FDA should butt out and let us take care of ourselves.

[Avatar4321]

I don't see what's dangerous about terminally ill patients being allowed to test out new drugs that might help them if they choose to do so? Whats the worst side effect for someone who is going to die anyway? It might even save money in research in he long run.

I mentioned one reason why it could be bad. Every person who takes a drug during clinical trials has to be recorded. So if someone is a bad candidate for the trials, like being far gone in the disease where positive outcome is doubfult, or they have other problems that may show up during them taking the drug, it all has to be reported. and that will reflect poorly on the safety of the drug even though problems reported while the patient was on the drug had nothiong to do with the drug, it can be associated with it.

I think its in place to prevent fraud in clinical trials in that if there is an adverse event that occured while the drug was being taken, it has to be reported. THis prevents investigators from throwing out data to make favorable results.

But maybee they can pass a rule where people with no other options can take a particualr drug. I know its true in many cases, and they do try to fast track drugs which target a disease where there is no other treatment available.


but then people would complain that the drugs aren't safe if they eased up restrictions in clinical trails and acceptance of a new drug

So what your saying is that if someone who the drug may benefit is a "bad candidate" it could cause problems with the research because the scientists doing the research may now have more information on which to base conclusions.

Am I the only one who realizes that we should have more information and not less information when it comes to testing? Who, exactly, is going to be a good candidate if the people the drug is designed for aren't?

 

[Dr Gregg]

I don't see what's dangerous about terminally ill patients being allowed to test out new drugs that might help them if they choose to do so? Whats the worst side effect for someone who is going to die anyway? It might even save money in research in he long run.

I mentioned one reason why it could be bad. Every person who takes a drug during clinical trials has to be recorded. So if someone is a bad candidate for the trials, like being far gone in the disease where positive outcome is doubfult, or they have other problems that may show up during them taking the drug, it all has to be reported. and that will reflect poorly on the safety of the drug even though problems reported while the patient was on the drug had nothiong to do with the drug, it can be associated with it.

I think its in place to prevent fraud in clinical trials in that if there is an adverse event that occured while the drug was being taken, it has to be reported. THis prevents investigators from throwing out data to make favorable results.

But maybee they can pass a rule where people with no other options can take a particualr drug. I know its true in many cases, and they do try to fast track drugs which target a disease where there is no other treatment available.


but then people would complain that the drugs aren't safe if they eased up restrictions in clinical trails and acceptance of a new drug

So what your saying is that if someone who the drug may benefit is a "bad candidate" it could cause problems with the research because the scientists doing the research may now have more information on which to base conclusions.

Am I the only one who realizes that we should have more information and not less information when it comes to testing? Who, exactly, is going to be a good candidate if the people the drug is designed for aren't?

More people would equal more money in an already extremely expensive process, and even higher drug prices. You can't possibly test every single person, every diet, every genome, every person with preexisting conditions, on differeent medications, since the number are too astronomical. Which is why the continue to monitor with what they call Phase IV trials after its allowed to be introduced to market to keep track with who may be at risk fo unwanted side effects.

Its just the logistics and expense. Like I said, at this stage, everything needs to get reported that occur when the patient is taking a drug, regardless of whether its caused by the drug or not. So lets say you have a patient who has the disease but also has a different disease, or is so far into the disease that treatment likely won't help.Well, if he was in a drug trial, and he had comploications from his other disease, that gets reported in the clinical trials, and can lead to rejections due to safety issues, even if it wasn't the drug specifically that caused it. THe testing paradigms are there for a reason.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Rodishi, yesterdya you were copy and pasting links that claimed thimerisol in vaccines causes autism. I argued that there are sources of mercury like foods, especially high fructose corn syrup, that is present in greater amounts of vaccines. But like the copy and pasting person that cna't make his own arguments and doesn't even know what he copy and pastes other than the title and conclusions somebody else makes, you never addressed that.

ANd then here you are in this thread copy and pasting articles mentioning mercury in foods and High fructose corn syrup, essentially contradicting your position yesterday.

 

[RodISHI]

Rodishi, yesterdya you were copy and pasting links that claimed thimerisol in vaccines causes autism. I argued that there are sources of mercury like foods, especially high fructose corn syrup, that is present in greater amounts of vaccines. But like the copy and pasting person that cna't make his own arguments and doesn't even know what he copy and pastes other than the title and conclusions somebody else makes, you never addressed that.

ANd then here you are in this thread copy and pasting articles mentioning mercury in foods and High fructose corn syrup, essentially contradicting your position yesterday.

