RE: The FDA and health (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message


Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (12/6/2008 8:07:54 PM)

Toronto Bans Bottled Water Sales, but Junk Sodas Remain Legal

quote:


For starters, the decision was made by city leaders who say their TAP WATER is what people should be drinking, not bottled water.
...
Here's something that's not debatable: While banning bottled water, the city of Toronto did NOT ban diet soda and soft drink beverages.
...
Toronto, in all its short-sighted wisdom, has now granted the soda companies a virtual monopoly on beverages sold at the local arenas. With no bottled water available, what do they think people are going to drink instead? Soda, of course. Loaded with phosphoric acid (causes osteoporosis), high-fructose corn syrup (diabetes) and maybe even aspartame (neurological disorders).


(same link as above).

More evidence that these special interest groups are not interested in your well being, they are interested in their profits.

quote:


“Toronto’s decision to ban the bottle and turn on the tap sends a clear message that bottled water’s 15 minutes are up, the marketing scam is out of the closet, and it’s time to go back to the tap,” says Joe Cressy, Campaigns Coordinator for the Polaris Institute.


http://www.polarisinstitute.org/toronto_bans_bottled_water

No one should deny us the right to drink bottled water regardless of whether or not they think it's a scam. If some people think it's a scam, no one is forcing them to drink it, but they shouldn't deny us the right to drink it. They deny people the right to drink bottled water, but they won't deny them the right to smoke cigarettes. The hypocrisy. This whole thing is about profits and the people need to start realizing that these governmental and corporate entities do not have our best interest in mind.

quote:


Despite receiving accolades from anti-tobacco advocates, Ontario's ban isn't sitting well with some cigarette retailers.

"It sucks. Literally. It's just plain dumb," said Phil Doucette, an employee at Crown Variety in downtown Toronto. "It's a legal product. Why should we have to hide it?"

Doucette, a smoker himself, thinks the ban won't stop young people from lighting up.

"If they want to smoke, they're going to. If they don't, they won't. But it ain't going to stop them."


http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080531/cigarette_power_walls_080531/20080531/?hub=TorontoNewHome

It's amazing how corporate entities are quick to advocate consumer freedom when it comes to things that make them profits, but they aren't so quick to advocate it when it comes to things that compete for profits. People need to realize that these entities (including pharmaceutical corporations) act in their own best interest, they are not in the least interested in what's best for the public good.
(see Big Pharma Intentionally Blocks Introduction of Cheaper Drugs to Financially Exploit Nations for example)

quote:


I know I'm going to get hate mail for this, but it deserves to be said...


(first link).

Apparently, these people get a lot of hate mail for saying things that disagree with corporate monsters. These entities try hard to suppress information that threatens their profits. They try hard to suppress opinions that disagree with the opinions that they want everyone to hold (they want everyone to hold opinions that are best for their profits). They try hard to suppress information about their misbehavior and white color crimes. This can't be tolerated. Furthermore, people should not assume that our freedom of speech on the Internet is a thing that will never be taken away. There are people who don't want us to have those freedoms and, just like they managed to prevent much of this important news from ever making it on mainstream media, they are probably working hard to censor information from the Internet. People need to be proactive and make sure that this news does make it on public television.

I also found this interesting
http://www.rwefree.com/swat.htm
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=171119

More examples of our health freedoms being taken away from us.




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (12/6/2008 10:54:02 PM)

quote:


Up to 90 percent of the infant formula sold in the United States may be contaminated with trace amounts of melamine
...
Prior to these test results being made public, the FDA had published a document on its website that explained there was no safe level of melamine contamination in infant formula. Specifically, the FDA stated, “FDA is currently unable to establish any level of melamine and melamine-related compounds in infant formula that does not raise public health concerns.”

Once tests found melamine in U.S.-made formula products, however, the FDA changed its story. As of today, the FDA has now officially declared melamine to be safe in infant formula as long as the contamination level is less than one part per million (1 ppm).

