FDA Ignores Religious Fundamentalists' Objections

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's no big surprise that it does little seeing as an ever growing number of emminent scientists seem to agree that HIV doesn't even cause AIDS at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tinfoil hat alert.

[ QUOTE ]
there is good reason to believe that it's actually drugs like AZT that cause AIDS

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure there is. What exactly was killing all those gay people, IV drug users, and blood recipients before anybody was even prescibing AZT? What's killing all those people in Africa that aren't getting any drugs? If HIV isn't the cause of AIDS, what is?

[/ QUOTE ]

ahhh yes, wonderful reminders on why I have matrix on igonore.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
As long as you consider that society has an interest in transactions, the level of the society at which that transaction should take place merits much and reasonable discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that includes ALL transactions. Virtually every transaction has some interest to someone not directly involved. There are plenty of transactions that affect me all the time (I am certainly affected by the rises in the price of gasoline). WE live in a society, so this is unavoidable.

However, I only own myself, not anyone else. It doesn't matter that I don't like expensive gasoline, or anything else. I have no right to tell other people how to conudct their mutually beneficial exchanges, no matter how great/wise/beneficial I think my ideas are.

[ QUOTE ]
However, in the three way (at least) transaction between me, my chemist and a pharma company, it would makes sense that the transaction draw the interest of the Feds rather than individual villages. So, when I am in an accident, and am not the one deciding which hospital to go to, which brand of pain killer to use, I can have some knowledge that some, societally agreed to, group has vetted the pain killer so that is works and is reasonable safe - rather than have a drug chosen by the Hospital,Pharma cabal perhaps for financial reasons be the choice. I like the fact that there is some level of regulation of the Hospitals for safety, of the doctors for credentials, the drugs for being reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beleive it or not, I share your concenr about these type of situations. But I do not think that they require a centralized, coercive authority to handle--not only are such agencies inherently unjust, but they generally are inefficient, corrupt, and cause a host of unintended consequences in society.

However, by eliminating either the FDA's coerciveness or its centralization, it would go a long way towards making for a better sitaution. With decentralized power, towns could have rules for drug companies that extend only to the people directly affected--its citizens. Such laws are then better checked by the fact that people have more control over them, and the fact that it is easier for them to leave if they don't like the laws.

As I stated earlier in this thread, we have already had some experience with a centralized agency without coercive powers in the arena of drugs--the AMA played this role before the FDA got big. While I dislike the AMA for many reasons, they did a much better job of informing people about the safety (AND usefulness, something the FDA doesn't do) of drugs, and of keeping drug companies competitive (though much of the problem here, I think, is tracebale to patents).

[ACPlayer]

Of course we live in a society as you say. And of course all transactions impact society and are not just between two (or more) entities.

I have no issues with a coercive organization (until a better system is proposed -- and sorry just saying that organizations will crop up is not enough -- that is obviously independent of the producers financial interests) that society has agreed to. The FDA is just such an organization.

You may not have the right to tell others what they should do. However, I want, at the end of the hospital ride, to know that the procedures, medications, hygiene standards etc meet some basic minimum standards, and excuse me, I dont have the time to check out this hospital in the midst of an MI. And yes, the standards should have some teeth and coercion behind them, and yes in the case of the FDA (or like organization) a federal entitiy is likely the most efficient.

So ... the reason why you are better off having an MI in New York City than in Sai Gon is because the FDA has set out minimum standards and has enforced them and not just put on a song and dance. In Sai Gon you may not get a clean needle.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Stevia (derived from a plant)

[/ QUOTE ]

Strychnine, nicotine and cocaine are also derived from plants. Does that make them safe?

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no issues with a coercive organization (until a better system is proposed -- and sorry just saying that organizations will crop up is not enough -- that is obviously independent of the producers financial interests) that society has agreed to. The FDA is just such an organization.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing about government "guarantees" that such organizations will crop up, either. Of course, with government, there's a decent chance you'll get an organization--but as one would expect, it is a coercive bureacratic one that bends to the will of powerful, vocal groups that may not have our best interests in mind.

Such organizations may arise on free markets as well, but when there is competition this isn't much of a worry. "Producer's financial interests", as you say, are a check (not now, perhaps, but in a free market). Consumer groups are yet another check.

