When is the FDA going to mind their own business?

[AFMatt]

The problem with these supplements is the lack of any type of approval requirement in the first place. Sure, it does seem like a knee jerk reaction to recall or ban a supplement because of one death and a handful of reported liver problems. The unknown, however, is how many people taking it have liver problems and aren't aware of it? How many people are slowly developing liver problems?

For all we know, there could be thousands of people out there with brown urine, fatigue, and maybe even unoticeable jaundice that say nothing. Just like the red stool effect from taking Hydroxycut Hardcore (caused by the dye in the liquid), they may think those are normal, harmless reactions to the drug.

Yes, I know there are tons of FDA-approved drugs that have bad side effects. The difference is those side effects are known, and clearly documented on the included papers. If it is prescribed by a doctor, he will usually tell you up front what signs will alert you to stop taking it. These unregulated supplements usually have very little, if any, documentation of known side effects. For Hydroxycut I dont recall them listing any side effects other than the usual restlessness, loss of appetite, dizziness, headaches, increase in blood pressure, etc type of side effects you see on most weight loss pills.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Thats what regulation gets you. If one or two people out of millions die, there is suddenly a crisis and millions of dollars needs to be spent to fix it.

regulation is not the problem, misguided overly conservative regulation is.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Thats what regulation gets you. If one or two people out of millions die, there is suddenly a crisis and millions of dollars needs to be spent to fix it.

The solution is of course complete deregulation, that way a company can release anything they want. If someone dies, oh well, the Free Market has it ruled it so.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Are you your brother's keeper?

Are you implying that one can only be so through government?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Hacp
Thats what regulation gets you. If one or two people out of millions die, there is suddenly a crisis and millions of dollars needs to be spent to fix it.

The solution is of course complete deregulation, that way a company can release anything they want. If someone dies, oh well, the Free Market has it ruled it so.

You mean, if someone dies, then the company faces lawsuits, and the company faces degradation of their reputation, and decreased sales, and decreased profits, or more likely increasing losses. Does it still suck? Sure, but then again, it isn't like people don't die now from FDA-approved drugs, or become addicted to them, or need more drugs to fix the side effects of the ones they take.

But regardless, your suggestion that there are no rules without government regulation is absurd. And it is often through regulations that companies can escape those rules.

 

[Modelworks]

Another problem with the FDA is that it can take millions of dollars to pass their testing. That keeps cheaper drugs out of the hands of people. If a drug company does not think the market for a drug will make them profits enough to justify all the testing cost, that drug does not get created or released. So if you happen to have an illness that doesn't effect a large population, good luck getting a cure.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: OCguy
When is Obama going to put pressure on them to do so?

I see no problem. Why bring Obama into this...unless its just another of your useless posts...

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Isn't this what you liberals live for? Governmental control of the stupid masses?

I don't see it this way. I believe the average person has a difficult life to live in the competitive society we have created and that as a result, they have little time or energy left over to educate themselves on the huge number of issues out there that can affect them. I think, therefore, it is good that people with more time and knowledge, and positions or responsibility in the government can look our for them to some degree to protect them from others, who, in there competitive drive, may find opportunities to take advantage of the normal desires of the unsuspecting. Food supplements offer the answers to every major health concern people can imagine or want, but they are all pretty much scams. As you would protect your children from cunning predators, I would protect my fellow citizen, if I can. That is one reason I vote for liberals.

It is one thing to have the government advise us of what we should do, it is an entirely different thing when they order us what to do.

If I want to take a drug I should have the right to sign a paper saying.

"I realize the potential dangers of this drug and understand any illness resulting from it is my choice."

I'm guessing many people don't even know how the FDA was put in control. Look up fda massengill sulfur in google. It was to protect consumers from stupidity not to become a doctor prescribing advice itself.

Both of these are excellent points.

Moonbeam, I understand what you're saying, not everyone can be an expert in everything. Having people who dedicate their livelihood to warning others about possible dangers should be lauded.

But ModelWorks also makes a good point that we're all adults and should be able to do as we choose.

If the government wants to recommend not to take an unproven drug, or not to sign my name at the bottom of a loan I can't afford, good. Those are good things.

But when government is in the business of actually telling people they're NOT ALLOWED to do those things, it infantilizes people and does nobody any good. We should have a society of knowledgeable adults who understand how to minimize risk, not a society of children who need mommy government to wipe their noses for them.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Are you your brother's keeper?

No.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Are you your brother's keeper?

Are you implying that one can only be so through government?

Are you looking for a pretext to not answer the question? Notice that Bober had no trouble doing so. He didn't have to invent some possible implication for which there was no evidence to assume such, anywhere.

 

[Moonbeam]

With freedom comes responsibility.

If you cannot act responsibly you will have your freedom taken from you.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
With freedom comes responsibility.

If you cannot act responsibly you will have your freedom taken from you.

Which means you never believed in freedom to begin with.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Are you your brother's keeper?

Are you implying that one can only be so through government?

Are you looking for a pretext to not answer the question? Notice that Bober had no trouble doing so. He didn't have to invent some possible implication for which there was no evidence to assume such, anywhere.

Well, you asked a yes/no question that doesn't have a yes/no answer. Thus, my question for you.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
With freedom comes responsibility.

If you cannot act responsibly you will have your freedom taken from you.

Well, that's what you are taking away, freedom, which is the cost of not having the ensuing responsibility.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
With freedom comes responsibility.

If you cannot act responsibly you will have your freedom taken from you.

Which means you never believed in freedom to begin with.

Which means, I suppose, applying your lack of critical thinking, that you think you're free to kill other people, yes? Try to be real.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
With freedom comes responsibility.

