One of Them Self-Hatin' Smokers!

[thereom4]

I never claimed to have any kind of clairvoyance, so don't even bother pursuing that straw man.

I don't even know why I'm responding to this trash but I'm a sucker for a debate, even if it is with an idiot.

Your words: "The minor market adjustment turned into a crisis because people knew hussein obama was going to be elected and try to turn us into the soviet union. I knew it was over long before November 4th." Clairvoyance implied.

I only said that I, along with many others, knew that that arab socialist would get elected.

Arab socialist? Because of course there is something so fundamentally wrong with being Arab. Let's not forget the fact that he is a Christian. His father is from east Africa. Have you ever seen a map of the world? No. Okay well east Africa is not the same as the Middle east. Though his father may have been Muslim, that doesn't by extension make him Arab genius.

Therein lies the bigger problem, even if hussein obama did lose to McCain, we'd still have a liberal idiot as a president.

That's his middle name don't wear it out.

If the Republican Party had any guts, they'd have kicked McCain out long ago, and people might have actually cared about the election if they got to vote for a good American like Huckabee, instead of trash like mccain or hussein.

"Good" Americans like you are indeed in short order. So here's my suggestion to you.......there are miles and miles of uninhabitated land in Alaska. Why don't you round up all the other "good" Americans and fly there first class (on us, the "bad" Americans) and have a go at it. You can call your new country the "Good American Country, Where everything works all of the time, no blacks, Jews, Asians, Hispanics, or other unwanteds allowed." Please let us know how Russia is doing. Thanks.

And I guess you're a slacker who will probably get a bigger welfare check, so you're not worried about paying off the debt because hard workers like my family will pay it for you, right?

FF (I mean TDD) you and I have already addressed this.

[fencerchica]

Anyway, back to the main point, doesn't anyone else see how expanding the already overblown FDA is a bad idea? My uncle works in pharmaceuticals, and he has seen these idiots drag their feet and cost companies lots of money needlessly, and sometimes cost people their lives because the drug they needed wasn't approved by big brother.

Oh really? I have a friend who works for the FDA and has seen those pharmaceutical sleazeballs trying to sneak products known to be dangerous onto the market. This is fun -- do you also have an aunt who works for Monsanto, perchance??

[lindajdunn]

Anyway, back to the main point, doesn't anyone else see how expanding the already overblown FDA is a bad idea? My uncle works in pharmaceuticals, and he has seen these idiots drag their feet and cost companies lots of money needlessly, and sometimes cost people their lives because the drug they needed wasn't approved by big brother.

And while Germany faced an explosion of cases of deformed babies, our FDA had dragged out things so badly that thalidomide was never cleared for use in the USA. In some European countries, it was hailed as a great way to treat morning sickness.

Given the results of the last 8 years, I'd say the LAST thing we need is less government oversight.

Want some peanut butter?

[I_luv_saber]

Don't argue with fools... they'll pull you down to their level and win from sheer experience.

[thereom4]

Don't argue with fools... they'll pull you down to their level and win from sheer experience.

Ha ha! Awesome!

[I_luv_saber]

Completely stole that from my wife. It's one of Nusy's favorite sayings, but it seemed quite apt to the situation.

[trickery dickery dock]

I don't even know why I'm responding to this trash but I'm a sucker for a debate, even if it is with an idiot.

Your words: "The minor market adjustment turned into a crisis because people knew hussein obama was going to be elected and try to turn us into the soviet union. I knew it was over long before November 4th." Clairvoyance implied.
Arab socialist? Because of course there is something so fundamentally wrong with being Arab. Let's not forget the fact that he is a Christian. His father is from west Africa. Have you ever seen a map of the world? No. Okay well west Africa is not the same as the Middle east. Though his father may have been Muslim, that doesn't by extension make him Arab genius.
That's his middle name don't wear it out.
"Good" Americans like you are indeed in short order. So here's my suggestion to you.......there are miles and miles of uninhabitated land in Alaska. Why don't you round up all the other "good" Americans and fly there first class (on us, the "bad" Americans) and have a go at it. You can call your new country the "Good American Country, Where everything works all of the time, no blacks, Jews, Asians, Hispanics, or other unwanteds allowed." Please let us know how Russia is doing. Thanks.
FF (I mean TDD) you and I have already addressed this.