Astonishingly: The FDA has no new science to justify its abrupt decision declaring melamine to be safe!
...
The “acceptable” level of contamination (1 ppm) is conveniently just above the levels found in U.S. infant formula products, thus placing U.S. infant formula in the “safe” contamination level category.


90 Percent of U.S. Infant Formula May Be Contaminated with Melamine; FDA Abruptly Declares Chemical Safe for Babies

http://www.conspiracycafe.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=20625

I don't know what quantities of Melamine are safe and what quantities are not and I'm not going to make any claims on that issue. The point here is that this is evidence that the FDA's decisions are, at least in part, based on politics, and not science. The FDA seemed to declare certain quantities of Melamine safe only after quantities above the expected level of Melamine were found in infant formula. This declaration didn't seem to be based on any (newer/updated) studies or scientific information and the FDA just so happen to select a maximum quantity of Melamine that was convenient to infant formula manufacturers.




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (12/8/2008 7:59:57 PM)

I'm going to comment on post 47 and post 52 collectively to help give readers a broader understanding of what's going on (and how conspiracies work). The following is speculation and the deductions made are inferential, not explicit.

In post 47, the FDA found out that U.S. infant formula products contained higher amounts of melamine than was expected. Before this was known to the public and before this was even known to the FDA (before they ran their tests), the FDA's website stated that the, “FDA is currently unable to establish any level of melamine and melamine-related compounds in infant formula that does not raise public health concerns.” Unfortunately for them, by the time they found out that infant formula products contained higher than expected amounts of melamine, this statement was already on their website. So, what were their plans? Their plans were to (hide this information from the public and then to) run some new studies and to find a way to interpret those studies into saying that the amounts of melamine that U.S. infant formula products so happen to contain (in the first test) are safe. Then, they would run some new tests to determine how much melamine infant formula contained and "discover" (for the second time) that infant formula products just so happen to contain amounts of melamine just below FDA requirements. The Freedom of Information Act request messed this up for the FDA, forcing the FDA to release the amounts of melamine that these products contained before they were able to run new tests in order to find a way to interpret the results into saying that those levels of melamine were safe. The FDA, later trying to fix the problem, arbitrarily declared those levels of melamine safe (post 52, but they screwed everything all up because they declared it safe without running any new clinical trials with the preconceived purpose of "proving" that it's safe), saying that safe amounts of melamine just so happen to be slightly higher than what these products contained. This was a conspiracy cover up that just so happened to fail, where the FDA managed to screw everything up in terms of covering things up. Chances are that many things do get covered up properly and this failure was just an unlucky mistake (unlucky for them).




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (12/8/2008 8:10:59 PM)

In fact, the order of events that happened tells me the FDA is very experienced at covering things up.

Step one: cover up the initial tests declaring the levels of melamine.

Step two: declare those levels of melamine safe

Step three: run new tests that just so happen to discover that the levels of melamine contained in infant formula are safe.

The FDA seems to be so used to this (it's a routine for them) that when step one got screwed up for them by the Freedom of Information Act request, instead of thinking about their next move (and how step one being destroyed should affect their next move), they continued to step two, which only screwed them up more (because they didn't think of the fact that step two is a bad idea if step one has been destroyed, they're just so used to going from step one to step two that they just went from step one to step two by force of habit without thinking).




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (12/13/2008 3:25:31 PM)

quote:


(NaturalNews) The FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA) was signed into law last year requiring the FDA to make improvements on food safety for people and pets. The first deadline required by the Amendments Act law, requiring an Early Warning and Notification System during a pet food recall, has come and gone seemingly ignored by the FDA.


http://www.naturalnews.com/025072.html

and a follow up on the melamine issue.

Melamine




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (12/14/2008 11:39:49 AM)

I found this interesting

quote:


The European Commission said that wildlife and people have been exposed to more than 100,000 new chemicals in recent years and 99 per cent of them are not adequately regulated. There is not even proper safety information on 85 percent of them.


western environmental policies threaten male gender :O
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=171967




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (12/15/2008 11:12:02 AM)

quote:


Documents revealed by Sen. Charles Grassley's office show that the drug company Wyeth paid ghost writers to author medical journal articles hyping up the benefits of its HRT drug Prempro.

