Great Video - I'mVotingRepublican.com

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?


I love how government failure is always the argument for more government.

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?


I love how government failure is always the argument for more government.

and houses burning down is an arguement for more fireman funding. whats your point?

I love it how taxpayers bitch and then don't vote.

no, no, he doesnt wanna pay taxes. that means his world will be perfect.

Well, the solution to forest fires is to cut down more Forests so there are less of them.

So yes, the easier way to have less fires is to have less buildings. Let them burn I say, less fires in that case! Which = less need for firemen = less taxes I have to pay!

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?



Those are both vague questions. But you don't think there would be a private interest in certifying drugs safe?

Furthermore, I don't have a problem with the FDA doing drug studies, but if somebody wants to take the risk and try something before its studied, that should be their choice, especially for serious medical issues. And what if you disagree with the FDA's assesment?

I can predict your basic response, which is that people aren't smart enough to make decisions like that. And this is what fundamentally bugs me about the "government must protect you" philosophy. You think you know better, so you deny people who might not see things your way the freedom of choice.

I tend to believe that we pay taxes because we live in an imperfect world.

I also tend to believe that Utopia doesn't exist because if it really did we would have already found it.

But don't get me wrong, I understand your logic with respect to this gentleman.

Only in government is failure rewarded with money.

This? From you?

Perhaps you would have better luck becoming a proponent of state-assisted suicide because that is essentially what you're proposing.

But its not failure.

You can't stop every fire. Thats an unrealistic goal. But you can prevent many fires, and stop certain fires from further expanding. In that way, the government is very succesful.

This is directly relatable to the FDA. The FDA isn't failing. Its helping the average citizen from being straight up lied to. Its stopping MANY cases of abuse and disinformation.

Existential burden. Man is free to choose, but can never know the consequences of his choices.

And on that subject, it's only relevant if the product is dangerous.

or a good job
Brownie!!!

And success isn't rewarded with money, too?

Examine your thought processes please.

...knowing when they are excercising unsound reasoning that is absent of logic. You are the proof point. THXS!

didnt you know that governement is the only thing holding us back from true utopia? Only when we have dismantelled the shackle of government are we truly free to make any choice we want! oh, sure many, even most will die, but the lucky few that are left will be able to practice libertarian exceptionalism!
Viva Libertarianism! Viva John Galt! Viva Ron Paul!

I could make a case about why the FDA is failing, but that would be a whole side issue. My point again is, I find it offensive that it's up to the state to decide what medical treatments are too dangerous.

Not that the information should not be provided, but that even with the information, (or lack thereof) I can't choose.

McCain proposes tax cuts to save money

Actually, Geroge W. Bush has failed many times in his life and he still seems to be rewarded with money--and he's a proponent of less government. Go figure!

Thanks for attempting to paint me with the nanny-state brush, but really, you're a bit off the mark with me. I personally don't give a flying fuck if people want to kill themselves with drugs. However, I do give a flying fuck about access to information and swift consequences and punishments for fraud and negligence on the part of drug companies.



Why would private evaluation companies be given access to the drug companies' information about their products?

See, governmental offices like the FDA have the power to force drugs off the market. Private corporations don't. Governmental organizations have the power to demand studies be performed and data reported by independent parties before approving a drug for general market.

There are plenty of treatments out there with extremely negative side effects -- and I'm not talking about boring stuff like hair loss, loss of libido, frequent urination, anal leakage, or anything of that sort. Read the fine print in most drug ads you see -- the reason that fine print is there is because of FDA regulations. A motherfucking heart attack is a potential side effect of the birth control pill, fer cryin' out loud (especially if you're over 30 or if you smoke!). They tell you on the label it could kill you, yet an awful lot of women choose to take it. And gosh, they're sure allowed to by that big, evil FDA!!

I don't care if you see a shiny happy ad for a drug in a magazine and decide that's the drug for you, as long as that fine print detailing side effects of third party studies is required to be there. If you want to shoot heroin or smoke pot or drink yourself to death or take Oxycontin you ordered off the internet until your eyes roll back in your head and you piss yourself and choke on your own vomit, I don't give a shit. You know what you're doing. You made your choice.

I'm of the opinion that the vast majority of people are either unwilling, unable (for many, many reasons), or uninterested in educating themselves about the vast majority of things. That's not my issue.

My issue is with the idea of huge corporations being able to market whatever they want to people without any form of oversight or restriction or penalty, without any requirements for safety testing, and without any requirements that people be informed of potential side effects or long-term consequences of their product.

If you are using my defintion of goverment as force, I think you may have a case there.

And I find it naive to the point of willful ignorance that you could even conceive that the average citizen has anywhere near the intellect to actually understand whats being tested and whats at risk.

EDIT: and add the argument that without the FDA and government interference, these companies wouldn't even have to tell you whats at risk.

you could, but you cant, so you wont.
also, your extremist cancer issue really has nothing to do with the majoity of what the fda does.

FDA regulatory programs

Unquestionably false. Have you ever worked in the private sector? And I'm not talking about bartending or busing tables or what-have-you. I'm talking about working in a place where people make real, actual money.

Because if you really believe this, then you haven't.