Monday, December 23, 2013

The NY Times Wants to Regulate Supplements

Scare! Fraud! Supplements are a giant danger that will damage your body or even kill you. We better start regulating them. Reporting really is easier to digest when you know it is full on propaganda with an obvious political tie in for their side. The tip off that it is propaganda? They say Wild West in both articles. The NY Times really wants readers, SWPL liberals who never shop at GNC but may buy natural, herbal supplements, to be against the Wild West supplement industry. Why now? Well Sen. Durbin introduced legislation in August to get supplement makers under the FDA. The left wants more regulatory power, and the politicians will find a way to control it while the NY Times tells you 750 words on why you should support it.

Supplements are a $32 billion industry with little oversight as supplements are neither food nor drugs, so the FDA can only step in when problems have been discovered. Supplements are actually proof that a market and the Internet forum community can direct suppliers. has probably done more to boost or destroy supplements. Not from product reviews but from the forums full of regular people reporting on what works or does not work. Regulating supplements is a power grab as the left wants the civil service to have power to regulate makers, create barriers to entry for smaller producers, and create a protection racket scheme new source of political donations and lobbyist jobs.

There is pushback for the obvious low incidence of problems. How few cases of severe liver damage due to supplements have there been? Anahad O'Connor in his NY Times article buries it deep down there, but between 2010 and 2012, there were 60 such cases. This is a nation of 317 million people with roughly half using supplements per O'Connor. As the link in the first sentence in this paragraph states, there are few cases of adverse effects, and adverse effects from pharmaceuticals are immense in comparison and the true villain. The difference is Merck and Eli Lilly advertise with NY Times media properties while Gaspari Nutrition does not. O'Connor's article has no analysis of who or what should be regulated, so some of the SWPLs who shot at the natural supplement store might be reluctant to follow his lead.

Maybe O'Connor is biased because he does not lift. Nope, it says he is a fitness enthusiast. O'Connor is just a true believer liberal. He has a blog at the NY Times pumping progressive boilerplate stories like "the healthy obese", how the female NASCAR pit crew member stays fit, graphic ads shaming horrible losers smokers into quitting, beers linked to emergency room visits in Baltimore, how the black female lead in Pippin stays in shape, the danger and harm of siblings being bullies, blogging on a TedTalk on blaming fatties vs. other patients. One could look at those blogs and see the flip side of a reporter spotlighting chicks who lift, progressive approved memes (fit fat, bullying is bad, smoking = evil), and avoiding the fact that Baltimore's emergency room visits are overwhelmingly black which explains the malt liquor frequency. The cathedral is developing him quite well: Yale to the NY Times to organizations full of reporters who engage in discourse with French young leaders for future policy. I cannot consider someone a future leader of America who feels marijuana is a greater danger to America's youth than cocaine, alcohol or heroin.

O'Connor is a good propaganda writer, and I am not the first to mock him. An anti-aging, testosterone treatment provider fisked an article by O'Connor on testosterone prescriptions rising for it's slanted view. As that writer said, what is the cause for alarm due to men using medication to correct a problem due to aging? The problem is that straight men are trying to feel young, so this is a no-no in the eye of the NY Times. If it were women trying to get buff to work in NASCAR pit crews or physically demanding roles in Fosse musicals, the NY Times would sing its praises. The left wants to regulate supplements and hook its claws into a new industry. The NY Times wants to make sure political power is expanded for its friends. As legislation sets up the us vs. them mentality with supplement regulation, O'Connor and the NY Times have done their part to educate readers on the proper, approved stance.

1 comment:

peterike said...

Good connecting of dots. Yale, NY Times, Progressives, political donations, lobbyists.

Huh. It's almost like there's a, you know, a conspiracy or something.

"and adverse effects from pharmaceuticals are immense in comparison and the true villain"

Villain? What, drugging little boys to become neutered eunuchs is a BAD thing? The NY Times would disagree.