|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > July 2005 > The Problem with the Natrol Deal
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
The Problem with the Natrol Deal
|
|
| Angelo DePalma 2005-07-09, 8:31 pm |
|
It's always amazed me how individuals let partisanship affect the way they
view politics. In USCF politics we don't have "democrat" and "republican,"
"right" or "left" wing, but the same kinds of partisan principles operate.
For example, Bill Goichberg has been assailed many times in this forum for
various alleged managerial deficits, and excoriated for potential conflicts
of interest. Reasonable people can disagree on these issues (although I
think they're hooey).
But when someone's political favorite engages in the very behavior we
criticize Bill for, and certain posters point it out, what is the response?
Ad hominem attacks on Sam Sloan! Attacks on Bill Goichberg. Calls that I be
prevented from voting.
In case some of you have forgotten:
1. It is against the spirit (and laws of most) competitive events to use
performance-enhancing substances
2. Unregulated "supplement" pharmacologic agents can be every bit as
dangerous as "serious" prescription drugs. What happens if someone OD's on
Natrol during the US Open or subsequently? Does USCF need a new lawsuit, for
tens of millions of dollars, by distraught relatives of adults or children
who have been harmed by this so-called supplement?
3. "Brain drugs" -- especially one that is unapproved and untested in
double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials (not the ingredients, the
pill itself) should be a no-brainer stay-away for the President of USCF. No
amount of tiredness, "not thinking," or anything else should cause a USCF
officer to enter, single-handedly, an official deal with the distributor of
any pharmacologic agent. It's amazing, actually, that this deal could be
entered into at all under the circumstances.
Until a year ago the public believed COX-2 inhibitors (non-steroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs) were safe. Ask Merck's stockholders what they think
of COX-2 agent safety.
4. Natrol has never been shown, through double-blind placebo-controlled
testing, to enhance chess performance. Never. NEVER. To promote it as such
at the US Open is fraudulent. For USCF to be involved in such an obvious
scam is unconscionable.
5. Assuming a USCF officer would contemplate such a reckless deal in a
moment of weakness, it should at least be vetted with the federation
attorney, who if he/she were worth their fee would shoot it down
immediately. Was USCF's attorney involved in this process? My guess is no.
Can you imagine the CEO of a company entering such a deal without running it
by the chief counsel? Amazing.
6. Deals like this, where one person makes the arrangements, are not usually
entered into without some sort of financial consideration for the
deal-maker. I'm not saying this occurred here, but this absolutely needs to
be investigated. If Beatriz used her position as USCF president to earn a
few bucks on the side by pushing an official -- and entirely suspect (for
reasons given above) USCF business deal -- then she has to face the music.
The fact that we were assured this was behind us, and now learn that it is
very much in front of us, leads me to believe that Beatriz is on the hook to
the makers of Natrol.
Tom, Political Hack, StanB, please wake up and consider these points
seriously, and without taint of your political preferences. The Natrol
problem could potentially be serious for us. We don't need this problem.
Angelo DePalma
| |
|
|
"Angelo DePalma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote in message
news:o9udnb5sOvWJUlLfRVn-3g@garden.net...
quote:
> Tom, Political Hack, StanB, please wake up and consider these points
> seriously, and without taint of your political preferences. The Natrol
> problem could potentially be serious for us. We don't need this problem.
<yawn> Much ado about nothing.
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-07-09, 8:31 pm |
| Dear Angelo,
1) Even the Olympic committee allows the use of Vitamins.
2) Either you are a member of the USCF or you ain't
3) I don't recall a post where you were critical of Bill "Hit Letter"
Goichberg.
4) If someone ODs on Natrol, though sad and unfortunate, the gene pool will
be better served than not.
5) Like the manufactured substance Natrol, this entire "Hit Letter" argument
is manufactured as well, except in BGs argument, out of whole cloth. For all
we know, Beatrice was setup by La Goich with this deal in the first place.
You don't need double blind studies for food supplements. And, calling
something a brain enhancer is a long way from actually giving someone a
brain enhancer (like Ritalin) as a matter of practice, to give "Little
Johnny/Janey" a leg up on the other children.
The Food & Drug Administration was setup to separate the snake oil salesman
from the legitimate drugs we use in everyday life. Think I would still be
alive without massive influxes of various products from snakes, pigs and
other pharmacological preparations? Think of your aging relatives. You get
the picture.