I still don't see how paying attention to the polls and knowing that hussein obama (the worst choice) would probably win, or if he didn't, mccain (another liberal idiot who would surely ruin the economy unless he died and left Gov. Palin in charge) would. It was a lose-lose situation, and me knowing either way we'd lose is NOT clairvoyance. Only God has that power.

Hmm, being an arab socialist who hangs out with people who blow up American buildings? Good or bad? Real tough question.

There you go, calling me a racist. Of course, it's ok when a real racist (obama's supreme court pick) says racist things. I don't have any problems with black people, Jewish people, asian people, or hispanic people. In fact, I have friends from each of those groups, so hold your tongue. And I don't have a problem with arabs either, just the ones who are committed to destroy the US and Israel.

No, I am not fat fencer, and I resent that comparison. That moron personally attacked my religion, and is clearly an anti-Semitic liberal. I have traveled to Israel 4 times, with my family and Church, and there is no way I am an anti-Semite.

[trickery dickery dock]

Oh really? I have a friend who works for the FDA and has seen those pharmaceutical sleazeballs trying to sneak products known to be dangerous onto the market. This is fun -- do you also have an aunt who works for Monsanto, perchance??

Sleazeballs? You mean the people who create drugs that save millions of lives?

Even if your friend knows what they're talking about, if there were less government regulation, there would be less pressure on companies to push risky drugs through. And if there were some kind of evil company selling poison, it would quickly go out of business, because nobody would buy their product. That's how free markets should work (but can't because of the government).

[catwood1]

Even if your friend knows what they're talking about, if there were less government regulation, there would be less pressure on companies to push risky drugs through. And if there were some kind of evil company selling poison, it would quickly go out of business, because nobody would buy their product. That's how free markets should work (but can't because of the government).

Well that's just a complete fabrication.

Is it worth explaining why?

naaa....

[Fencer X and Y]

Sleazeballs? You mean the people who create drugs that save millions of lives?

Even if your friend knows what they're talking about, if there were less government regulation, there would be less pressure on companies to push risky drugs through. And if there were some kind of evil company selling poison, it would quickly go out of business, because nobody would buy their product. That's how free markets should work (but can't because of the government).

You've tried this argument before, Trick. The people who invent and develop the drugs that save lives (the same evil scientists that believe in evolution and global warming) are very different people then the people who go on and try to sell those drugs. That's who fencerchica is refering to. Are all of the executives "sleazeballs?" No, of course not. There are many decent and moral marketing and business execs out there working for the pharmaceutical industry. The FDA's job is to protect us from the not so good people. And they do exist. Look at Vioxx. That was a mess that could have been avoided if the FDA knew the whole truth from the beggining and the Merck executives didn't try to cover up the truth. So yes Trick there are evil people in pharmaceutical companies that not only not save lives but actually kill people. (It's estimated that anywhere from 30,000 to 60,000 people died from taking Vioxx.)

[Fencer X and Y]

Well that's just a complete fabrication.

Is it worth explaining why?

naaa....

While the reasoning that "if there were less regulation then there would be less pressure to push through risky drugs," is ludicrous and akin to saying if we stopped punishing murderers there would be less murders, Trick is (and this pains me to say so) only slightly, partially correct. The FDA is overstepping it's bounds. But not in the safety part of the drugs. I believe that the FDA is requiring too much from pharmaceutical and biotech companies to prove the effectiveness of their drugs. Basically it should be treated exactly the same as suppliments (at the same time I believe that oversight for the safety of "natural supplements" needs to be way way higher). Currently the most that almost any given pharmaceutical company spends on R&D is proving to the FDA that their drug is effective. Costs can deffinetly be cut with regard to that.

[thereom4]

I still don't see how paying attention to the polls and knowing that hussein obama (the worst choice) would probably win, or if he didn't, mccain (another liberal idiot who would surely ruin the economy unless he died and left Gov. Palin in charge) would. It was a lose-lose situation, and me knowing either way we'd lose is NOT clairvoyance. Only God has that power.

