Kenn,

I am drawing it from memory because it so enraged me when I read it several
years back. I assume you are referring to the article I railed about in
JAMA. I drew it from the public libraries periodical section several years
ago while I was hanging out in the library and just happened to run across
it. My time is somewhat limited so I can not make any promises, but if I
get time I will try to go to the library and look it up in one of the
indexes like "The Readers Guide to Periodical Literature", (but I doubt
that particular index actually indexes JAMA) pull it, copy it then I guess I
would have to scan and treat it as an attachment as I do not have any OCR
(optical character recognition) software loaded at the present tome to
convert it to text format for easy posting directly to the group.

Something very interesting though. I thought I might be able to find a copy
online so I went to Google and entered "JAMA supplements" and came up with a
large number of positive articles that were sighted from JAMA on their
authors endorsement of supplements. I must say, I have ignored them since I
read that article and my bias/narrow mindedness may be showing. If they are
presenting both sides of the argument I guess my ranting should be directed
against the authors of that particular article, not the publication.

Now I have even more incentive to go back and pull the particular article as
I have no idea in the world who the authors were or what they may represent,
thus which axe they were grinding. Likely the article was written by a
special interest such as a pharmaceutical company representative. It was
wrong of me to ascribe that point of view to JAMA it's self as a quick
perusal of the references I got back from my search seems to indicate. I
also have no idea what the response to that article was from the readership
of the magazine or what subsequent articles followed which may have balanced
things out in the form of rebuttals.

I am very grateful for the question, as it certainly pointed out a limit in
my research and point of view on JAMA. However that still does not detract
from the point of what congress is up to. In fact the positive stand that
many of the articles in JAMA seem to indicate by many researchers are given
to as exemplified by that quick search, makes congresses current proposal
even more egregious as it appears to fly in the face of even some of the
medical communities view. Thank you very much for getting me to take a
second look. Please do write congress to stop this legislation however,
because as I said the bill is still bad and would almost certainly deny us
many useful materials.

Mark


> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 04:27:34 -0500
> From: "Kenn Geiger" <kennhyp@...>
> Subject: Re: PLEASE READ THIS ... IMPORTANT .... New threat to american
freedom and health ...bbbbb
>
> Hi Mark,
> can we get a copy of that article?
> C Ya,
> Kenn
>
> Criminals Prefer
> Unarmed Victims
> Politicians Prefer
> Unarmed Peasants
> Do you see a connection?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark Jones
> To: DrClark-testimonials@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 2:52 AM
> Subject: [DrClark-testimonials] PLEASE READ THIS ... IMPORTANT .... New
threat to american freedom and health ...bbbbb
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Take a look at these pages. The Government is taking aim at the
supplement
> industry again and this time the seem to mean business. If they succeed
we
> will lose the natural materials and how much further can the other
goodies
> we are using to sustain ourselves with be behind them? Please write
> congress and oppose the new bill. I have written my representatives. I
am
> looking for other groups where I can post this message. Please repeat
this
> warning and urge anyone or group you know of that use supplements to
> petition congress to preserve our ability to economically access these
gifts
> from God. Don't let them slip this one by under the radar, as they are
> currently attempting to do.
>
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/schroder5.html
>
http://www.puritan.com/house/actionalert.asp?xs=4751FC7310674E0B860F1F730E9AC575\
&sc=0&edid=
> http://capwiz.com/nnfa/issues/alert/?alertid=4089036
>
> If you live in New York might I suggest that you please write Ms.
clinton
> some hate mail (election wise) in the hopes she will feel the threat to
her
> re-election prospects if she proceeds as one of the prime movers of this
> bill which she is at the present time. Everyone, PLEASE let your
> representatives know that we will hold them accountable if they support
such
> sneaky activity.
>
> Be aware that the AMA and drug industry are powerful lobbies and this is
in
> their interest so we must act now to protect our access. There was an
issue
> of JAMA entirely dedicated to supplements 3-5 years ago where they
lamented
> that supplements were the number two form of self paid, elective
medicine in
> America. They even admitted in that article that many of the natural,
(and
> therefore, UN-PATENT-ABLE) materials WORK BETTER OR AS WELL AS AND ARE
SAFER
> THAN PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. They seemed to perceive that as an even
greater
> threat with several suggestions on how to suppress vitamins and herbal
> materials in the public sector. They proposed to lobby congress to do
> exactly this type of move in that article to deny us access to them and
> drive that business to the traditional medical community and
prescription
> drugs. Please don't let them get away with it.
>
> Thank you for your time and PLEASE HELP!
>
> Mark (grgeek)
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>