FDA Ignores Religious Fundamentalists' Objections - Page 2

natedogg · #11 06-09-2006, 11:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't mean the FDA is bad. It means it needs some fixing. I have no objections with having a shake-up to improve its efficiency. Also: I think the FDA should shorten its testing when thorough testing has already taken place in other countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could live with the FDA if they had no coercive authority, merely advisory.

natedogg

hmkpoker · #12 06-09-2006, 01:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The FDA is a pretty worthless organization, but the approval of the vaccine does not force everyone to use it, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but the disapproval of the drug (which is the FDA's job) means that no one can use it.

The fact that someone considers it a victory when the FDA does something as basic as ignoring the pleas of complete idiots to not market a product that saves lives is a pretty strong indicator that it needs to go. The market has ignored their pleas for god knows how long, and we have tons of porn, hookers and sex toys to show for it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Cyrus · #13 06-10-2006, 03:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't mean the FDA is bad. It means it needs some fixing. I have no objections with having a shake-up to improve its efficiency.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could live with the FDA if they had no coercive authority, merely advisory.

[/ QUOTE ]The FDA does not coerce you into taking any drug.

That's the job of the good doctor looking after you. He is the one who pockets the pharmaceutical's commission, not the FDA. The FDA merely forbids a pharmaceutical from pushing on you (through its salesmen - read: doctors) drugs that were experimentally, scientifically shown to cause more harm than good.

You're saying the toxicity of a drug is best decided by the Invisible Hand of the Free Market? My bad. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Cyrus · #14 06-10-2006, 03:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Is this supposed to be an argument in favor of the FDA?

[/ QUOTE ] It's supposed to be a condemnation of religious fanaticism. (The usefulness of agencies such as the FDA is a given.)

[ QUOTE ]
How about this: Joe Schmoe of the Anytown, USA police department could have shot John Q Citizen in the head yesterday, but he didn't. Ergo, police are a good thing to have coercively funded.

[/ QUOTE ]How quaint.

And irrelevant.

Can you see why?

natedogg · #15 06-10-2006, 03:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't mean the FDA is bad. It means it needs some fixing. I have no objections with having a shake-up to improve its efficiency.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could live with the FDA if they had no coercive authority, merely advisory.

[/ QUOTE ]The FDA does not coerce you into taking any drug.

That's the job of the good doctor looking after you. He is the one who pockets the pharmaceutical's commission, not the FDA. The FDA merely forbids a pharmaceutical from pushing on you (through its salesmen - read: doctors) drugs that were experimentally, scientifically shown to cause more harm than good.

You're saying the toxicity of a drug is best decided by the Invisible Hand of the Free Market? My bad. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It is just sad to see such ignorance.

What if the the FDA *had* banned this drug in response to pressure from the fundies? Do you still like their coercive role now?

Good grief I can't believe you actually responded with "the FDA doesn't coerce you to take the drugs". I know you're not that much of a simpleton so i'll chalk it up to laziness tonight.

natedogg

hint: who defines "more harm than good"?

hint #2: the risks of the drug (which is what i assume you mean by "toxicity" are not decided by the market OR the FDA. The risks are simply a function of the numbers. you should know that. the FDA doesn't just decide how toxic a drug is. In fact, the FDA wholly relies on the drug produer's OWN TRIAL DATA when approving drugs. Did you know that?

hmkpoker · #16 06-10-2006, 04:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You're saying the toxicity of a drug is best decided by the Invisible Hand of the Free Market? My bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

You tell 'im, Cyrus!

What a joke! Those free market thinkers think that there's some wonderful, magical Invisible Hand, that just magically takes care of everyone's needs and provides food and shelter and health care and entertainment and...wait...

matrix · #17 06-10-2006, 04:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
the FDA wholly relies on the drug produer's OWN TRIAL DATA when approving drugs. Did you know that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Trial data which in at least two cases was fradulent or at least totally incompetent which contribute to the death of thousands of people each year...

I'm not a huge FDA fan.

The FDA actually approved AZT for prescribed long term use in humans for HIV treatment after AZT was originally developed as a chemotherapy drug that kills cells at random. It was rejected as a cancer treatment for being too toxic (???)

