We’ve basically provided technical information here thus far, but this time I think we’ll make it more of a  “traditional” blog-style post.  I’ve been trying to put something together in my head for a couple of weeks now, but just couldn’t seem to decide on a topic.

I’ve been focusing quite a bit lately on the recent findings of the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) Multivitamin and Mineral (MVM) State of the Science conference as well as current legislation related to dietary supplements – I guess we’ll go with it… 

Essentially, the NIH MVM panel concluded there was no real evidence supporting the use of MVMs – and this seemed to be the tone for the entire conference – even though one of last sentences of the May 17^th draft statement reports: the evidence is insufficient to recommend either for or against the use of MVMs by the American public to prevent chronic disease.  

The panel’s findings pertained to “the generally healthy population”, and they were to focus on the supplements as they pertained to chronic disease prevention.  They also concluded: rates of MVM use are highest among those who engage in other positive health behaviors (wait, did they just refer to MVM use as a positive health behavior?) such as regular exercise and eating a healthier diet – resulting in skewed data.  Hold on, wasn’t the study supposed to be focused on the “healthy population”.  I’m confused…

In all honesty though, I do believe the panel is genuinely interested in the health and well being of the American people.  They’re right; more research does need to be conducted on supplements. No doubt about it. 

The panel definitely had a massive undertaking, which is why their focus was restricted to certain questions and criteria (see links at bottom of page).

The panelists themselves also had to meet certain criteria – not being identified with an advocacy position on the topic, and not having a vested financial interest, were a couple standing out as being important.   

Now, not to feed into the big-pharma conspiracy whirlwind, but how can professors from major medical institutions, no doubt receiving pharmaceutical funding, or medical doctors, who have probably been courted by reps throughout their careers, exhibit totally unbiased judgment? 

Of course this relates to the theory of big-pharma not being able stand billions of supplement dollars passing them by, and are plotting an attempt to take control of the supplement industry.  Is this a long shot?  Probably.  But fairly recent events surrounding the WHO’s Codex Alimentarius Commission do raise a skeptical eyebrow… 

Perhaps the introduction of S. 3546 is a proactive maneuver by concerned legislators to protect The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) from the long regulatory arm of this WHO regulatory body. 

S.3546 will implement mandatory adverse event reporting for all nutritional supplements – as well as over the counter medications.  If the use of supplements in the US is shown to be safe though years of adverse event reporting, or the lack thereof, then why would this country need to conform to upper limits set by an international commission?   This leads one to wonder about the regulatory implications of over-the-counter medication AERs. 

So, anyway – that’s probably enough out of me.  Please remember that these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA, and are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.  

They are also not intended to offend any member of the mainstream medical community – especially the members of the NIH MVM panel.  These highly accomplished health professionals are some of the most talented in their field, and have been entrusted with a very difficult task in the name of public service. 

This is simply a blog entry and should not be substituted for forming your own thoughts on the matter(s).  It is merely opinion – and I’m not even certain of that… 

 Here are some links you can follow to assist in your education process:
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/may2006/od-17.htm
http://consensus.nih.gov/2006/MVMDRAFT051706.pdf
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3546is.txt.pdf
http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/
http://thomas.loc.gov/
http://capwiz.com/nnfa/home/

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 13th, 2006 at 7:01 pm and is filed under Enzymes Inc.. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.