In spite of all the best efforts of mankind to present himself older and
wiser (older by taking better care of oneself and taking Natrol (sic)), the
average life span in the industrialized west is still less than eighty
years. Not much has changed in six thousand years, has it?
If the Food and Drug Administration of the United States has no problem with
Natrol, you and I have very little to worry about.
Tom Klem
"Angelo DePalma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote in message
news:o9udnb5sOvWJUlLfRVn-3g@garden.net...
quote:
>
> It's always amazed me how individuals let partisanship affect the way they
> view politics. In USCF politics we don't have "democrat" and "republican,"
> "right" or "left" wing, but the same kinds of partisan principles operate.
>
> For example, Bill Goichberg has been assailed many times in this forum for
> various alleged managerial deficits, and excoriated for potential
conflicts
quote:
> of interest. Reasonable people can disagree on these issues (although I
> think they're hooey).
>
> But when someone's political favorite engages in the very behavior we
> criticize Bill for, and certain posters point it out, what is the
response?
quote:
> Ad hominem attacks on Sam Sloan! Attacks on Bill Goichberg. Calls that I
be
quote:
> prevented from voting.
>
> In case some of you have forgotten:
>
> 1. It is against the spirit (and laws of most) competitive events to use
> performance-enhancing substances
>
> 2. Unregulated "supplement" pharmacologic agents can be every bit as
> dangerous as "serious" prescription drugs. What happens if someone OD's on
> Natrol during the US Open or subsequently? Does USCF need a new lawsuit,
for
quote:
> tens of millions of dollars, by distraught relatives of adults or children
> who have been harmed by this so-called supplement?
>
> 3. "Brain drugs" -- especially one that is unapproved and untested in
> double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials (not the ingredients, the
> pill itself) should be a no-brainer stay-away for the President of USCF.
No
quote:
> amount of tiredness, "not thinking," or anything else should cause a USCF
> officer to enter, single-handedly, an official deal with the distributor
of
quote:
> any pharmacologic agent. It's amazing, actually, that this deal could be
> entered into at all under the circumstances.
>
> Until a year ago the public believed COX-2 inhibitors (non-steroidal
> anti-inflammatory drugs) were safe. Ask Merck's stockholders what they
think
quote:
> of COX-2 agent safety.
>
> 4. Natrol has never been shown, through double-blind placebo-controlled
> testing, to enhance chess performance. Never. NEVER. To promote it as such
> at the US Open is fraudulent. For USCF to be involved in such an obvious
> scam is unconscionable.
>
> 5. Assuming a USCF officer would contemplate such a reckless deal in a
> moment of weakness, it should at least be vetted with the federation
> attorney, who if he/she were worth their fee would shoot it down
> immediately. Was USCF's attorney involved in this process? My guess is no.
> Can you imagine the CEO of a company entering such a deal without running
it
quote:
> by the chief counsel? Amazing.
>
> 6. Deals like this, where one person makes the arrangements, are not
usually
quote:
> entered into without some sort of financial consideration for the
> deal-maker. I'm not saying this occurred here, but this absolutely needs
to
quote:
> be investigated. If Beatriz used her position as USCF president to earn a
> few bucks on the side by pushing an official -- and entirely suspect (for
> reasons given above) USCF business deal -- then she has to face the music.
> The fact that we were assured this was behind us, and now learn that it is
> very much in front of us, leads me to believe that Beatriz is on the hook
to
quote:
> the makers of Natrol.
>
> Tom, Political Hack, StanB, please wake up and consider these points
> seriously, and without taint of your political preferences. The Natrol
> problem could potentially be serious for us. We don't need this problem.
>
> Angelo DePalma
>
>
| |
| Angelo DePalma 2005-07-09, 8:31 pm |
| Tom,
Natrol is not a vitamin. Vitamins have been tested extensively and have a
long history of safety at reasonable doses.
The reason the FDA is "all right" with Natrol is due to one of the worst
pieces of legislation ever, the DSHEA (Dietary Supplement
Health --something-- Act), which essentially exempted manufacturers of
vitamins and supplements from normal FDA review.
I was originally in favor of DSHEA. I'm a libertarian and I believe people
should be allowed to take anything they want for any reason. However, I soon
realized that manufacturers of so-called dietary supplements were free from
the inconvenience of testing their products before making outrageous claims
for them. As a result billions of dollars are wasted each year, more often
than not by desperately ill people, on snake oil. Caveat emptor you say? Ok,
but many supplements cross the line, quite brazenly, into outright fraud.
