Great Video - I'mVotingRepublican.com

You have to check this out:

ImVotingRepublican.com

hahahahaaa!

awesome!

Nice find slacker elite. Thanks for posting.

You still have the old English-to-Chinese-to-English translation!

I salute you.
/salute

Davy McCracken -Future Draftee

that bit scared me...

While it is amusing, it is also deeply disturbing.

I actually agree with the FDA part.

I showed this to my mother and she nearly lost her lunch until I told her it wasn't real.

And five posts after

We find this bit of wisdom stupidity

LSlice: Always wrong for all the right reasons!

On this particular issue, I speak with some personal experience.

But the general point is, if a treatment carries potential risks, shouldn't it be up to the individual patient to decide if he is willing to take those risks?

That would probably depend on the risks. Something like "grows hair on your back in the shape of a dildo", then that's not such a big deal. But if the risk is "if you take this drug, you will die, just not from your current disease/condition," well, then, probably not such a good idea.

But shouldn't that be my choice to make?

Hypothetically: Let's say I have cancer. There's a promising treatment, but a 1 in 5 chance it will kill me. Why the hell does the governemnt get to make that decision for me?

Because not everyone is competent to evaluate and understand complicated medical procedures.

EDIT: Also, in the situation you described, people do have recourse. In the FDA process, treatments and procedures are opened for trials. If patients are deemed that they will have a high likelihood of handling the treatment well, then they are allowed to participate in the trial.

The first rule of medicine is 'Do no harm'. Until a treatment is proven by a large volume of empirical data to be safe and effective, doctors are obligated to stick to tried and true methods of treatment.

And not all companies, as we've seen, are forthcoming with the information that it might kill you.

The FDA helps protect your right and your ability to inform yourself about the potential negative effects of a drug and ensures access to the information about the potential side effects -- and that studies on drug side effects get done at all.

your arguementation skills are poor.

No, and fraud of that sort is tantamount to homicide. It still doesn't address the point.

My life, my choice.

Yes it does, because accountability for such negative actions as fraud also require mitigation and prevention on the front end.

tomAto, tomATo.

(photo credit from this article.
FDA Issues Warning After Outbreak Sickens 145
So, you want less FDA and not more? you want 725 to die, not 145?

Is it homicide if the studies are never performed because they're not required?

Is it homicide if someone is unable to comprehend the complex medical study literature and decides to go ahead with a treatment at the recommendation of a doctor who gets kickbacks from the drug company?

You brought up cancer...which kind of made me laugh. Not because Cancer is funny, but (conspiracy) theory is that its big drug companies have used their money to corrupt the FDA into not allowing further research into cures for cancer and AIDS since there is more money for these companies through a slow and long treatments as opposed to a cure.

So its kind of a two sided blade. Give FDA more control, and they'll probably be more corrupt. Give these medicinal companies more power, and they'll further try to prevent 'cures' from getting out.