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

[Dr Gregg]

Nonetheless, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) wants this same FDA, with its dismal safety record, to regulate dietary supplements. The Dietary Supplement Safety Act (DSSA), S. 3002 (text of this bill posted on Senator McCain's website), that McCain has introduced with one cosponsor, would repeal key provisions of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) to “more effectively regulate dietary supplements that may pose safety risks unknown to consumers.”

- Beware of McCain's Freedom-Destroying Dietary Supplement Regulatory Bill

"dismal safety record"- what a crock of shit that is. It's the companies with safety issues. they pollute the water, they pollute the food, the FDA is there to catch it and punish those responsible or who do not comply with regulations. THey can't possibly monitor every food/drug producing site 24/7.

As I've mentioned, when it comes to drugs, there is not a medication out there without a side effect or that can harm a tiny percentage of people. tHat's the nature of our complex biology and interactions of drugs with differing genomes, diets, medicaitons, diseases, etc.


And they should regulate the herbal medicine rackets.That's what they are since they don't need to prove anything. THey can make claims that this herb does this or that, without any testing to prove it does anything over a placebo, like pharmaceuticals must go under. THey don't know how those herbs will interact with medication and other things

 

[RodISHI]

Abolish the FDA!!

The FDA has failed

This attempt by the government to insure consumers against the risk of using drugs and medical devices has flopped on numerous occasions. First of all, FDA regulations have often prevented U.S. consumers from gaining access to new life-saving drugs. Examples of this include major delays in the marketing of drugs used to treat cancer, blood pressure, heart attacks, cholesterol, and strokes and delays in marketing such high-tech items as cardiac pacemakers and in the use of such techniques as balloon angioplasty for blocked coronary arteries. For many years, the FDA would not allow the makers of aspirin to claim on their product labels that aspirins thinned blood and could thus save one from dying if taken during a heart attack. The costs of FDA regulation of these markets has likely run into the billions, possibly hundreds of billions, of dollars and is composed of higher drug prices, fewer drugs, and more and lengthier illnesses and earlier deaths.

In a call to the Bush Administration to merely reform the FDA, Henry I. Miller, a fellow at the Hoover Institution and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a former FDA official, presented a devastating critique of the FDA’s regulatory process and procedures.

In his early 2001 editorial commentary, Dr. Miller stated that the total time it takes to develop a new drug had doubled since the 1960's. And the costs to a manufacturer of bringing a single new drug to market had risen to over $400 million, the highest cost in the world. He further contended: "Costs are spiraling out of control because the FDA meddles endlessly in clinical trials and keeps raising the bar for approval." Furthermore, he cited statistics that showed the average number of clinical trials per average drug increased from 30 in the early 1980's to 68 during the 1994–95 period while the average number of patients in clinical trials for each drug more than tripled! As expected, the average time required for clinical trials for a new drug rose from 85 months in the first half of the 1990's to 92 months in the last half of the 1990's."

.

Not a bad group of statistics. We need protection from poor science though. After all, at one point the world's leading doctors were bleeding folks to cure them of all sorts of ailments.

New drugs are getting terribly complicated. Seems the easy to make ones were made in the 60's.

There are numerous non governmental entities that will let us know if any remedy is snake oil, such as 60 minutes, dateline NBC, ABC 20/20 , John Stossel, etc.

.

I'm afraid they cannot and sometimes will not be able to keep up on all of it. The hormone fiasco is a great example of that. Reporters were fired because they wanted to present the truth for all to see. Fox was threatened by Monsanto and others so the original story did not air. The reporters original report threatened to expose FDA and Monsanto's complicity in feeding the public dangerous chemicals in order to improve Monsanto's bottom line. These giant chemical companies have been covering up their products adverse effects on humanity for years and years. It is like the story of the banks being just to big to fail to not lend them all a hand with the taxpayer footing the bill.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Not a bad group of statistics. We need protection from poor science though. After all, at one point the world's leading doctors were bleeding folks to cure them of all sorts of ailments.

New drugs are getting terribly complicated. Seems the easy to make ones were made in the 60's.

There are numerous non governmental entities that will let us know if any remedy is snake oil, such as 60 minutes, dateline NBC, ABC 20/20 , John Stossel, etc.

.

I'm afraid they cannot and sometimes will not be able to keep up on all of it. The hormone fiasco is a great example of that. Reporters were fired because they wanted to present the truth for all to see. Fox was threatened by Monsanto and others so the original story did not air. The reporters original report threatened to expose FDA and Monsanto's complicity in feeding the public dangerous chemicals in order to improve Monsanto's bottom line. These giant chemical companies have been covering up their products adverse effects on humanity for years and years. It is like the story of the banks being just to big to fail to not lend them all a hand with the taxpayer footing the bill.

