , I'm just saying to check into it more.



Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

08 Mar 2009, 12:06 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
Dussel wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
It should be easy enough to get it from the DFA records.


But the article does not provide any link to a FDA-Webpage. If he would just read the Wiki-Article he is referring to that he would see that an overdose is in fact harmful. This is case with a lot of this substance: The right amount is necessary for the body - to much is harmful or even fatal. It does makes a lot of sense to control such substance, especially a lot of people believe to easily promises of producers.

If that in itself is a requirement to be classified many more drugs would require a script.

Methanol is not so good to drink so why does surgical spirit the UK version of rubbing alcohol have it in it? It would be safer just to be pure ethanol like in the states, and there is no good reason for it to be in there.


There is: Not a medical, but on the side of HM Treasury. Pure alcohol can be used for consumption, therefore it must be taxed. Alcohol with methanol is not fit for human consumption and therefore it does not need get taxed. The tax on alcohol in the UK is very substantial (less than in the Scandinavian countries, but much higher than in the rest of Europe).