So I don't really understand, if the market will most likely provide such checks, where the problem arises. If *you* aren't satisfied with this, what would give *you* the right to impose a coercive organization on others who do not want such paternalistic control? (I am not asking this in a snide way, I really want to know.)

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Umm. Its been proven that there were no shortages. Enron shut down power to create false shortages. There are tapes of the traders asking the powerplants to find reasons to shut down their plants. The traders admitted that they did it. And it was the deregulation of the energy market, at their request, that allowed them to game the market.

Nice try.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://people.howstuffworks.com/california-power1.htm

(this article appears to have been written during the crisis.)

[ QUOTE ]
Regulated consumer prices - Because of the high demand, unregulated wholesale energy prices have risen dramatically in the last year. But the rates charged to customers are still under a freeze. So the utilities buy energy at a deregulated rate from the wholesale suppliers, but have to charge customers a much lower regulated rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

(their emphasis.)

[ QUOTE ]
Outside companies cut supply - California relies on many out-of-state companies to provide them with electricity. California imports 25 percent of its electricity to meet daily demand, according to the California Energy Commission. Recently, these companies have become reluctant to sell power to the state's utilities because of concerns over the utilities' ability to pay for that power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't they pay? Because the capped retail price is lower than the market price, of course.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are challenged to show where exactly and in what have I been dishonest in the ongoing argument - or in that specific quote.

[/ QUOTE ]Easy. [Pvn] is NOT, as you so dishonestly claimed, arguing that everyone own a mile of road.

[/ QUOTE ] I'll be gentle with you.

Read the pvn posts again. He never claimed (and I did not claim he did either) that "everyone owns a mile of road"! Not in the sense that everyone should own a lime of road.

[...]

In so many words, pvn states that one-mile stretches of road, each built by a different person and possibly also owned by a different person are NOT efficient !

I believe that you owe yourself a more careful re-reading of pvn's posts - and to me an apology.

--Cyrus

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would he owe you an apology? What has all of this actually shown? That I didn't claim every mile of road would have a different owner, even though you implied that would be a result of the positions I advocate, and that it's less efficient to own roads in one-mile chunks than it is to own them in larger chunks. Is this some sort of smoking gun?

[yukoncpa]

Rolling blackouts in California were occurring in the month of December, a month when California produces more than enough energy for it’s own domestic use. Wholesale prices went up because Enron was diverting power out of the state, waiting for the price to go up, then selling power back to the state. Later, Enron traders simply, as Kurto explained, orchestrated power outages by calling their buddies at the power companies and telling them to shut down production, not just at one power company, but at numerous companies at the same time.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no issues with a coercive organization (until a better system is proposed -- and sorry just saying that organizations will crop up is not enough -- that is obviously independent of the producers financial interests) that society has agreed to. The FDA is just such an organization.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing about government "guarantees" that such organizations will crop up, either. Of course, with government, there's a decent chance you'll get an organization--but as one would expect, it is a coercive bureacratic one that bends to the will of powerful, vocal groups that may not have our best interests in mind.

Such organizations may arise on free markets as well, but when there is competition this isn't much of a worry. "Producer's financial interests", as you say, are a check (not now, perhaps, but in a free market). Consumer groups are yet another check.

So I don't really understand, if the market will most likely provide such checks, where the problem arises. If *you* aren't satisfied with this, what would give *you* the right to impose a coercive organization on others who do not want such paternalistic control? (I am not asking this in a snide way, I really want to know.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Producers' financial intersts, may or may not, in the long run weed out the honest from the dishonest. However, in the immediate need I as the consumer cannot and should not have to rely solely on the producers' financial interests.

Producers' produce thalidomide, run inadequate checks (specially in the short run).

Independent organizations without teeth are not good enough. Firstly, it is hard to know which ones are independent and which are backed by industry players or groups. Secondly, they dont have a mandate. And lastly, their economic clout is likely to be significantly less than that of the producers who will try to drown out their messages.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
If *you* aren't satisfied with this, what would give *you* the right to impose a coercive organization on others who do not want such paternalistic control? (I am not asking this in a snide way, I really want to know.)

[/ QUOTE ]

THis is the inane argument trotted out by some. If you think about it carefully you should realize that I never claim to have the right to impose this organization. As a matter of fact, I, dont impose this organization. We collectively have "imposed" this organization on our selves.

I only have the right to argue for the existence of such an organization, the right to vote for those who believe as I do.

So, no I am not doing any imposing.