1
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) Clearinghouse
National Institutes of Health, DHHS, P.O. Box 7923 Silver Spring, MD 20907 - 7923 email: [email protected];
http://nccam.nih.gov
(^2) Second Edition Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia (2008).
(^3) Copyright W. W. Norton & Company, New York (2009).
(^4) Copyright Rodale, Inc., Emmaus, PA (2004).
(^5) Copyright W.W. Norton & Company, New York (2009).
(^6) Copyright Shambhala, Boston (2012)
(^7) Psychiatric Clinics of North America, copyright Elsevier, Inc., Philadelphia ( 2013 ).
(^8) Psychosomatic Medicine 61:712-728 (1999).
(^9) Lake, J.A. and Spiegel, D., Complementary and Alternative Treatments in Mental Health Care, American
Psychiatric Publishing, Inc., Washington (2007)
(^10) Natural Standard Herb and Supplement Guide: An Evidence-based Reference, Ulbricht, Catherine, Ed. and
founder, copyright Mosby, Inc., an affiliate of Elsevier, Inc., Maryland Heights, MO (2010).
(^11) http://www.berkeleywellnessalerts.com/catalogs/supplements.html
(^12) Copyright Consumers Union, Yonkers, New York (2010).
(^13) Copyright 2010.
(^14) Journal of Affective Disorders 130(3):343-57 (2011).
(^15) Little, Brown and Company, New York (2011).
(^16) The Penguin Press, New York (2008)
(^17) Academic Press, San Diego (2002)
(^18) Id.
(^19) http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam/overview.htm
(^20) Mischoulon and Rosenbaum, op. cit. at 108.
(^21) Psychosomatic Medicine 61:712-728 (1999).
(^22)
http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/LabelClaims/QualifiedHealthClaims/QualifiedHealthClaimsPetitions/u
cm096010.htm
(^23) Pub. L. 101- 553
(^24) See Pearson v. Shalala, 164 F.3d. 650 (D.C. Cir. 1999). In that case, the plaintiffs challenged FDA's decision not to
authorize health claims for four specific substance-disease relationships in the labeling of dietary supplements.
Although the district court ruled for FDA (14 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 1998), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit reversed the lower court's decision (164 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir.1999)). The appeals court held that the First