I'm not saying that Natrol is or is not snake oil. I have no first-hand
experience with it. But as is usually the case, if it actually did enhance
cognition someone would have jumped on it long ago. The active ingredients
can be purchased anywhere and are not protected by patents. There simply are
no secrets in the medical industry, no secret potions, no secret cures.
You will counter with the old saw that "you can't make money on an
unpatented drug" but that's not true. Roche makes billions selling vitamins,
and literally dozens of companies make aspirin for a half penny per pill.
My other arguments, for whether USCF should be in the mind-enhancement
business, are self-explanatory.
Angelo
"Tom Klem" <thewiz@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:tMSze.30002$8o.4131@fed1read03...
quote:
> Dear Angelo,
>
> 1) Even the Olympic committee allows the use of Vitamins.
>
> 2) Either you are a member of the USCF or you ain't
>
> 3) I don't recall a post where you were critical of Bill "Hit Letter"
> Goichberg.
>
> 4) If someone ODs on Natrol, though sad and unfortunate, the gene pool
> will
> be better served than not.
>
> 5) Like the manufactured substance Natrol, this entire "Hit Letter"
> argument
> is manufactured as well, except in BGs argument, out of whole cloth. For
> all
> we know, Beatrice was setup by La Goich with this deal in the first place.
>
> You don't need double blind studies for food supplements. And, calling
> something a brain enhancer is a long way from actually giving someone a
> brain enhancer (like Ritalin) as a matter of practice, to give "Little
> Johnny/Janey" a leg up on the other children.
>
> The Food & Drug Administration was setup to separate the snake oil
> salesman
> from the legitimate drugs we use in everyday life. Think I would still be
> alive without massive influxes of various products from snakes, pigs and
> other pharmacological preparations? Think of your aging relatives. You get
> the picture.
>
> In spite of all the best efforts of mankind to present himself older and
> wiser (older by taking better care of oneself and taking Natrol (sic)),
> the
> average life span in the industrialized west is still less than eighty
> years. Not much has changed in six thousand years, has it?
>
> If the Food and Drug Administration of the United States has no problem
> with
> Natrol, you and I have very little to worry about.
>
> Tom Klem
>
> "Angelo DePalma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote in message
> news:o9udnb5sOvWJUlLfRVn-3g@garden.net...
> conflicts
> response?
> be
> for
> No
> of
> think
> it
> usually
> to
> to
>
>
| |
|
|
"Angelo DePalma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote in message
news:E5KdnfKmtc-LkU3fRVn-tg@garden.net...
quote:
> Tom,
>
> Natrol is not a vitamin. Vitamins have been tested extensively and have a
> long history of safety at reasonable doses.
Recent studies on Vitamin E would seem to contradict your assumption.
| |
| politikalhack@gmail.com 2005-07-09, 8:31 pm |
| Google ate my first post--possible double....
*******************
META-
<<Calls that I be prevented from voting. >> For the record, please
note that I believe I was the first person to post that Angelo deserved
to get a ballot.
*******************
NATROL
I agree with Angelo on the substance--the Natrol deal is an incredible
loser.
<<It is against the spirit (and laws of most) competitive events to use
performance-enhancing substances >>
Some of us use performance-enhancing substances daily--coffee, e.g. :-)
The liability risk in Angelo's points 2. & 3. is in my opinion
miniscule. However, $50,000/year is chump change, too; why risk
bankrupting USCF (even if odds are 1/1,000) for peanuts (or take the $$
and get appropriate insurance coverage)? So I agree, but think the
case made is a trifle melodramatic.
<<Natrol has never been shown, through double-blind placebo-controlled
testing, to enhance chess performance. Never. NEVER. To promote it as
such
at the US Open is fraudulent. For USCF to be involved in such an
obvious
scam is unconscionable. >>
I would not use the word "fraudulent"; this may be the worst kind of
puffery. But that's a quibble; I accept Angelo's larger point.
<<Assuming a USCF officer would contemplate such a reckless deal in a
moment of weakness, it should at least be vetted with the federation
attorney, who if he/she were worth their fee would shoot it down
immediately. Was USCF's attorney involved in this process? My guess is
no.
Can you imagine the CEO of a company entering such a deal without
running it
by the chief counsel? Amazing. >>
Completely agree. Here's the part I don't understand--why weren't the
other Board members brought into the process? (Unless the thinking
was--"It's a $50,000 deal, it's a moneymaker--no-brainer." But still.)
