Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The agency says it soon will withdraw approval for any of those medications containing more than 325 mg of acetaminophen. It also said that it is planning new regulatory action on over-the-counter acetaminophen, but did not give details.
Nowhere does there seem to be any mention of any new research that would lead anyone to believe that it's more dangerous than previously thought. I also have a big problem with their saying "no additional benefit that outweighs the added risks ." What makes them the arbiters of what outweighs what?
FDA warns against high-dose prescription acetaminophen
That's nasty shit. I learned the hard way DON'T take Tylenol for a hangover.
I just deal with it and press on.acetaminophen is not a good ANALGESIC.
but it is great antiinflamatory agent and a perfect drug to get you going if you are having a cold and all those muscle pains and you need to go to work.
Obviously it is better to stay in bed, but it is not always possible.
when I was a resident I would not be able to survive without a teraflu hot.
Now I can have a luxury of just taking a sick day when I am sick and stay in bed and drink tea with raspberry jam and lemon.
Raspberry ( with seeds) is a great anti-inflammatory folk medicine.
No, rather somebody sued the pharmaceutical company for their liver failure after digesting more than 4 g of acetaminophen per day.
from the article:
Well, the FDA has assumed for itself Godlike power, requiring that its official approval be obtained before any substance can legally be used in the prevention and treatment of disease.
The FDA's legal-regulatory control therefore is totalitarian and Napoleonic in construct; what it does not explicitly permit as a medicine is implicitly forbidden
^^^this is a quintessence of ANY government agency and ANY government department and ANY government worker with a sniff of power.
No, rather somebody sued the pharmaceutical company for their liver failure after digesting more than 4 g of acetaminophen per day.
Due to long time chronic pain, I used to take Tylenol. Then, later in my life, I got a blood chemistry test result that indicated possible liver damage.
Since I was not then much of a drinker, we ruled out cirrhosis as a likely cause. This left Tylenol.
I went cold turkey on the stuff.
My liver function enzyme test results took years to return to "within normal limits" or whatever their terminology is.
I avoid Tylenol like the effing plague.
from the article:
Well, the FDA has assumed for itself Godlike power, requiring that its official approval be obtained before any substance can legally be used in the prevention and treatment of disease.
The FDA's legal-regulatory control therefore is totalitarian and Napoleonic in construct; what it does not explicitly permit as a medicine is implicitly forbidden
^^^this is a quintessence of ANY government agency and ANY government department and ANY government worker with a sniff of power.
Yeah yeah yeah, good stuff for the fantasy comic books but that's not what the article says. It's a wackadoo conclusion it draws. What the article actually says is that natural substances can't be patented as drugs to be used for that purpose. Which also means they can't be regulated by the FDA. Nowhere did FDA say people can't use them.
Read it again. The first paragraph lays out an FDA definition of drugs, then goes off on a wild tangent about what that means, with no evidence at all that it means any such thing.
Note that by that same definition, cannabis cannot be called a 'drug' either, since it's not officially recognized to offer any health benefit. Which is also why Big Pharma wants to keep it that way -- can't be patented means can't be profited from.
By the way I've got plenty of turmeric, more than I need if anybody wants some. Meet me in the park after dark, fourth bench...
According to the FDA's legal definition, a drug is anything that "diagnoses, cures, mitigates, treats, or prevents a disease."
The problem with this definition is that there are numerous substances, as readily available and benign as found on our spice racks, which have been proven by countless millennia of human experience to mitigate, prevent and in some cases cure disease, and which cannot be called drugs according to the FDA.
How can this be? Well, the FDA has assumed for itself Godlike power, requiring that its official approval be obtained before any substance can legally be used in the prevention and treatment of disease.
Pogo like so many Dumasses on the left think people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves and applaud Gubmint bureaucracies to make our dcisions FOR us...to which I say WRONG ANSWER.Pogo, you can be such a bore sometimes.
I think FDA will survive without your chivalrous defense.
Pogo like so many Dumasses on the left think people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves and applaud Gubmint bureaucracies to make our dcisions FOR us...to which I say WRONG ANSWER.Pogo, you can be such a bore sometimes.
I think FDA will survive without your chivalrous defense.
WE aren't all stupid...HE applauds anything that circumvents liberty.
YES, you DO Pogo.
The agency says it soon will withdraw approval for any of those medications containing more than 325 mg of acetaminophen. It also said that it is planning new regulatory action on over-the-counter acetaminophen, but did not give details.
Nowhere does there seem to be any mention of any new research that would lead anyone to believe that it's more dangerous than previously thought. I also have a big problem with their saying "no additional benefit that outweighs the added risks ." What makes them the arbiters of what outweighs what?
Perhaps, but his answers are all wrong for the cause of liberty.Pogo like so many Dumasses on the left think people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves and applaud Gubmint bureaucracies to make our dcisions FOR us...to which I say WRONG ANSWER.Pogo, you can be such a bore sometimes.
I think FDA will survive without your chivalrous defense.
WE aren't all stupid...HE applauds anything that circumvents liberty.
YES, you DO Pogo.
he just likes to correct what he thinks is wrong.
Can anybody recommend which turmeric is better?
I want to buy online and am kind of undecided.
Before I was just buying in the spice shop and it was not by any brand.
But I am too lazy to drive that far.
Can anybody recommend which turmeric is better?
I want to buy online and am kind of undecided.
Before I was just buying in the spice shop and it was not by any brand.
But I am too lazy to drive that far.
I try to get my spices at an Indian grocery. Because they don't mess around with emasculated faux-spice. They go for the gusto. And it's fresh.
Especially for something commonly used in Indian cuisine like turmeric.
Middle Eastern grocery wouldn't be a bad choice either.
Pogo, you can be such a bore sometimes.
I think FDA will survive without your chivalrous defense.
FDA is another department that needs to be defunded...like the EPA as well...these unelected agencies are run amok...and it seems Congress hasn't the balls to do it.
Tylenol sucks. Doesn't work. I miss my advils, but no can do any more. Now, it is heating pads, hot showers and half a vicodin if it gets really bad.
The FDA tried to put a ban on...are ya ready for it?....TUMERIC. Why? Because they wanted to own it since it is good for many medicinal purposes. However, they failed. I don't remember where I heard this...just read it on the net when I was first exploring natural remedies for my RA.
