Terrific post.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I agree with Mr. DePalma. The "dietary supplement" market is full of
the modern day version of snake oil salesman marketing products of
dubious merit and possible harmfulness by making unsupportable claims
of benefits. Although I will admit there may be some exceptions, most
of the products marketed as dietary supplements have little or no
proven benefits and unknown risks, facts which are generally well known
to their marketers. Although marketing such products may not meet the
legal definition of fraud, there is not question in my mind that it
exploitive, dishonest and potentially even harmful.

Perhaps a threshhold litmus test for the USCF in the future would be to
not endorse any product that the Board wouldn't feel comfortable with
their children/grandchildren using on a regular basis. Anyone who
would be comfortable with their children/grandchildren using a
neurologically active scientifically unproven drug like Natrol has
judgment issues, IMO.

But the efficacy of Natrol and its risks, while an important issue, is
not even the main issue. Assuming for the sake of argument that Natrol
DID have the benefits it claims to have and was perfectly safe, is this
really the kind of thing that the USCF wants to promote? I mean,
instead of talking about the improved concentration, self-discipline
and ability to analyze that exposure to chess provides, the USCF will
just push a magic "smart pill" on the public? The answer to this
question, IMO, should be immediately obvious to everyone, and the fact
that it is not is rather disturbing to me.

- Geof Strayer

wrote:

But the efficacy of Natrol and its risks, while an important issue, is
not even the main issue. Assuming for the sake of argument that Natrol
DID have the benefits it claims to have and was perfectly safe, is this
really the kind of thing that the USCF wants to promote? I mean,
instead of talking about the improved concentration, self-discipline
and ability to analyze that exposure to chess provides, the USCF will
just push a magic "smart pill" on the public? The answer to this
question, IMO, should be immediately obvious to everyone, and the fact
that it is not is rather disturbing to me.

- Geof Strayer

I disagree with the concept of "smart pills." There is an old story
about a vulnerable youth who saw a chemistry student with some
dirty-looking tablets, and who asked, "What are those?"

"Smart pills," the college student told him. "Want one?"

The woebegotten kid took one, tasted it, and spat it out. "That tastes
like ****," he griped.

"See?" the smarty responded. "Already you're getting smart."

Angelo DePalma wrote:
The standard for medicinal products is a controlled clinical trial.

Perhaps that should be true, but I do not think it is. There are many
vitamins, herbs and dietary supplements that are purchased for supposed
health benefits that have not been established in clinical trials.


Everyone knows that Fungo's Potato Chips aren't really the "best" or
"crispiest." Fungo's Potato Chips can't possibly cause an adverse drug
interaction.

Would you think it was fraud if Fungo's were advertised to improve chess
playing skills?

Probably. However, if there were a certain city in Russia that
produced a disproportionate number of grandmasters and it so happened
that this city consumed an inordinate quantity of Fungo's Potato Chips,
I think this could probably be used to sell the product. I think many
products are sold that way without clinical trials, e.g., some island
that consumes a diet high in mollusk oil has a low rate of heart
disease so mollusk oil is promoted as potentially helping the heart.

Vince Hart

"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

Yes. The classic example is from 2002, in which Phil Innes claimed the
FBI was monitoring my newsgroup posts.

We are.

Vince, you hit on precisely my point. Placebo controlled clinical trials are
the gold standard for approving medicinal substances. No-one should accept
any less from "natural" treatments. Anything less has a much higher chance
to expose patients or consumers to unacceptable risks.



"Vince Hart" wrote

Perhaps that should be true, but I do not think it is. There are many
vitamins, herbs and dietary supplements that are purchased for supposed
health benefits that have not been established in clinical trials.

I agree that this has become standard practice before the DSHEA legislation
I alluded to earlier. That doesn't make it right. False, misleading, or
fradulent medical claims exploit people at their weakest. If you want a
portable music player and purchase an IRiver instead of an IPod, the worst
that happens is you give the damned thing to your neice. If you suffer from
a medical ailment and seek help in snake oil you may die as a result. At the
very least you have wasted your money, hope, and opportunity.

Probably. However, if there were a certain city in Russia that
produced a disproportionate number of grandmasters and it so happened
that this city consumed an inordinate quantity of Fungo's Potato Chips,
I think this could probably be used to sell the product. I think many
products are sold that way without clinical trials, e.g., some island
that consumes a diet high in mollusk oil has a low rate of heart
disease so mollusk oil is promoted as potentially helping the heart.

Great political fodder, but much ado about nothing.

Vitamins and food supplements.

Bill "hit letter" Goichberg has too much time on his hands, and the blood of
plenty of competitors that he used governance of the USCF to sweep away.