If you cannot act responsibly you will have your freedom taken from you.

Which means you never believed in freedom to begin with.

Which means, I suppose, applying your lack of critical thinking, that you think you're free to kill other people, yes? Try to be real.

Are you seriously confusing free-will and freedom?

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: OCguy
When is Obama going to put pressure on them to do so?

It was just a matter of time before someone found a way to blame this on Obama.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
With freedom comes responsibility.

If you cannot act responsibly you will have your freedom taken from you.

Which means you never believed in freedom to begin with.

Which means, I suppose, applying your lack of critical thinking, that you think you're free to kill other people, yes? Try to be real.

Are you seriously confusing free-will and freedom?

Don't ask me questions when you won't answer any.

Or should I say, "Are you seriously suggesting anything I said implied I was confusing free will with freedom?"

 

[microbial]

The FDA is not immune from the phenomena of political policy and lobbying trumping science. Not the least in the last 8 years.

Having said that--would anyone really argue to allow the drug industry and the food industry to self-regulate themselves?

Not me.

Seems to me, a more sensible alternative would be to populate the agency with more professional scientists and less administrivial hacks, and insulate the agency from political pressure. Same goes for a number of other agencies.

Private industry might not be too thrilled with that kind of change.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: microbial
The FDA is not immune from the phenomena of political policy and lobbying trumping science. Not the least in the last 8 years.

Having said that--would anyone really argue to allow the drug industry and the food industry to self-regulate themselves?

Not me.

Seems to me, a more sensible alternative would be to populate the agency with more professional scientists and less administrivial hacks, and insulate the agency from political pressure. Same goes for a number of other agencies.

Private industry might not be too thrilled with that kind of change.

I think that the FDA should provide information to people so they can make an informed decision. An example would be how some supplements are sold now. Mandate the way the bottles can be labeled. Now they put all the FDA related text in small prints on the back of the box.

They are removing the hydroxycut product because a very small population had problems with it. What about the people who used it and had success with it ? Should they be deprived of the drug because others can't take it ?

How I would change things:
I need a drug for an allergy. I go to the store and on the shelf there are two different bottles. On one it says in bold letters "FDA APPROVED" , on the other it says "NOT FDA APPROVED", the majority of people are going to side with the FDA product but those that wish to make their own decision would have the right to choose otherwise.

Make the FDA a certification for drugs not the people that have the final decision over what people can take.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Are you your brother's keeper?

Yes, from yourself. Not from himself without his consent.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Hacp
Thats what regulation gets you.

Originally posted by: Corn
Isn't this what you liberals live for? Governmental control of the stupid masses?

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
ya, just because there were some retards we should ban guns too!

Disagreeing with an FDA decision doesn't mean I'm going to sell the condo, buy a farm in Crawford and have lunch with Karl Rove.

It just means I disagree with their decision.

I personally believe they made this decision because the shit doesn't really work for its intended uses anyway.

Sucking waterweight doesn't really make you healthier, so it's not even a tradeoff if it's doing liver damage.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: microbial
The FDA is not immune from the phenomena of political policy and lobbying trumping science. Not the least in the last 8 years.

Having said that--would anyone really argue to allow the drug industry and the food industry to self-regulate themselves?

Not me.

Seems to me, a more sensible alternative would be to populate the agency with more professional scientists and less administrivial hacks, and insulate the agency from political pressure. Same goes for a number of other agencies.

Private industry might not be too thrilled with that kind of change.

The explosion in food recalls in the last few years has been from deregulation of food.

Self-Regulation when there are business interests in cutting corners is always a bad idea. Someone will fuck it up.

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: microbial
The FDA is not immune from the phenomena of political policy and lobbying trumping science. Not the least in the last 8 years.

Having said that--would anyone really argue to allow the drug industry and the food industry to self-regulate themselves?

Not me.

Seems to me, a more sensible alternative would be to populate the agency with more professional scientists and less administrivial hacks, and insulate the agency from political pressure. Same goes for a number of other agencies.

Private industry might not be too thrilled with that kind of change.

I think that the FDA should provide information to people so they can make an informed decision. An example would be how some supplements are sold now. Mandate the way the bottles can be labeled. Now they put all the FDA related text in small prints on the back of the box.

They are removing the hydroxycut product because a very small population had problems with it. What about the people who used it and had success with it ? Should they be deprived of the drug because others can't take it ?

How I would change things:
I need a drug for an allergy. I go to the store and on the shelf there are two different bottles. On one it says in bold letters "FDA APPROVED" , on the other it says "NOT FDA APPROVED", the majority of people are going to side with the FDA product but those that wish to make their own decision would have the right to choose otherwise.

Make the FDA a certification for drugs not the people that have the final decision over what people can take.

The FDA isnt removing Hydroxycut from the market. They only released an advisory for people suggesting they stop using it, because of those liver problems and the death. In response, Lovate Health Science voluntarily recalled their Hydroxycut products from the market.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Are you your brother's keeper?

Yes, from yourself. Not from himself without his consent.

So if I can pull him down from the bridge he wants to jump from, I should not?

Is truth just all subjective or can one person know and understand far far more than some other and what actions if any, may real knowledge oblige?

What is the force that drives a person who has no self?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Are you your brother's keeper?

Yes, from yourself. Not from himself without his consent.

So if I can pull him down from the bridge he wants to jump from, I should not?

Is truth just all subjective or can one person know and understand far far more than some other and what actions if any, may real knowledge oblige?

What is the force that drives a person who has no self?

When Moonie is out of answers, he turns to psychobabble bullshit.