<<Deals like this, where one person makes the arrangements, are not
usually
entered into without some sort of financial consideration for the
deal-maker. I'm not saying this occurred here, but this absolutely
needs to
be investigated. If Beatriz used her position as USCF president to earn
a
few bucks on the side by pushing an official -- and entirely suspect
(for
reasons given above) USCF business deal -- then she has to face the
music.
The fact that we were assured this was behind us, and now learn that it
is
very much in front of us, leads me to believe that Beatriz is on the
hook to
the makers of Natrol. >>
IMO, this is inconsistent with Beatriz's conduct in the last year. She
has consistently made personal financial sacrifices for the good of
USCF. As has her political opponent, Bill Goichberg. For the two of
them to take heat on this issue irritates me more than a little.
I have done my share of financial/compliance auditing--I really don't
think so.
WRT to Natrol, press releases get written in advance--I don't know when
(if???) Beatriz broke the termination news to Natrol. This is the
kicker, isn't it. I wouldn't assume that there's going to be a Natrol
event at the U.S. Open just because they say so. But if the deal
really hasn't been terminated, we have a real problem, don't we?
If the deal has been terminated and if Beatriz can give us a reasonable
narrative of how she entered into this contract, then, and only then,
can we draw the appropropriate conclusions, take appropriate action,
and move on....
| |
|
| You are mistaken about nutricuticals. The FDA has no control over them
at the moment, that is why it says on
the Natrol website that it has been evaluated by the FDA. You are also
wrong about it being a vitamin. Just because
something contains vitamins doesn't mean it itself is one. OJ has
vitamin c, does that mean oj is a vitamin? Go to
the Natrol site, and look at the ingredients and then go research them.
Also look at the % of the daily recommended allowance
you are getting with each dose. There is a reason there is a daily
recommended allowance. Getting %8300 of the dra is giving you
83 days worth of something in one shot.
Do some research Tom, before calling nutritional supplements vitamins.
Better yet go do some research on the nutricutical industry.
| |
| Angelo DePalma 2005-07-09, 8:31 pm |
| The recent study showed Vitamin E doesn't prevent cancer or heart disease,
but that it is safe even at super-nutritional doses. The problem with the
study you cite is the next study contradicts it. Vitamin E is in many foods
we eat, so it cannot possibly be toxic at levels consumed through food.
"StanB" <stanbooz@comXXXcast.net> wrote in message
news:efGdnd8sFq--iE3fRVn-rw@comcast.com...
quote:
>
> "Angelo DePalma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote in message
> news:E5KdnfKmtc-LkU3fRVn-tg@garden.net...
>
> Recent studies on Vitamin E would seem to contradict your assumption.
>
>
| |
| Angelo DePalma 2005-07-09, 8:31 pm |
|
<politikalhack@gmail.com> wrote
quote:
> <<Calls that I be prevented from voting. >> For the record, please
> note that I believe I was the first person to post that Angelo deserved
> to get a ballot.
Duly noted.
quote:
> The liability risk in Angelo's points 2. & 3. is in my opinion
> miniscule. However, $50,000/year is chump change, too; why risk
> bankrupting USCF (even if odds are 1/1,000) for peanuts (or take the $$
> and get appropriate insurance coverage)? So I agree, but think the
> case made is a trifle melodramatic.
Not if some kid takes it and is harmed as a result of USCF recommending it.
We simply should not be in the business of pharmacology, period.
quote:
> <<Natrol has never been shown, through double-blind placebo-controlled
> testing, to enhance chess performance. Never. NEVER. To promote it as
> such
> at the US Open is fraudulent. For USCF to be involved in such an
> obvious
> scam is unconscionable. >>
>
> I would not use the word "fraudulent"; this may be the worst kind of
> puffery. But that's a quibble; I accept Angelo's larger point.
I believe promoting a benefit that has not been proved is the definition of
fraud. Not sure exactly what Natrol will be boasting with respect to chess
performance, but whatever it is it has not been proven in a controlled
study.
quote:
> <<Deals like this, where one person makes the arrangements, are not
> usually
> entered into without some sort of financial consideration for the
> deal-maker. I'm not saying this occurred here, but this absolutely
> needs to
> be investigated. If Beatriz used her position as USCF president to earn
> a
> few bucks on the side by pushing an official -- and entirely suspect
> (for
> reasons given above) USCF business deal -- then she has to face the
> music.