More unsubstantiated, conspiracy theory bullshit. What a surprise. At least it wasn't a copy and paste

 

[Vast LWC]

There are numerous non governmental entities that will let us know if any remedy is snake oil, such as 60 minutes, dateline NBC, ABC 20/20 , John Stossel, etc.

.

Wait, so let me get this straight...

We should abolish the FDA and leave regulation of untested drugs to the "Mainstream Media"?

That is what you're saying, right?

 

[ihopehefails]

In my opinion, state and local laws are good enough most of the time.

 

[editec]

FDA should approve drugs


On that I agree.

Now as to whther they ought to be allowed to prevent people from taking drugs they have not approved?

No, I think people ought to be free to decide for themseleves if they want to risk taking drugs not approved by the FDA.

 

[Contumacious]

There are numerous non governmental entities that will let us know if any remedy is snake oil, such as 60 minutes, dateline NBC, ABC 20/20 , John Stossel, etc.

.

Wait, so let me get this straight...

We should abolish the FDA and leave regulation of untested drugs to the "Mainstream Media"?

That is what you're saying, right?

The FDA Has Blood on Its Hands

by Bill Sardi

"While the FDA was threatening cherry growers, it was giving approval to a drug maker for a new type of COX-2 inhibiting anti-inflammatory drug that claimed it was safer than ibuprofen or aspirin. The FDA also permitted this new prescription-only anti-inflammatory drug to be advertised on television, even though long-term safety data was not available. As it turns out, this drug wasn’t any safer than aspirin and the FDA took no subsequent action against the drug maker that submitted misleading preliminary safety data in its application for FDA approval. This anti-inflammatory drug went on to cause thousands of side effects and was associated with the deaths of an estimated 20,000 Americans, mostly due to mortal heart attacks. An FDA "whistleblower," Dr. David Graham, had to alert the public to this problem.

If only the public knew about the anti-inflammatory properties of cherries, thousands of Americans would have not met their early and avoidable demise. The FDA has blood on its hands regarding this issue. It should have elected for cherry stains instead.

The FDA doesn’t disagree with the scientific information about cherries, but it does say that cherries have not been recognized as safe and effective when used as labeled. Do we need a double-blind placebo-controlled study to prove cherries promote health?

Jeffrey May, editor of CCH Trade Regulation Reporter (the "publication of record" in the antitrust and trade regulation fields), quotes Rep. Ron Paul as saying there is a need to stop "federal bureaucrats from preventing Americans from learning about simple ways to improve their health."

 

[uscitizen]

FDA should approve drugs


On that I agree.

Now as to whther they ought to be allowed to prevent people from taking drugs they have not approved?

No, I think people ought to be free to decide for themseleves if they want to risk taking drugs not approved by the FDA.

sure they should, but why involve the DR?

 

[ihopehefails]

FINALLY!!

Someone had the guts to point out the fact that corporations should be able to poison us all they want without any regulation!

Who cares if the experimental shit they sell you for hemorrhoid relief makes your head explode?

We don't need any of that stupid-assed Consumer Protection getting in the way of self-medication either!

John Stossel has let working for Murdoch make him into a massive tool I see. You go, moron.

Thank you for you emotional outburst but I would like to add something to this and that having an all powerful agency decide if it can allow drugs on the market makes it a monopoly on power. It charges incredible fees for testing which jack of the cost of medical treatment and inhibits innovation as it cost millions and millions to create something. A better solutution would be to follow the constution about the powers remaining in the states. Let state laws decide what is harmful and what is not for its citizens.

 

[Dr Gregg]

FINALLY!!

Someone had the guts to point out the fact that corporations should be able to poison us all they want without any regulation!

Who cares if the experimental shit they sell you for hemorrhoid relief makes your head explode?

We don't need any of that stupid-assed Consumer Protection getting in the way of self-medication either!

John Stossel has let working for Murdoch make him into a massive tool I see. You go, moron.

Thank you for you emotional outburst but I would like to add something to this and that having an all powerful agency decide if it can allow drugs on the market makes it a monopoly on power. It charges incredible fees for testing which jack of the cost of medical treatment and inhibits innovation as it cost millions and millions to create something. A better solutution would be to follow the constution about the powers remaining in the states. Let state laws decide what is harmful and what is not for its citizens.