Look you're the one who said you knew. I didn't know he'd be elected. This man was a true underdog from jump. Everyone though Hillary had it locked but all of a sudden the tide changed and it seemed Barack would be the nominee. I know that God is only one with that power but you said you knew so please re-read your own post. And since you believe in God you should know that it is God that put Barack Obama in the position he's in right now.

Hmm, being an arab socialist who hangs out with people who blow up American buildings? Good or bad? Real tough question.

This has been discussed at length. Both from Chicago, both on the same governmental committee in Chicago. That means they are besties right?

There you go, calling me a racist. Of course, it's ok when a real racist (obama's supreme court pick) says racist things. I don't have any problems with black people, Jewish people, asian people, or hispanic people. In fact, I have friends from each of those groups, so hold your tongue. And I don't have a problem with arabs either, just the ones who are committed to destroy the US and Israel.

I'm not calling you a racist but I can because I tend to think that about a person who repeatedly calls our President Hussein Obama. Because of course if you use it enough you'll convince enough people that he's related to the other Hussein. Nice try, I know what you're doing. And it's lame because it's been done. I also tend to think you might be racist when you use the term arab socialist to describe a man of Caucasion and African heritage. When you used the term arab socialist did you mean it to be positive? You don't have to read between the lines to know that when you say arab socialist you mean that in a degrogatory way. Do you know what arab means? Do you know the difference between African and Arab? You're just building on this culture of hate of Arabs and you know it. Admit it to yourself because I already know.

As per the Supreme Court pick (Sotomayor), her words at best were clumsy. Racist? No. Why because a racist is by definition is one who thinks their race is superior. Racists hate other races and are intolerant. When you cherry pick of course she sounds like a racist, but what was the context? Here is part of what she said in that "racist" speech.

"My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

and:

"The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others."

suppossedly racist remarks, which by the way are out of context:

In the most criticized line from that 2001 speech, Sotomayor, who would be just the third woman and first Latina on the court, suggested that a "wise Latina" would come to a "better conclusion" because of the "richness" of her experience than a white man would.

Source: http://www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.c...ON02/906090321

[Inquartata]

Oh really? I have a friend who works for the FDA and has seen those pharmaceutical sleazeballs trying to sneak products known to be dangerous onto the market.

Well, I have a friend in the FDA who says that YOUR friend is just a disgruntled contract janitor who hasn't "seen" anything.

So much for hearsay anecdotal evidence, no?

[Hauptman]

While the reasoning that "if there were less regulation then there would be less pressure to push through risky drugs," is ludicrous and akin to saying if we stopped punishing murderers there would be less murders, Trick is (and this pains me to say so) only slightly, partially correct. The FDA is overstepping it's bounds. But not in the safety part of the drugs. I believe that the FDA is requiring too much from pharmaceutical and biotech companies to prove the effectiveness of their drugs. Basically it should be treated exactly the same as suppliments (at the same time I believe that oversight for the safety of "natural supplements" needs to be way way higher). Currently the most that almost any given pharmaceutical company spends on R&D is proving to the FDA that their drug is effective. Costs can deffinetly be cut with regard to that.

The requirement to document effectiveness of a drug serves two purposes:

First, with almost any drug there is a risk involved from side-effects and toxicity, so to justify that risk to patients some amount of effectiveness should be substantiated. Although actually much of that required research expediture goes to evaluating safety before effectiveness is ever looked at.

Secondly there is opportunity cost. If as a patient I am facing an array of available treatments, if I pick a less effective drug then I am also missing out on the more effective treatment that may be available. Why should a less effective drug with no upside even be allowed to me marketed? Do we allow snakeoil salesmen a free ride?

I want well-run, verified research. Even with all the current regulation in place some very large, very powerful pharmaceutical companies still manage to falsify research and get dangerous, ineffective drugs to market. Is the FDA perfect? Definitely not, but I'd rather have that than nothing.

[fencerchica]

Well, I have a friend in the FDA who says that YOUR friend is just a disgruntled contract janitor who hasn't "seen" anything.

So much for hearsay anecdotal evidence, no?