Sen. Grassley's office produced "dozens of pages" of internal documents showing the collusion between Wyeth and a firm called DesignWrite that earns money by producing what it calls "educational" content.

The New York Times is reporting (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/busin...) that one such article was published as an "Editor's Choice" feature in the May, 2003 edition of The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. That article claimed there was no link between Wyeth's drug and breast cancer, even though a federal study called the Women's Health Initiative had just concluded that, in fact, Prempro was linked to breast cancer.


Wyeth Paid Ghost Writers to Author Favorable Medical Journal Articles on its HRT Drugs

By selectively publishing studies that favor a specific drug and censoring the ones that don't, our medical system (strongly influenced by big pharmaceutical corporations) can make a drug seem safer and more effective than it really is. We need to be skeptical of any studies we read that promotes a specific drug (and be aware of the possibility of conflicts of interest even if those conflicts are not publicly disclosed), taking into account the possibility that pharmaceutical corporations have managed to skew the truth about a drug by manipulating medical journals into a bias that increases their probability of publishing studies favoring a drug and decreases their probability of publishing studies not favoring it. In this specific case, the parties involved got caught, but we can't always assume that they will (and, as they get caught, they will probably learn how to better cover their tracks the next time they perform such atrocities).




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (12/16/2008 12:34:02 PM)

quote:


The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that Coca-Cola plans to launch a calorie-free, stevia-sweetened drink this week. Why is that news? Because stevia has never been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has kept stevia off the GRAS list of approved food and beverage ingredients for well over a decade (to protect aspartame profits, critics charge).

If Coca-Cola moves ahead with its plan to launch a stevia-sweetened diet drink, it would be doing so in direct violation of FDA regulations that currently prohibit stevia from being used as an ingredient in food and beverages (stevia can only be sold as a "dietary supplement," not as an ingredient in food). This means one of the following must be true:


Coca-Cola to Launch Stevia-Sweetened Drinks in Violation of FDA Regulations?

As far as I know, Stevia is relatively safe. I wouldn't be surprised if the FDA does legalize it as a sweetener (though, previously, it was only legalized as a dietary supplement) now that Coca-Cola wants to use it. I hope that the FDA does legalize it (it's probably healthier than the artificial sweeteners we use now). However, if the FDA legalizes it only after Coca-Cola decides that they want to use it, then it would seem that the FDA believes stevia is only unsafe when it competes with the profit margins of large corporations and that it's perfectly safe if large corporations are using it to make profits.

quote:


If Possibility #2 is true, then the FDA will be faced with a dilemma: It must either confiscate all of Coca-Cola's stevia drinks or it will lose any remaining credibility as a food and beverage regulator. Why? Because it has threatened smaller stevia companies for years, even confiscating imported stevia products and ordering the destruction of stevia recipe books. If it now allows Coca-Cola to sell stevia drinks even when they are using an illegal ingredient, it would indicate blatant favoritism of large corporations over small ones.


The FDA is a tyrant organization that favors large corporations. I really hope the FDA does legalize stevia for everyone (they have no reason not to, it seems to be safer/healthier/less bad for you than the artificial stuff used today), although that would still indicate that they unfairly play favoritism for large corporations.

I also found this interesting

http://www.naturalnews.com/025088.html

quote:


Today, the medical journal Nature decided to turn tricks for its Big Pharma pimp by publishing one of the most outrageous pieces of pro-Pharma fluffery you'll ever find in print. It gathered seven scientists -- two of them admittedly on Big Pharma's payroll -- to say that doctors should be able to prescribe psychotropic drugs (like the ADHD drugs being given to children today) to healthy people in order to "improve brain function."