> The fact that we were assured this was behind us, and now learn that it
> is
> very much in front of us, leads me to believe that Beatriz is on the
> hook to
> the makers of Natrol. >>
>
> IMO, this is inconsistent with Beatriz's conduct in the last year. She
> has consistently made personal financial sacrifices for the good of
> USCF. As has her political opponent, Bill Goichberg. For the two of
> them to take heat on this issue irritates me more than a little.
The "Goichberg connection" to Natrol was intimated, fabricated, as far as I
know, by a poster in this newsgroup. Then another poster observed that Bill
had been involved in multi-level marketing of vitamins. Next thing you know,
Bill was the one who murdered the archduke in 1914.
quote:
> If the deal has been terminated and if Beatriz can give us a reasonable
> narrative of how she entered into this contract, then, and only then,
> can we draw the appropropriate conclusions, take appropriate action,
> and move on....
I accepted her explanation and was satisfied with her staying on because of
her assurance that the issue was behind us. If they're manning a booth at
the US Open it is not behind us.
| |
| Vince Hart 2005-07-09, 8:31 pm |
|
Angelo DePalma wrote:
quote:
>
> I believe promoting a benefit that has not been proved is the definition of
> fraud. Not sure exactly what Natrol will be boasting with respect to chess
> performance, but whatever it is it has not been proven in a controlled
> study.
You are incorrect. The definition of fraud is promoting a product with
statements that are known to be false. Many products are promoted in a
non-fraudulent way without having their benefits established in
controlled studies.
Vince Hart
| |
| Catalan 2005-07-09, 8:31 pm |
|
"Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120942586.600887.320010@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
>
> Angelo DePalma wrote:
>
> You are incorrect. The definition of fraud is promoting a product with
> statements that are known to be false. Many products are promoted in a
> non-fraudulent way without having their benefits established in
> controlled studies.
Article 2 of the UCC permits puffery. An example would be- this suit will
wear like iron.
| |
| Equinorm@AOL.com 2005-07-09, 8:31 pm |
| 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
| |
| politikalhack@gmail.com 2005-07-09, 8:31 pm |
| One point of clarification: I meant that both Beatriz and Bill G. have
been attacked *in general* over the past year for supposedly milking
the USCF cow, when in fact both have given generously of their time,
and both deserve our thanks. Apologies for my artless phrasing....
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-07-09, 8:31 pm |
| I think we basically agree.
I'm just sickened by the loss of a sponsor due to this ridiculous arguing
all the time.
Tom Klem
"Coke is watching"
---Donnie the Weasel, whenever it suits him
"Angelo DePalma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote in message
news:E5KdnfKmtc-LkU3fRVn-tg@garden.net...
quote:
> Tom,
>
> Natrol is not a vitamin. Vitamins have been tested extensively and have a
> long history of safety at reasonable doses.
>
> The reason the FDA is "all right" with Natrol is due to one of the worst
> pieces of legislation ever, the DSHEA (Dietary Supplement
> Health --something-- Act), which essentially exempted manufacturers of
> vitamins and supplements from normal FDA review.
>
> I was originally in favor of DSHEA. I'm a libertarian and I believe people
> should be allowed to take anything they want for any reason. However, I
soon
quote:
> realized that manufacturers of so-called dietary supplements were free
from
quote:
> the inconvenience of testing their products before making outrageous
claims
quote:
> for them. As a result billions of dollars are wasted each year, more often
> than not by desperately ill people, on snake oil. Caveat emptor you say?
Ok,
quote:
> but many supplements cross the line, quite brazenly, into outright fraud.
>
> I'm not saying that Natrol is or is not snake oil. I have no first-hand
> experience with it. But as is usually the case, if it actually did enhance
> cognition someone would have jumped on it long ago. The active ingredients
> can be purchased anywhere and are not protected by patents. There simply
are
quote:
> no secrets in the medical industry, no secret potions, no secret cures.
>
> You will counter with the old saw that "you can't make money on an
> unpatented drug" but that's not true. Roche makes billions selling
vitamins,
quote:
> and literally dozens of companies make aspirin for a half penny per pill.
>
> My other arguments, for whether USCF should be in the mind-enhancement
> business, are self-explanatory.