You are misinformed. The FDA has nothing to do with controlling clinical trials and the expenses of them. The high cost is to pay participating medical centers and doctors, pay the patients who are in the trial, and the processing of a huge amount of techical data, requiring highly trained, thus demanding high salary employees. The fees for review of the trials is a tiny amount compared to what the clinical trials cost.

The states having control would be stupid, every state would have different rules, and that would be a clusterfuck and likely cost even more money as you would have to submit trials to every state you want to sell in. THat's completely impractical to not have a centralized regulatory agency.

how many people cry when a drugt has bad side effect, and then they complain that the cost of the trials is raising medical cost? Which is it, you want untested, unproven, unsafe drugs or the opposite?

 

[Dr Gregg]

and how is this law and justice? Why couldn't it stay in science. Man there are some topic nazis out there

 

[uscitizen]

FINALLY!!

Someone had the guts to point out the fact that corporations should be able to poison us all they want without any regulation!

Who cares if the experimental shit they sell you for hemorrhoid relief makes your head explode?

We don't need any of that stupid-assed Consumer Protection getting in the way of self-medication either!

John Stossel has let working for Murdoch make him into a massive tool I see. You go, moron.

Thank you for you emotional outburst but I would like to add something to this and that having an all powerful agency decide if it can allow drugs on the market makes it a monopoly on power. It charges incredible fees for testing which jack of the cost of medical treatment and inhibits innovation as it cost millions and millions to create something. A better solutution would be to follow the constution about the powers remaining in the states. Let state laws decide what is harmful and what is not for its citizens.

sure then we would have the cost of 50 states requiring the drug to be tested in their state....

And people having to go to other states for treatment since that drug/treatment is not approved in their state.

 

[ihopehefails]

FINALLY!!

Someone had the guts to point out the fact that corporations should be able to poison us all they want without any regulation!

Who cares if the experimental shit they sell you for hemorrhoid relief makes your head explode?

We don't need any of that stupid-assed Consumer Protection getting in the way of self-medication either!

John Stossel has let working for Murdoch make him into a massive tool I see. You go, moron.

Thank you for you emotional outburst but I would like to add something to this and that having an all powerful agency decide if it can allow drugs on the market makes it a monopoly on power. It charges incredible fees for testing which jack of the cost of medical treatment and inhibits innovation as it cost millions and millions to create something. A better solutution would be to follow the constution about the powers remaining in the states. Let state laws decide what is harmful and what is not for its citizens.

You are misinformed. The FDA has nothing to do with controlling clinical trials and the expenses of them. The high cost is to pay participating medical centers and doctors, pay the patients who are in the trial, and the processing of a huge amount of techical data, requiring highly trained, thus demanding high salary employees. The fees for review of the trials is a tiny amount compared to what the clinical trials cost.

The states having control would be stupid, every state would have different rules, and that would be a clusterfuck and likely cost even more money as you would have to submit trials to every state you want to sell in. THat's completely impractical to not have a centralized regulatory agency.

how many people cry when a drugt has bad side effect, and then they complain that the cost of the trials is raising medical cost? Which is it, you want untested, unproven, unsafe drugs or the opposite?

Most states probably would not ban a drug since they would not test them but just make them illegal based on what other doctors say. If a state is wrong then a person can leave the state and get treatment in another state.

This puts a check on a single regulatory power of a central government to control our lives which is what the FDA really exist for. Any state that abuses that power will see residents leave for another state which puts a check on their power.

 

[ihopehefails]

FINALLY!!

Someone had the guts to point out the fact that corporations should be able to poison us all they want without any regulation!

Who cares if the experimental shit they sell you for hemorrhoid relief makes your head explode?

We don't need any of that stupid-assed Consumer Protection getting in the way of self-medication either!

John Stossel has let working for Murdoch make him into a massive tool I see. You go, moron.

Thank you for you emotional outburst but I would like to add something to this and that having an all powerful agency decide if it can allow drugs on the market makes it a monopoly on power. It charges incredible fees for testing which jack of the cost of medical treatment and inhibits innovation as it cost millions and millions to create something. A better solutution would be to follow the constution about the powers remaining in the states. Let state laws decide what is harmful and what is not for its citizens.

sure then we would have the cost of 50 states requiring the drug to be tested in their state....

And people having to go to other states for treatment since that drug/treatment is not approved in their state.

How long would it be if one state tested a drug and found it was safe that all other states would legalize it knowing that it was successfully tested in one state?