FDA warns against natural ED supplements because . . .

The dangerous issue here is that a prescription drug is been sold under false pretenses and without prescription or regulation, endangering the lives of people that have been deceived into thinking that these are "safe" options.

One question remains:Are these ingredients similar to sildenafil and vardenafil really obtained from natural sources, as the manufacturers' claim, or are they simply "designer" versions of the real thing (i.e., slightly altered in the lab to make them appear different, while actually being the same)?

I see major lawsuits in the near future.
 
empeake said:
The dangerous issue here is that a prescription drug is been sold under false pretenses and without prescription or regulation, endangering the lives of people that have been deceived into thinking that these are "safe" options.
Click to expand...
I can understand that, but it riles me that while they look the other way regarding all the quack products out there, their real concern here is that people might be able to buy certain prescription drugs cheaper than the brand-name products. And the style of warning almost condones the quackery, "Be careful, this stuff is the real deal, not like those fake pseudo-medicines you're used to buying."
 
Devil's Advocate: " Dispensing prescription drugs without a prescription is illegal in most civilised countries. Prescribing them without appropriate authority is illegal. Also does the 'supplement' contain a product data sheet that contains contraindications? "

It's a lot easier to arrest people for breach of the above *shrug*
 
The problem would be this. Suppose you're allergic to the active ingredient in Viagra. But you still want your little soldier to be able to salute, and the wife is really getting on your case. So you go to your email account, open up your spam folder, and click on an ad for a "@@@@ AlL Na tural V!@grA alTernaTIVE...No pERs CRIption NeedED! @@@@" and you order some pills.

Then you take the pills, and have an allergic reaction, because the pill makers didn't tell you it's just Viagra.

See the problem?
 
Psi Baba said:
I can understand that, but it riles me that while they look the other way regarding all the quack products out there, their real concern here is that people might be able to buy certain prescription drugs cheaper than the brand-name products. And the style of warning almost condones the quackery, "Be careful, this stuff is the real deal, not like those fake pseudo-medicines you're used to buying."
Click to expand...
Have you seen the warnings for Viagra? There is a reason why it is sold only by prescription. Here we are talking about unscrupulous companies that peddle the same product in a deceitful manner, declaring that it is "safe" and "natural", without disclosing the truth, without warning the users of the risks, and with no concern for the public's health. This way of profiting is unethical and criminal. At least the pharmaceutical companies openly warn you of the risks (asides from the fact that they have invested millions of dollars in research, studies, and tests, and have a right to protect their investment from leeches that sidestep the rules to turn a fast buck).
 
Okay, you've convinced me. It is dangerous to sell that stuff without telling someone what it is (although now that the cat is out of the bag, that changes things ever so slightly). My initial statement was coming from the notion that proponents of CAM often cite that the reason people choose that route is because of their disillusionment with the pharamaceutical industry (not that that's a logical path, but it's their logic, not mine), and they end up falling for junk that is little more than placebo. I realize that what these particular "supplement" makers are doing is tantamount to selling prescription drugs on the black market, but the FDA seemed to pounce on this much more quickly than they would have otherwise. It still sounds like they are saying that if these products contained nothing but corn starch, that would be okay. Mongrel's suggestion might well be the answer for that. JLam, you have a good point, but then anyone who buys anything from a spam ad (especially health-related!) deserves what they get.
 
Psi Baba, if I was going to complain it would be because the FDA doesn't regulate the quality and dose of dietary supplements and actually make people show evidence they do work rather than complain the FDA does regulate prescription drugs.
 
I am with you skeptigirl, it would be great if the FDA regulated all supplements of all sorts. There would be a lot less snake oil sold in all sorts of places then. There is far to much scope for abuse in the supplement category. Any snake oil salesman who wants to make bucks can create a supplement and with carefully worded ads and packaging sell useless carp and make big bucks with little chance of anyone bothering to try and stop him.
 
Psi Baba said:
I realize that what these particular "supplement" makers are doing is tantamount to selling prescription drugs on the black market, but the FDA seemed to pounce on this much more quickly than they would have otherwise.
Click to expand...
Herbal products are not approved or regulated by the FDA, and the FDA can only issue warnings if there is proof that these products may have harmful side effects. The FDA was empowered to act the moment the tests determined that these "herbal remedies" contained prescription drugs (or similar potentially harmful ingredients). Before then, the FDA had statutory or resource limitations (specifically, it can not test all herbal remedies out there).

Saying the reason behind the FDA's warning is pressure by the pharmaceutical corporations in order to protect their profits, and not a concern for the safety of the consumers, sounds too much like a conspiracy theory.
 
empeake said:
Saying the reason behind the FDA's warning is pressure by the pharmaceutical corporations in order to protect their profits, and not a concern for the safety of the consumers, sounds too much like a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
Not a conspiracy, just inconsistency. That's the crux of my complaint. But as I said, empeake's and JLam's earlier posts have convinced me that my original complaint was not very valid. I think it was that when I read the article, it wasn't what I was expecting to see.
 
Last edited:
JLam said:
The problem would be this. Suppose you're allergic to the active ingredient in Viagra. But you still want your little soldier to be able to salute, and the wife is really getting on your case. So you go to your email account, open up your spam folder, and click on an ad for a "@@@@ AlL Na tural V!@grA alTernaTIVE...No pERs CRIption NeedED! @@@@" and you order some pills.

Then you take the pills, and have an allergic reaction, because the pill makers didn't tell you it's just Viagra.

See the problem?
Click to expand...

Buffoon relies on scam-like emails for medical advice when he knows he must be careful with at least one drug in that area?

Evolution: working as intended
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom