( http://meltingpot.fo...290/health.html ). However, I decided to look it up on google and came across some interesting websites and updates. I want to post some comments on this thread.
http://heartdisease..../Nrxcol_rry.htm
Basically, the FDA decided to ban this drug because it contained a regulated substance. At the time that this happened, there were no studies indicating that it was harmful, no cases of anyone dying from it, and there were studies indicating that it was an effective drug at reducing cholesterol.
http://heartdisease..../Nrxcol_rry.htm
In the Chinese Coronary Secondary Prevention Study, nearly 5,000 heart attack survivors received either Xuezhikang (XZK, a red yeast rice extract) or placebo in a double-blinded randomized clinical trial -- neither the patient nor the doctors knew which substance individual patients received. After an average of 4.5 years, patients receiving XZK had a 45% relative reduction in heart attacks and in death.
http://heartdisease...._yeast_rice.htm
From my understanding, the Chinese have used Red Yeast rice in their food for at least hundreds of years ( http://www.mayoclini...atient-redyeast ).
...
By the time Baycol was banned, there were 1,899 cases of rhabdomyolysis, a significant number having occurred between the time there was unequivocal evidence that FDA should have banned the drug and when it was actually banned a year later.
http://www.weitzlux....olfda_3729.html
If memory serves me correctly, some people died from this drug ( http://www.a-baycol-...html/links.html ).
The court basically ruled that, because the substance in Red Yeast Rice occurs naturally in red yeast rice, the FDA can't regulate red yeast rice just because it contains that substance.
Who's side is the FDA on. It seems like they are siding with the pharmaceutical companies on this one. I googled red yeast rice and the FDA and this came up,
Products found to contain unauthorized drug
...
“This risk is even more serious because consumers may not know the side effects associated with lovastatin and the fact that it can adversely interact with other medications," said Steven Galson, M.D., M.P.H., director of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
http://www.fda.gov/b...7/NEW01678.html
Basically, the FDA is warning people to avoid Red Yeast rice because it can be harmful despite the fact that there are few, if any, studies indicating this. One possibility is that they will try to control the usage of Red Yeast rice even more and they may even try to eliminate the distribution of any information supporting its usage (ie: studies). Sometime in the future, you might find that Google will stop presenting any studies supporting the usage of Red Yeast Rice (and may present a bunch of FDA or other websites discouraging its usage instead. A good example is in the case of science and origins. If you try to google something like, "criticisms of evolution" Google tends to favor websites that support evolution and the ones criticizing it don't seem to be nearly the strongest critical material out there. If I google "criticisms of evolution" I should receive many websites criticizing, or attempting to criticize, evolution near the top. I have to specifically google something like 'Answers in genesis' to get their website) and the FDA, and/or other organizations, may even fabricate studies indicating that Red Yeast rice is more harmful than it really is (and is less helpful than it really is). What does everyone think?
Look at radio stations and television. It used to be much less controlled by single entities with a single agenda/ point of view and it used to be much more controlled by many many entities with various points of views criticizing each other on all sorts of subjects. Then, the FCC greatly reduced the amount of regulation which made more stringent control reducing the freedom of speech taking place over the airwaves much easier to attain ( http://www.museum.tv...eregulation.htm ). In the 1970,'s no one would have thought that single entities would have so much control over our freedom of speech over the airwaves. Yet, now we see that they are increasingly having more and more control over our freedom of speech over the airwaves and censoring anything that they disagree with (for example, you will probably never hear about this red yeast rice issue over the airwaves, and there is an array of other issues that you should be aware of that hardly ever make it on public television). Could it be that, sometime in the future, they may have similar controls over our freedom of speech over the internet? What does everyone think? I strongly encourage other entities to make their own search engines to help counter this problem and hopefully they will fight any lawsuits against them for displaying websites that question what is commonly promoted by the secular community (ie: sites encouraging the legalization (and usage) of Red Yeast rice for those who could benefit from it (and sites displaying studies showing the benefits of Red Yeast Rice and cites questioning the legitimacy of the FDA)). We also need to make sure that our society is set up such that those that fight for our freedom of speech (ie: fight lawsuits that may challenge it. This is especially true in the case of science and origins where public schools censor anything that may question naturalism and naturalistic philosophies like evolution) will win (we need to make sure those making the decisions (ie: judges) will vote in a way that encourages academic freedom, open inquiry, and freedom of speech).

Sign In
Register
Help

MultiQuote




