Re: [pronut-hiv] BBC: Vitamins 'may up pregnancy risk' (6)

["Rachel Stern" <sternworks@verizon.net>]

Yes, I remember. There were about a dozen companies at the time who were 
responsible for producing the component nutrients of supplements. This 
mainly affected the price of animal feed.  Anyway Roche was one of them. But 
when I wrote that big pharma made supplements,  I was referring to retail 
supplements.

You....cynical?  How could I guess?


-----  "George M. Carter" wrote:

>   At 10:37 AM 4/3/2006, you wrote:
>
>     Hi, George.
>     Some of the vitamin formulators ARE divisions of big pharma.
>
>   Like  LaRoaches. I know. And they got slammed with a price-fixing scam
>   a few years ago, remember?
>   And some companies have done it with botanicals, even in Africa.
>   But   when   it   comes   down   to  whether  people  should  buy  say
>   Gluc/Chondroitin  or  Celebrex--gosh, which do you think they'll pick?
>   even if Pfizer MADE gluc/chondroitin?
>   They'll  pick  the  one  that  has  the  latest  perversion  of patent
>   protection  on  it  so  they can absolutely screw every one with their
>   rapacious prices.
>
>     Although  I  agree  that a good mvi is important in many situations
>     including
>     hiv infection, I personally find megadoses of some nutrients scary.
>
>   Depends  on which and how much. No over-the-counter multi I'm aware of
>   really  has  any  problematic  dosages.  I'd be FAR more worried about
>   aspirin. How many emergency room reports have their been for multis??
>   Hey,  you  KNOW  I'm  cynical about the supplements industry too. To a
>   lesser  degree  than  pharma by a long shot--but there is still a need
>   for regulation for potency, purity and identity and a better means for
>   establishing  rulemaking  (at  least  in the US) with regard to claims
>   that go beyond structure/function for dietary supplements.
>   George