Tom Klem
"End of Story"
---John Blackstone, National Master

"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...

Vince, you hit on precisely my point. Placebo controlled clinical trials
are
the gold standard for approving medicinal substances. No-one should accept
any less from "natural" treatments. Anything less has a much higher chance
to expose patients or consumers to unacceptable risks.



"Vince Hart" wrote

Perhaps that should be true, but I do not think it is. There are many
vitamins, herbs and dietary supplements that are purchased for supposed
health benefits that have not been established in clinical trials.

I agree that this has become standard practice before the DSHEA
legislation
I alluded to earlier. That doesn't make it right. False, misleading, or
fradulent medical claims exploit people at their weakest. If you want a
portable music player and purchase an IRiver instead of an IPod, the worst
that happens is you give the damned thing to your neice. If you suffer
from
a medical ailment and seek help in snake oil you may die as a result. At
the
very least you have wasted your money, hope, and opportunity.

Probably. However, if there were a certain city in Russia that
produced a disproportionate number of grandmasters and it so happened
that this city consumed an inordinate quantity of Fungo's Potato Chips,
I think this could probably be used to sell the product. I think many
products are sold that way without clinical trials, e.g., some island
that consumes a diet high in mollusk oil has a low rate of heart
disease so mollusk oil is promoted as potentially helping the heart.

Angelo DePalma wrote:
Vince, you hit on precisely my point. Placebo controlled clinical trials are
the gold standard for approving medicinal substances. No-one should accept
any less from "natural" treatments. Anything less has a much higher chance
to expose patients or consumers to unacceptable risks.





On the other hand, Vioxx was subject to your "gold standard," and it
was still marketed and prescribed to millions of patients, most of whom
would have done just as well with over-the-counter remedies since they
were not at risk for the stomach problems that the Cox-2 inhibitors
were designed to avoid.

Many natural treatments have been around since long before the advent
of modern pharmaceuticals so the chance of unexpected side effects may
be much lower than that for a clinically tested modern drug. On the
other hand, the chance that the natural treatment has no actual benefit
is probably much higher.

Vince Hart

Apples and oranges. The issues of FDA approval, post-marketing safety
assessment, me-too drugs, and marketing unnecessary products are
intertangled, extremely complex, and separate from the issue of an unproven
dietary supplement.

I know that many herbs have a long history of *apparently* safe use. What
most of them lack is a rigorous study of side effects and interactions with
other herbs or drugs.

On balance, I'd bet that supplements are safe but not very effective. Natrol
is undoubtedly safer than most prescription drugs. However, the consequences
of being wrong, or being legally exposed, are so high that USCF should steer
clear.


"Vince Hart" wrote in message
oups.com...


Angelo DePalma wrote:
Vince, you hit on precisely my point. Placebo controlled clinical trials
are
the gold standard for approving medicinal substances. No-one should
accept
any less from "natural" treatments. Anything less has a much higher
chance
to expose patients or consumers to unacceptable risks.





On the other hand, Vioxx was subject to your "gold standard," and it
was still marketed and prescribed to millions of patients, most of whom
would have done just as well with over-the-counter remedies since they
were not at risk for the stomach problems that the Cox-2 inhibitors
were designed to avoid.

Many natural treatments have been around since long before the advent
of modern pharmaceuticals so the chance of unexpected side effects may
be much lower than that for a clinically tested modern drug. On the
other hand, the chance that the natural treatment has no actual benefit
is probably much higher.

Vince Hart

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:31:15 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
wrote:


Apples and oranges. The issues of FDA approval, post-marketing safety
assessment, me-too drugs, and marketing unnecessary products are
intertangled, extremely complex, and separate from the issue of an unproven
dietary supplement.

I know that many herbs have a long history of *apparently* safe use. What
most of them lack is a rigorous study of side effects and interactions with
other herbs or drugs.

On balance, I'd bet that supplements are safe but not very effective.

Most of these substances, and any miracle cures that you can buy in a
health food store, are totally inert. But you should not swallow the
whole bottle, particularly if it is made of glass.

Au contraire, swallowing the bottle can help clear the intestines.


"Jürgen R." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:31:15 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
wrote:


Apples and oranges. The issues of FDA approval, post-marketing safety
assessment, me-too drugs, and marketing unnecessary products are
intertangled, extremely complex, and separate from the issue of an
unproven
dietary supplement.

I know that many herbs have a long history of *apparently* safe use. What
most of them lack is a rigorous study of side effects and interactions
with
other herbs or drugs.

On balance, I'd bet that supplements are safe but not very effective.

Most of these substances, and any miracle cures that you can buy in a
health food store, are totally inert. But you should not swallow the
whole bottle, particularly if it is made of glass.