>
> Angelo
>
>
> "Tom Klem" <thewiz@nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:tMSze.30002$8o.4131@fed1read03...
place.[vbcol=seagreen]
be[vbcol=seagreen]
get[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
use[vbcol=seagreen]
lawsuit,[vbcol=seagreen]
USCF.[vbcol=seagreen]
USCF[vbcol=seagreen]
distributor[vbcol=seagreen]
be[vbcol=seagreen]
obvious[vbcol=seagreen]
running[vbcol=seagreen]
needs[vbcol=seagreen]
a[vbcol=seagreen]
(for[vbcol=seagreen]
hook[vbcol=seagreen]
problem.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
| |
| Vince Hart 2005-07-10, 12:30 am |
|
Equinorm@AOL.com wrote:
quote:
> 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
I agree that it was a poor decision. The fact that a product is legal
and may be promoted in legal ways does not mean that the USCF should
wish to be associated with it. But fraud is a much more serious
allegation and I have not seen anything to support that yet.
Vince Hart
| |
| BrotherNehoc 2005-07-10, 12:30 am |
| In another post on another topic on RGCP Tom Klem wrote the following
quote: "The Elephant in the Living Room of USCF politics, is unabated
hatred and bigotry." In this topic Tom Klme wrote: "4) If someone ODs
on Natrol, though sad and unfortunate, the gene pool will be better
served than not."
I am not a regular poster, and I do not visit this site very
frequently, so can somebody tell me: Is it common for a poster to slam
themsleves on this site?
| |
| The Historian 2005-07-10, 12:30 am |
|
BrotherNehoc wrote:
quote:
> In another post on another topic on RGCP Tom Klem wrote the following
> quote: "The Elephant in the Living Room of USCF politics, is unabated
> hatred and bigotry." In this topic Tom Klme wrote: "4) If someone ODs
> on Natrol, though sad and unfortunate, the gene pool will be better
> served than not."
>
> I am not a regular poster, and I do not visit this site very
> frequently, so can somebody tell me: Is it common for a poster to slam
> themsleves on this site?
Yes. The classic example is from 2002, in which Phil Innes claimed the
FBI was monitoring my newsgroup posts. Phil then made what could be
interpreted as a threat on my life. What the FBI thought of Phil's
action remains a mystery.
| |
| Vince Hart 2005-07-10, 12:30 am |
|
BrotherNehoc wrote:
quote:
> In another post on another topic on RGCP Tom Klem wrote the following
> quote: "The Elephant in the Living Room of USCF politics, is unabated
> hatred and bigotry." In this topic Tom Klme wrote: "4) If someone ODs
> on Natrol, though sad and unfortunate, the gene pool will be better
> served than not."
>
> I am not a regular poster, and I do not visit this site very
> frequently, so can somebody tell me: Is it common for a poster to slam
> themsleves on this site?
Tom seems to have more difficulty than some in seeing the beam in his
own eye.
Vince Hart
| |
| Angelo DePalma 2005-07-10, 3:30 am |
| Tom,
That's not the type of sponsor we should cultivate. Too risky, possibly
unethical.
adp
"Tom Klem" <thewiz@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:CeZze.30100$8o.13958@fed1read03...
quote:
>I think we basically agree.
>
> I'm just sickened by the loss of a sponsor due to this ridiculous arguing
> all the time.
>
> Tom Klem
> "Coke is watching"
> ---Donnie the Weasel, whenever it suits him
>
> "Angelo DePalma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote in message
> news:E5KdnfKmtc-LkU3fRVn-tg@garden.net...
> soon
> from
> claims
> Ok,
> are
> vitamins,
> place.
> be
> get
> I
> use
> lawsuit,
> USCF.
> USCF
> distributor
> be
> obvious
> running
> needs
> a
> (for
> hook
> problem.
>
>
| |
| Angelo DePalma 2005-07-10, 3:30 am |
| The standard for medicinal products is a controlled clinical trial.
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?
"Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120942586.600887.320010@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
>
> Angelo DePalma wrote:
>
> You are incorrect. The definition of fraud is promoting a product with
> statements that are known to be false. Many products are promoted in a
> non-fraudulent way without having their benefits established in
> controlled studies.
>
> Vince Hart
>
| |
| Angelo DePalma 2005-07-10, 3:30 am |
| Terrific post.
<Equinorm@AOL.com> wrote in message
news:1120944086.349888.165540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>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
>
| |
| David Ames 2005-07-10, 8:31 pm |
|
Equinorm@AOL.com wrote:
quote:
>
> 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 shit," he griped.