I never said food crops, water, teeth fillings, agriculture sources, coal plants and mine sites etc. are also a sources of mercury poisoning. Why don't you do something besides whine and put up some actual studies. Or is it that you would rather just whine claim no one else is correct but you? While others taking the initiative to put the information out there on these sites for people can see what our government agencies are actually allowing to take place you are busy blathering about someone like me looking into these matters and posting that information as it is discovered.

I have no need to address someone that adds nothing to the conversation. There is no contradiction only more information to confirm that all mercury should be eliminated from water, food and drugs where ever possible.

 

[Political Junky]

Stossel is a tool

 

[RodISHI]

I don't see what's dangerous about terminally ill patients being allowed to test out new drugs that might help them if they choose to do so? Whats the worst side effect for someone who is going to die anyway? It might even save money in research in he long run.

There are certain guidelines for terminally ill patients to give their permission to be used as guinea pigs. Part of the problem when you have a terminally ill patient is abuse. We saw this with Rod's mom. She had surgery which removed cancer from her by taking a lung and a half out. The cancer had already grown near her heart. The surgeon at Utah was sure she got all the cancer removed. They wanted her to go ahead and try chemo and radiation therapy. She did not want to stay in Utah for that so she had it done near the podunk facilities in a more rural area of Idaho. The radiation people fried her to a crisp from inside out. If a radiation machine is not calibrated properly or a tech is incompetent they can do a lot more damage to an already ill patient. After five years of suffering terribly she passed. Her heart was so damage from the radiation it could not longer sustain her life.

When papa was diagnosed with cancer the first doc did a hack and butcher job on him. Plus the guy left cancer in his bladder. The guy told papa that these cancerous tumors were just like warts and you just go in and snip them off. The butcher cut the tops off of the cancers and left the base of the ones he did cut in the bladder. One year later papa was bleeding internally and feeling extremely weak. I had previously pleaded and begged him to go to the university in Utah. He said I was paranoid the first time, not the second. It so happened when he got to the university they had a world premier expert there teaching. This guy had coined the procedure of rebuilding the bladder from small and large intestines and was teaching the same to students and experts at the university. He operated immediately on papa. He also told papa that if it was him he would not personally take radiation or chemo. Papa went with that recommendation. When he got home grandma **** put him on a health routine for six months. Papa survived it all after he was given a five percent chance of survival. We have been blessed with an additional twenty plus years of having him with us.

 

[johnrocks]

I agree with Stossel, we should be allowed to use what we think is best for our own bodies.

 

[Old Rocks]

John Stossel: FDA should butt out and let us take care of ourselves | Washington Examiner

Interesting viewpoint. I've never really considered it before.

I do agree that if there is no other options, people should be able to take an experimental drug. What do they have to lose, especially if its a terminal disease. But problem with that is everybody who takes the exp drug has to get reported. So somebody may not be a good candidate for the trial, or be so far advanced in the disease that problems they face while on the drugs would be associated with the drug, which could hurt FDA approval of it.

but people complain and think drugs are not safe,imagine if there was no FDA. Prior to the FDA, there was a ton of crap products out there killing people, or just ripping them off by making claims that never had to be proven.

A?nd to say "we can take care of ourselves" is a bit irresponsible as we know how people with no medical training think they know more than medical professionals as is.

The FDA doesn't get anywhere near the illicit drug trade....If people were constantly keeling over from bad cocaine, the MSM would be running the story 24-7.

The FDA is nothing more than a big friggin' protection racket.

Damned right. Protecting our citizens from the crap businesses would put into our food if there were no laws concerning that.

 

[Contumacious]

John Stossel: FDA should butt out and let us take care of ourselves | Washington Examiner

Interesting viewpoint. I've never really considered it before.

What?

You are the property of the welfare/warfare state. You belong to us. We will tell you what's good for you. Resistance is futile.

.

 

[rr1]

I agree with you Dude it is a big protection racket. The last two words "protection racket" strike a big fear into a lot of bankers and politicians who are acutely aware that they may be deemed complicit in the very racketeering you mentioned. God forbid their good names be drug through the mud when this house of cards gets knocked over and exposed for what it is.

There are some in government who ignorantly took the money not knowing what they were being pulled into. There are others in big business who damned well knew and took the money anyway. Dr. Gregg let the cat out of the bag when he brought the money and logistics into the fray. It is indeed big money, big players and logistically it is most definitely a world wide racket.