Uhh... yes, and why did you wait until my anecdote to post this, rather than responding to Trickery's anecdote? If it isn't sufficiently obvious, I was tossing out a (true) anecdote in response to his earlier anecdote. I'm still waiting to hear yet another anecdote about his friend/relative who performs waterboarding or conducts concentrated livestock operations or [fill in the blank with something nasty that's supported by the Right] and says it's just the best thing since sliced bread.

[thereom4]

Many of those calling for deregulation would really regret it if a drug they used for whatever was passed and they grew a third eye.

What FDA Regulates
FDA is the federal agency responsible for ensuring that foods are safe, wholesome and sanitary; human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices are safe and effective; cosmetics are safe; and electronic products that emit radiation are safe. FDA also ensures that these products are honestly, accurately and informatively represented to the public.

Source: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo...es/default.htm

Keep in mind that even the regulators have regulators (administrative law: specifically the Administrative Procedure Act).

[Inquartata]

Uhh... yes, and why did you wait until my anecdote to post this, rather than responding to Trickery's anecdote?

My point was that "I know a guy who says" is not very good evidence. It cannot be checked or corroborated, it cannot be verified.

As for addressing TDD, well, I fear that he is just a lost cause.

[Fencer X and Y]

The requirement to document effectiveness of a drug serves two purposes:

First, with almost any drug there is a risk involved from side-effects and toxicity, so to justify that risk to patients some amount of effectiveness should be substantiated. Although actually much of that required research expediture goes to evaluating safety before effectiveness is ever looked at.

Effectiveness is looked at somewhat in Phase II and most of Phase III trials are primarily concerned with efficacy. Most crucial safety data can be obtained with an extended Phase II study. Phase III studies are usually 30-50 times larger then Phase II studies and can cost anywhere from 10-50 million dollars. So, I stand by my statement that most of the money is spent on proving efficacy.

Secondly there is opportunity cost. If as a patient I am facing an array of available treatments, if I pick a less effective drug then I am also missing out on the more effective treatment that may be available. Why should a less effective drug with no upside even be allowed to me marketed? Do we allow snakeoil salesmen a free ride?

Let's say that Toyota can show that it can make the most efficient, cheapest cars. Does that mean that unless Ford proves that it's cars are as efficient, cheap, pretty, etc... then the government has a right to tell it "We already have a car on the market so we don't need another car." As far as whether or not we allow snakeoil salesmen a free ride or not, have you ever seen a commmercial for Enzyte? Yes, we already do that. So why are drugs and different from natural supplemements? My doctor gets a lot of money every time I go to his office. If he's prescribing me something I expect him to know if what he's prescribing me works or not. And I expect the pharmaceutical companies to convince my doctor that what they want him to prescribe me will work. I just don't see why the government needs to interfere in that part. Should the government be concerned with Safety? Absolutely. Efficacy? NO

I want well-run, verified research. Even with all the current regulation in place some very large, very powerful pharmaceutical companies still manage to falsify research and get dangerous, ineffective drugs to market. Is the FDA perfect? Definitely not, but I'd rather have that than nothing.

I'm not suggesting that we need to get rid of the FDA. And I never said that. I'm saying the FDA should focus all it's resources on making sure the drugs we get are safe. Let the market take care of everything else.

[Fencer X and Y]

Many of those calling for deregulation would really regret it if a drug they used for whatever was passed and they grew a third eye.

What FDA Regulates
FDA is the federal agency responsible for ensuring that foods are safe, wholesome and sanitary; human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices are safe and effective; cosmetics are safe; and electronic products that emit radiation are safe. FDA also ensures that these products are honestly, accurately and informatively represented to the public.

Source: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo...es/default.htm

Keep in mind that even the regulators have regulators (administrative law: specifically the Administrative Procedure Act).

Yes but if you go back and look at what I've posted before I'm not in any way advocating for deregulation of drug safety. See my previous post for more.

[thereom4]

Yes but if you go back and look at what I've posted before I'm not in any way advocating for deregulation of drug safety. See my previous post for more.

I wasn't necessarily referring to your post. I was making a general statement regarding the FDA. To elaborate the FDA along with a list of other federal and state agencies, though flawed, serve an essential purpose. Without these regulators we would be in alot of trouble.