Psychiatric Medications Should be Prescribed to Healthy People, Declares Medical Journal

Sounds to me like conflicts of interest exist among medical journals and pharmaceutical corporations.




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (12/19/2008 11:08:19 AM)

quote:


As President Barack Obama is sworn in on January 20th, FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach will be doing something on the same day: Quietly slipping out the back door of the FDA.
...
In any case, it's apparent that many corrupt Bush appointees are fleeing Washington before the Obama swearing in. It's happening at the EPA, too, where politicians are being replaced with -- gasp! -- scientists.


FDA Commissioner Eschenbach to Leave FDA Before Obama Can Fire Him

While I did not vote for Obama (or McCain) and I didn't vote for any democrats (ie: Al - Gore or John Kerry), I really think George Bush did more to harm this nation (by advancing white collar crime and sending us to needless wars with Iraq) than any other politician in recent years.

quote:


FDA Stuns Scientists, Declares Mercury in Fish to be Safe for Infants, Children, Expectant Mothers!
...
This FDA decision on mercury in fish has alarmed EPA scientists who called it "scientifically flawed and inadequate," reports the Washington Post. Even better, the Environmental Working Group (www.EWG.org) issued a letter to the EPA, saying "It's a commentary on how low FDA has sunk as an agency. It was once a fierce protector of America's health, and now it's nothing more than a patsy for polluters."


FDA Stuns Scientists, Declares Mercury in Fish to be Safe for Infants, Children, Expectant Mothers!

I'm not surprised. The FDA seems to think that anything that competes with big pharmaceutical corporations is bad for you (ie: red yeast rice, which has been shown to be safer and more effective than some of the legal pharmaceutical drugs), but then they seem to think that if making something illegal somehow hurts the profit margins of big corporations, it's automatically not bad for you. Even many of the FDA's own scientists have complained about them. But the science hurts the profit margins of large corporations, so it must be wrong.

quote:


You want to know the REAL reason the FDA is easing up on its warning about mercury in fish? It's because the agency is being relentlessly pounded over two related issues: Mercury in dental fillings and mercury preservatives in vaccines. And the FDA can't keep up its lie about the "safety" of vaccines and mercury fillings if it has already declared mercury to be dangerous in fish, right?


Wow, I actually never thought of this.




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (12/21/2008 4:29:51 AM)

quote:


The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted GRAS approval for a natural, zero-calorie sweetener it once sought to wipe out from the U.S. marketplace. Following political pressure from powerful consumer product corporations (Coca-Cola and Pepsi, primarily), the FDA has once again fallen in step with the interests of Big Business and legalized a food and beverage ingredient that it once aggressively oppressed.


FDA Approves Stevia, Ends the Era of Oppression of this Herbal Sweetener


While I do agree with the approval of Stevia, I think that this is more evidence of the fact that many of the FDA's decisions are not based on what's best for the American people, they are based on what's best for big corporations (ie: the FDA seems to think that Stevia is safe for consumption only if its consumption benefits large corporations). Large corporations have a lot of influence over the government and the laws and they use this influence in an unethical manner and this unethical behavior does contribute to the growing gap between the rich and the poor. There is nothing wrong with being rich, but it is how an entity becomes rich that I am concerned with and the problem is that too many entities become rich by acting unethically.




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (12/21/2008 5:17:27 AM)

quote:


There is some speculation that the patented stevia being used by Coca-Cola, Pepsi and other big businesses is in some way less natural than the traditional stevia we've been buying at health food stores for years. Some have wondered how their patented stevia (Truvia) could actually be patented unless there were some synthetic molecules in it.
...
Watch for stevia-sweetened products to appear on store shelves everywhere. You'll also see lots of formulations that will combine stevia with other sweeteners to provide higher sweetness with fewer overall calories (and a lower glycemic index).


From above link.