"See?" the smarty responded. "Already you're getting smart."
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-07-11, 3:32 am |
| 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" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote in message
news:bp6dnXGD6twvwkzfRVn-uw@garden.net...
quote:
>
> Vince, you hit on precisely my point. Placebo controlled clinical trials
are
quote:
> 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" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>
> I agree that this has become standard practice before the DSHEA
legislation
quote:
> 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
quote:
> a medical ailment and seek help in snake oil you may die as a result. At
the
quote:
> very least you have wasted your money, hope, and opportunity.
>
>
>
>
| |
| Vince Hart 2005-07-11, 8:32 pm |
|
Angelo DePalma wrote:
quote:
> 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
| |
| Angelo DePalma 2005-07-11, 8:32 pm |
|
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" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121092804.997307.304090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
>
> Angelo DePalma wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
| |
| Jürgen R. 2005-07-11, 8:32 pm |
| On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:31:15 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
<adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote:
quote:
>
>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.
| |
| Angelo DePalma 2005-07-11, 8:32 pm |
|
Au contraire, swallowing the bottle can help clear the intestines.
"Jürgen R." <jurgenr@web.de> wrote in message
news:u965d1tv0dammf0gvge6q4b32hkuhfp1a7@4ax.com...
quote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:31:15 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
> <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Vince Hart 2005-07-11, 8:32 pm |
|
Angelo DePalma wrote:
quote:
> 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.
The connection I see is that these problems undermine the credibility
of the FDA and the pharamaceutical industry and tarnish the "gold
standard" clinical testing process. This makes things much easier for
the hucksters who push bogus alternative remedies.
Vince Hart
quote:
>
> 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.
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> "Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1121092804.997307.304090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| |
| BlueGilledSnapper@gmail.com 2005-07-12, 6:31 am |
| Many grandmasters ride the white pony before their games to keep them
alert and focused. That's right, cocaine is a part of chess.
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-07-12, 8:32 pm |
| On 12 Jul 2005 00:06:33 -0700, BlueGilledSnapper@gmail.com wrote:
quote:
>Many grandmasters ride the white pony before their games to keep them
>alert and focused. That's right, cocaine is a part of chess.
>
As far as I am aware, there is no basis for this slander.
Sam Sloan
| |
| Vince Hart 2005-07-12, 8:32 pm |
|
Angelo DePalma wrote:
quote:
> 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.
quote:
>
> 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
| |
| Catalan 2005-07-12, 8:32 pm |
|
"The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120966216.308415.234200@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Yes. The classic example is from 2002, in which Phil Innes claimed the
> FBI was monitoring my newsgroup posts.
We are.
| |
| Angelo DePalma 2005-07-12, 8:32 pm |
|
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" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote
quote:
> 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.
quote:
> 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.
| |
| samsloan 2005-07-19, 12:31 am |
| StanB wrote:
quote:
> "Angelo DePalma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote in message
> news:E5KdnfKmtc-LkU3fRVn-tg@garden.net...
>
> Recent studies on Vitamin E would seem to contradict your assumption.
This is the last posting that I can find by Stan Booz to this group,
although he posted to another group
alt.sports.football.pro.phila-eagles five minutes later.
It is a mystery why had the entire "Success Team" stopped posting,
except for George John who just calls himself a member but is not
really a member of the Success Team.
Sam Sloan
| |
| The Historian 2005-07-19, 12:31 am |
|
samsloan wrote:
quote:
> StanB wrote:
>
> This is the last posting that I can find by Stan Booz to this group,
> although he posted to another group
> alt.sports.football.pro.phila-eagles five minutes later.
ChessDon's favorite investigative reporter strikes again! Let me give
you a little hint..... Stan is still here.
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-07-19, 8:42 pm |
| What's wrong with my investigative skills? You're fat. You're ugly.
You're no historian. You're a loudmouth XXXXXXX and you sniff
Marinello's underwear.
Don't vote for the Dream Team! Vote for me! It's not too late to whip
it! Accoona rules!
Sam JF Sloan
| |
| Catalan 2005-07-19, 8:43 pm |
|
"The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121735643.213774.65920@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
>
> samsloan wrote:
quote:
>
> ChessDon's favorite investigative reporter strikes again! Let me give
> you a little hint..... Stan is still here.
The report of my demise has been grossly exaggerated. Shades of Peter Leko.
|
| |
|
|