1. Are there arguments for regulating speech about drugs more comprehensively than, for example, about dietary supplements? What must an administrative record contain to sustain such a position? In particular, could FDA sustain a position that certain promotional speech about drugs is inherently misleading, unless it complies with FDA requirements? Does anything turn on whether the speech is made to learned intermediaries or to consumers? What is the evidentiary basis of such a distinction?
I DINO KARAMITSOS, U.S. CITIZEN OF ILLINOIS VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN A PERSON'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE ANY AND ALL SUPPLEMENTATION AS WARRANTED BY AN INDIVIDUALS NEEDS. MANY STUDIES DO SHOW POSITIVE RESULTS DUE TO THESES SUPPLEMENTS WHICH BY THE WAY, WE HAVE TO TAKE DUE TO OUR GOVERNMENTS NEGLIGENCE ON OUR ENVIORNMENTAL POLICIES ON AIR, FOOD, INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION, WASTE, NUCLEAR WASTE, PCB'S, AND BLATANT AND WITH NO REGARD TO CITIZENS, SUCH AS THE ROCKY FLATS ARMY BASE POLLUTING OF DENVER METRO WATER SUPPLY DUE TO STORAGE OF LEAKING CONTAINERS THE ARMY JUST LEFT THERE AND ON AND ON AND ON.....WE'RE NOT STUPID OUT HERE LADIES AND GENTS. GET YOU'RE ACTS TOGETHER ON THE ENVIORNMENT AND FORGET ABOUT THE LITTLE GUYS WANTING A HAPPIER HEALTHIER LIFESTYLE EVEN IF WE HAVE TO LIVE BEHIND THE 8BALL. I VOTE FOR NO CHANGES TO THE DIETARY SUPPLEMENT ACT. THANK YOU. SINCERELY, DINO KARAMITSOS CHICAGO,ILL..