It is widely considered fact in some circles that the FDA is actually just the pet program of pharmaceutical companies who use the FDA to legalize their piracy of natural substances and destruction of "supplements" in favor of their own expensive, highly profitable (and conveniently taxable) drugs.
Today I have to wonder if this is actually true. In an article I could not find on any MSM site, it appears the FDA has made it illegal to take vitamin b6, a compound called pyridoxamine. This decision comes after a pharmaceutical company petitioned that it actually had created pyridoxamine and it was a "new drug." In a bizarre twist, the FDA agreed. Now all vitamin companies must immediately pull any supplements containing the compound or face penalty (or closure) by the government. All supplements currently in circulation (i.e. in your bathroom cabinet) are considered an illegal drug and should be destroyed immediately.
The reason this is so bizarre is that pyridoxamine is a naturally occuring compound that is common in fish, white meat, and many grains. How can the FDA possibly ban a naturally occurring substance, and how can they call it a "new drug" if it has existed in its current state for thousands (if not millions) of years?
Apparently, this is not the first time the FDA has done this. After it was found that red yeast rice contained a compound called a "statin" that naturally lowered cholesterol, several drug companies isolated the gene for the compound and started making their own statin drugs, like Lipitor, Crestor, Vytorin, and Caduet. As soon as these were shown to be effective, the pharmaceutical companies petitioned the FDA to remove all red yeast rice products from the market. The FDA strangely agreed, even though these drugs were based on a naturally occurring compound.
It seems strange that the FDA would ban obviously safe, natural compounds who have clearly defined positive effects on the human body in favor of unnatural, new drugs. But in the case of vitamin b6, the "new drug" is identical to the naturally occuring compound. They didn't even change it!
But the real conspiracy, if you ask me, comes not from this ridiculous behavior. It comes from the fact that I could find no mention of this article on any mainstream media outlet, and no one I talked to had heard anything about it. Instead, the only article I could find today on vitamins was this:
Vitamins no cancer or heart help, study says.
Unfortunately, I can read, so I read the article. It was quick to admit that there was no actual empirical evidence to support the headline! There was only basic assessments. So the article is basically saying they can't back up their statement, but it's maybe probably true. The article goes on to cover its own ass: "multivitamins may still be useful "as a form of insurance" for people with poor eating habits."
So while the FDA is banning naturally occuring vitamins, the media is reporting that vitamins don't work, based on unsubstantiated research that admits it is not rigorous? I smell the stink of agenda all over this.
_
0 Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen