For example, about a week or so ago, I was watching a news piece about the Swine flu and a scientist who was tracking changes in the virus’ genetic code as it mutated from generation to generation. “See here,” he said as he pointed to a slightly modified string of ‘ATCGs’ on a computer monitor; “the virus is mutating.”

“So this could be a new and more deadly strain of swine flu?” asked the reporter.

“Yes”, responded the scientist. And so ended the interview on this rather frightening note.

Here’s the thing though…

The reporter could have asked,”could this be a new and LESS deadly strain of swine flu?”,or “could this new variation of the swine flu have no perceptible difference in its impact on humans?

The scientist would have responded “yes” to both of these questions.

Instead, the reporter chose to perpetuate “fear” by giving the impression that the virus was some sort of intelligent, malevolent creature, striving to become more deadly. Sure, it’s sensational. But that’s not how viruses-or anything else for that matter, evolve. Mutations can lead to beneficial, detrimental, or indifferent results. It all depends on the environment to which they are
introduced.

For example, a mutation in the Swine flu virus may make it more susceptible to anti-viral drugs like Tamiflu. Or it may make it more resistant. The strain of the virus that is more susceptible to Tamiflu won’t survive to pass its characteristics on to the next generation of viruses. The strain of virus that is more resistant, will. And if the mutation doesn’t directly effect the virus’ ability to survive, that new trait will pass on to surviving generations.

Anyhow, I’m getting a bit off track here, so let me return to my point; this reporter was not focused on educating viewers and
presenting anything but a sensational story (although it is quite possible she had no idea how mutations occur herself. In this case she is not exactly the right person to present the story).

And that appears to be exactly what happened here; a sensationalist story that feeds on an existing bias, and a convenient ignoring of the existing facts that do not support the presented view.

For shame!

It’s the (comparatively slack) regulation of supps that gives superficial thinkers like Ms. Healy the willies. Even though she doesn’t actually use the words, her writing reeks of the “there oughta be a law!” mindset discussed here. In this parallel universe, when thousands are sickened by peanuts or Vioxx, it’s perceived as an anomaly – a breakdown of the system, basically. On the flip side, when a handful of people are sickened by a supp, it’s regarded as a flaw inherent to the system, that would magically be fixed if supp manufacturers were subject to the same rules that…errr…peanuts and Vioxx are produced under.

This makes exactly zero sense, when you think about it, but it satisfies peoples’ need to “do something” in a crisis – whether it actually helps or not.

Ironically, I’m not ideologically opposed to sensible regulations, and see nothing wrong – in principle – with the notion that various herbals and supplement formulas should be thoroughly vetted for both safety and efficacy. Where the concept falls down is in execution: to peremptorily draw all supp formulas and ingredients currently on the market into the system used for food/drugs would effectively shut down the entire industry, and ensure that only the largest food/pharma manufacturers would be allowed – due to the costs involved – to bring products to market. This would place a wide range of useful and benign substances (like, say, green tea extract and creatine) out of reach to people like thee and me.

That’s bulls**t.

What I would like to see, is an industry consortium that would work with the FDA to set up a parallel GRAS (generally recognized as safe) list. Just like the GRAS list for food additives, this would provisionally “grandfather” certain well-studied and/or food-derived components in (like amino acids, creatine, green tea extract, fish oil, etc.). Then, the consortium would establish a basic testing process for other compounds, which – when/if passed – would likewise be given GRAS status. Manufacturers adhering to consortium standards and using GRAS ingredients would be given a “seal of approval” – and manufacturers peddling questionable ingredients/compounds (like colloidal silver, for example) or therapies (like homeopathy) would be given an official “thumbs down”. Rather than forcing unapproved or pre-approved products off the market, however, I’d prefer to see prominently displayed official disclaimers (much like the warning messages on ciggies or alcohol) that they’re unproven and/or associated with certain health risks. If consumers still want to make those choices, so be it.

Naturally, products adulterated with undeclared, illegal ingredients, or are contaminated with toxic substances would be subject to recall or withdrawal, just as they are now.

Needless to state, regulation of claims would (should) also be tightened. Purveyors of unproven or risky substances/therapies need to be held accountable for wild-ass, exaggerated health claims.

A system like this would eventually bring some order out of chaos, without substantially depriving people of choices.

She has no more business bashing supplements than I do. The difference is she gets published in a news paper for the average person to read. Thus causing them to ” pass judgement ” on something after being misinformed.

Another black eye for the supplement companies and more ammunition for the ” anti-supplement ”
people.

Will it ever stop?????