The FDA is ******ed

[ori]

I agree they should be held to their claims.


I understand. They should just make the claims about the omega-3's rather than the walnuts themselves unless they have firm evidence that walnuts alone (as part of a healthy diet) vs. a control group (with a similar diet minus wlanuts) had an improved lipid profile & thus the associated benefits. I still don't think they should have to market their product as a drug though.

curiously apparently the FDA hat more problems with their views on omega-3-fatty acids than the ones they made about walnuts.

in this claim

The omega-3 in walnuts can help you get the proper balance of fatty acids your body needs for promoting and maintaining heart health. In fact, according to the Food and Drug Administration, supportive but not conclusive research shows that eating 1.5 oz of walnuts per day, as part of a low saturated fat and low cholesterol diet, and not resulting in increased caloric intake, may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.

they had a problem with the omega claim, not the walnuts claim - so if they had stayed away from the attempt of making their walnuts sound healthier than other walnuts by explaining that its the omega acids that are healthy and theirs have so much omega acids, then the FDA would likely not have had a problem with it

 

[Berzerker]

Call it what you like - but without some proof that something actually works most of these people would get drugs that don't and die, and more would die / get unusable treatment. Its not a decision of letting some people die so that others may live - its a decision to ensure that there actually are drugs that work in the first place. If you abolish that you'll have all sorts of promises by companies but no new drugs that are actually tested. And everyone would suffer - those patients that benefit from a newly approved drug would not likely have benefited from using just any drug that a company markets as efficient without an approval process.
Also: this argument has another deep flaw, in that off-label use and pre-approval use are all possible (though attached with paperwork that makes it cumbersome, except for emergency situations where it is attached to a mandatory phone call.).

Thats all nice and everything, but you're still deciding one group of people will die ostensibly to ensure safer drugs. Yer a self appointed death panel...

Yeah, just look at what the drug field looked like in the years before the FDA. Hate them or love them, the FDA is a good way to ensure that that medicine you're taken which is guaranteed to cure cancer isn't just a distillation of lead and arsenic .

You dont need to take away our freedom to ban fraud.

Would you rather have the 1800s with the snake oil salesmen going town to town selling God knows what to cure what ails ya? Course, we still need an amendment to make the FDA constitutional, but they do good work

They kill people...and yes, I prefer freedom to permission. So you support a violation of the Constitution because you like the result? No more Constitution then, we all get to treat it like that... But if you need the FDA to check what you consume, go right ahead and wait for the FDA to check your foods and drugs. Just leave the rest of us free to decide for ourselves if we want to wait... Some of us cant afford to wait.

At least a public sector death panel doesn't maximize CEO bonuses by killing as many people as possible. Private death panels do. So which do you think will kill more?

Why support either? But yer confused, that public sector death panel has made it illegal for you to make your own decisions, the CEO didn't. The CEO says we the insurance company wont pay for that drug (or procedure), the FDA says its illegal for you to try a drug without their permission. Thats apples and oranges, killer oranges in the case of the FDA

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

You dont need to take away our freedom to ban fraud.

Is this a political point, or can you substantiate this by showing that a lack of regulatory oversight leads to better pharmaceuticals for everybody?

 

[Bill3000]

You dont need to take away our freedom to ban fraud.

Sure you do - the freedom to be allowed to fraud people in commercial transactions through one's claims on one's products.

 

[ori]

Thats all nice and everything, but you're still deciding one group of people will die ostensibly to ensure safer drugs. Yer a self appointed death panel...

:shrug

so you'd rather have private companies kill people in order to be allowed to make a dubious claim that they save a few? I'd call that you appointing a whole bunch of death panels - but really its all strawmaning: You cannot even with confidence state that any one person would live - since you wouldn't even know if the stuff people would sell would actually have any effect at all apart from deleterious effects.
Do you have any evidence at all that without an approval process people would not die that would have lived with one?

 

[mariogreymist]

....I'm scared to search for Mexican meat on the internet.

LMFAO

Me too.

EDIT:
For those of you taking this topic seriously: isn't it helping evolution to let people who think walnuts are medicine keep thinking so?

 

[crazyunits]

well pharmacy school IS expensive ya know......