Despite evidence of fraudulent trials before it's approval linkit's still prescribed today...

in fact since Welcomes patent expired in 2005 the FDA has approved 4 generic versions despite the fact that AZT does little to help AIDS sufferers.

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. link

You'd have thought that a letter with 2300 signatories (some of them Nobel prize winners) published in appropriate scientific journals might pique the interest of the establishment and get them to relook at HIV AIDS so that if perhaps there is no link between the two then we could stop prescribing patients with poisonous drugs - but no.

For some reason (perhaps the reason that lots of people are still getting plenty rich from HIV research thank you very much) the unproved hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS is still bantered about like it's the gospel truth and many people die from AIDS each year when there is good reason to believe that it's actually drugs like AZT that cause AIDS - that AIDS isn't even a contagious disease at all - and that the retrovirus HIV (like other retroviruses) is completely harmless.

Lets not forget Aspartame either.

Aspartame breaks down into significant quantities of formaldehyde and methanol in liquid form - last time I checked both of those are pretty toxic - but no really it's safe the FDA says so.

Thats just two substances the FDA has royally screwed up over I wonder how many more there are.

hmkpoker · #18 06-10-2006, 05:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
For some reason (perhaps the reason that lots of people are still getting plenty rich from HIV research thank you very much) the unproved hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS is still bantered about like it's the gospel truth and many people die from AIDS each year when there is good reason to believe that it's actually drugs like AZT that cause AIDS - that AIDS isn't even a contagious disease at all - and that the retrovirus HIV (like other retroviruses) is completely harmless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why isn't this [censored] dead yet?

Cyrus · #19 06-10-2006, 05:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What if the the FDA had banned this drug in response to pressure from the fundies? Do you still like their coercive role now?

[/ QUOTE ] Then the FDA would not be up to its task - and the good citizens of the USA should be agitating against the cowardly behavior. The right play would not be to dismantle agencies such as the FDA and allow a free-for-all in what gets sold by the pharmaceutical corporations as drugs. The right play would be to set the FDA straight.

And shield it from attacks by the Christian Right.

[ QUOTE ]
Who defines "more harm than good"?

[/ QUOTE ]The experts appointed by our elected representatives. In this case, the FDA.

Do you suggest that we allow any substance which for-profit corporations (god bless 'em!) put up on the shelves -- and then we allow the free market to sort out the dangerous stuff from the good stuff? Thanks, but no thanks. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

I accept, of course, that people can be corrupt and dishonest whether they're working for the FDA or GlaxoSmithKline. But the stated objectives of the two employers are different and the difference is significant.

[ QUOTE ]
The risks of [a] drug are not decided by ... the FDA. The risks are simply a function of the numbers. You should know that.

[/ QUOTE ]Did I claim the FDA makes judgement calls? That it bases its calls on tarot cards? Or intuition?

Or on anything except "the numbers"?

[ QUOTE ]
The FDA wholly relies on the drug producer's OWN TRIAL DATA when approving drugs. Did you know that?

[/ QUOTE ]Even if it did, so what? The FDA has a valuable and worthy job - and American citizens should see that the agency is both allowed and directed to do the job well.

But the FDA's work actually involves much more than "relying on the drug producers' data", as you over-simplifingly put it. You make it sound as if the FDA is merely looking at a bunch of papers and then stamping them with a grand seal of approval. Here is the FDA's Drug Review Process. Did you know about that?

Cyrus · #20 06-10-2006, 05:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What a joke! Those free market thinkers think that [the free market can] provide food and shelter and health care and entertainment and...wait...

[/ QUOTE ]Damn right wait.

The profit maximization objective is not the right tool to decide what ride is safe for my child, who is qualified to fly an airplane, or which car has priority in an intersection. But the free market is the best tool in providing entertainment, food, houses and clothes - we agree. And lots of other stuff as well.

When you are comparing tools, you have to consider the tools' inherent functionality (objectives) first and foremost. A tool made for cutting the brush can't be used to eat soup. Better use a tool made for eating soup. Otherwise, you'd be eating out of a lopping shear. What a joke that would be.