Anybody can play if they want to buy in. The problem is it's a short stroke. The tax payers everywhere are being alerted about this crap. The money is the chain that leads to the Don. Most people out here in the sticks of the country can see that a car maker has more credibility than these cons. A car maker can admit a f-ckup and recall the auto. The big pharma, FDA and GM food goons don't have that luxury. This octopus has its tentacles all around the globe but not to worry; the big man, when he falls, always falls the hardest. Sometimes it just takes a bigger punch. And that is most assuredly headed their way.

 

[Toronado3800]

I dunno. We CAN find mistakes the FDA has made and attempt to tweak the system. For one pharmaceutical companies run their own trials so what do you expect. Then again, don't want more taxes going for the government to go running these things themselves.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Maybe because big pharma has a grip on the FDA.... just like the meat industry has on the USDA... you guys know that they're trying to irradiate meat so that they can speed up the lines and allow more shit in it, right? And that they still feed cows that are vegetarian parts of other cows and litter from chicken houses, right? Why would you EVER vote against consumer safety? Oh yeah, you're a corporatist!

 

[Avatar4321]

Maybe because big pharma has a grip on the FDA.... just like the meat industry has on the USDA... you guys know that they're trying to irradiate meat so that they can speed up the lines and allow more shit in it, right? And that they still feed cows that are vegetarian parts of other cows and litter from chicken houses, right? Why would you EVER vote against consumer safety? Oh yeah, you're a corporatist!

Or you just realize that people arent as stupid as you seem to think they all are.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Or you just realize that people arent as stupid as you seem to think they all are.

Please feel free to refute anything that I said. Oh, sorry. I just presented FACT.

 

[Avatar4321]

Or you just realize that people arent as stupid as you seem to think they all are.

Please feel free to refute anything that I said. Oh, sorry. I just presented FACT.

You didn't present a fact. You presented an opinion. An opinion which was predicated on the following: " Why would you EVER vote against consumer safety?"

I provided an alternative answer to your question. You obviously don't like the implications of that answer.

So please tell me how I'm supposed to refute your opinion any more than I already have? I've demonstrated that your conclusion is not the only one possible. What exactly do you want disproved?

BTW if Big Pharma has control over the FDA, why would they have any problem getting their drugs approved? Doesn't the very news story demonstrating how people can get ahold of new experimental drugs provide ample evidence that the pharm companies don't have control? Or perhaps you could explain why "big pharma" doesn't want to sell/test their drugs for cheaper prices?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

FDA urged to ban feeding of chicken feces to cattle - Los Angeles Times
What's in the Meat? excerpted from the book Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser

 

[Avatar4321]

FDA urged to ban feeding of chicken feces to cattle - Los Angeles Times
What's in the Meat? excerpted from the book Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser

Alright, you're point being?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

That the FDA is in the pocket of (and sits on the chairs of) big pharma - just like the meat industry is in bed with (and sits on the chairs of) USDA. EVERYTHING in this country is to the advantage of private industry and not the citizens. The only thing protecting us is regulation - Which you don't agree with until YOUR kid comes down with e-coli, since you guys are against inspection (regulation). Why can't you neocons get that through your thick skulls? The research is available at the public library... oh wait, you don't support that... online?

 

[Avatar4321]

That the FDA is in the pocket of (and sits on the chairs of) big pharma - just like the meat industry is in bed with (and sits on the chairs of) USDA. EVERYTHING in this country is to the advantage of private industry and not the citizens. The only thing protecting us is regulation - Which you don't agree with until YOUR kid comes down with e-coli, since you guys are against inspection (regulation). Why can't you neocons get that through your thick skulls? The research is available at the public library... oh wait, you don't support that... online?

So what your saying is if the FDA wasn't there, you would eat the contaminated meat you are talking about despite knowing that it was contaminated?

I'm never going to rely on regulation to trust me while my brain works.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

So what your saying is if the FDA wasn't there, you would eat the contaminated meat you are talking about despite knowing that it was contaminated?

Yes, moron. If the, um, I think you meant USDA (not FDA... they don't regulate meat - or drugs even as far as I can tell unless they guarantee a profit, but I digress) weren't there, we would be at the same mercy of corporations that were feeding poisonous plastic milk to babies a couple of years ago in China. The only thing a corporation cares about are profits. Your friends, remember? Do you really think that US corporations wouldn't do the same thing if they could? YES HELL THEY WOULD IF IT RAISED PROFITS!!! Oh yeah, they do that... they just get on the board of the regulating commitee....