Uhm... I hope the FDA doesn't declare Truvia to be the only approved form of Stevia. If they do, it would effectively allow companies to patent natural stuff (because they can basically patent a bunch of different forms of something that occurs naturally and ban any other form from the public, assuming there are non - patented forms left over). Of course, the FDA may make up a story that only approved (patented) forms of Stevia are safe for consumption (heck, they may even fabricate trials/studies), but the real reason for only allowing patented forms of stevia on the market (if they decide to do that) has nothing to do with safety, it has to do with protecting the profit margins of large corporations. Unfortunately, our corrupt media overlooks this.

quote:


I would rather drink bitter drinks than support these megalithic companies that want to patent the rights to the plants that grow in this Earth!


Truvia

While I do agree that we should not support these ridiculous patents, boycotting stuff is not necessarily the best solution (though it can be a good solution in many situations). In the case of an unnecessary beverage, like cola or pepsi, it's an OK solution, but then if these companies start losing profits they are likely to lobby for more invasive patents and laws. They may start trying to patent more basic things like Vitamins (ie: vitamin B6) and such. They often get their way, even against the will of the American people and against what's best for them, and the media hardly reports it. The solution is to pressure the government to do what's best for the American people and to pressure our television media to cover these important issues (and to pressure the FTC to ensure that different media stations are owned by more entities instead of fewer). We need to spread the news about this media, governmental, and corporate corruption, and the people need to elect officials that will act honestly based on what's best for the American people, and not what's best for big corporations. The people need to be more aggressive and coordinated when it comes to ensuring that the best interests of the American people are served over the best interests of large corporations.




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (12/21/2008 1:45:28 PM)

And, of course, when the patent for Truvia expires, that specific variant of Stevia may suddenly become dangerous (because whether or not something is safe for consumption has little to do with science and it has more to do with what's best for the profit margins of large corporations), big corporations may lobby to ban it, and they may get another patent on another "safer" variant of Stevia. They may claim something silly like, "Truvia was the safest sweetener we knew of in 2009, but now, thanks to advances in technology, we found a new variant that's even safer and this safer variant makes it such that there is no reason to use the more dangerous Truvia variant anymore. Hence, Truvia should be banned in place of this new patented sweetener." They may even fabricate clinical trials and such to "prove" this. In the mean time, cigarettes may still be legal. This cycle of silly nonsense needs to stop, the people really need to start standing up for their health freedoms more.

For an example of this, look at Aspartame. Aspartame was considered safe according to governmental bodies, but now that the patent for it is expired

quote:


In fact, the approval of stevia is paving the way for the banning of aspartame! And I predict aspartame will eventually be banned or removed from the GRAS list


(naturalnews link above).

Now they have a new product to make monopoly (patent) money from (Truvia) and now this variant of Stevia is suddenly safe (but Stevia wasn't considered safe before this patent). Again, this has little to do with what's best for the American people, it has to do with what's best for the profit margins of large corporations.




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (12/26/2008 1:19:13 PM)

I found this interesting

quote:


(NaturalNews) A prominent psychiatric doctor who promoted antidepressant drugs has been stripped of his chairmanship at Emory University (again!) after investigators from Senator Charles Grassley's office uncovered secret financial ties to Big Pharma.

Dr. Charles B. Nemeroff received $800,000 from GlaxoSmithKline, but failed to accurately report the income, say investigators from Grassley's office. When Emory University learned of the lapse in professional ethics, it stripped Nemeroff of his valuable chairmanship and permanently barred him from his post.

Notably, he was not fired from his job, nor barred from practicing psychiatric medicine, which just goes to show you that the practice of doctors maintaining financial ties to drug companies is openly tolerated by both state medical authorities and Emory University.

Dr. Nemeroff is barred from applying for grants from the National Institutes of Health for two years.

Nemeroff's forays into undisclosed financial gain are nothing new: In 2006, he was caught in similar under-the-table financial gains involving a medical device manufacturer named Cyberonics. (http://www.naturalnews.com/020213.html)
...
You want to know what's really interesting about all this? Nemeroff then apparently regained his chairmanship sometime between 2006 and 2008 because in this most recently scandal, he was fired from the same position he resigned from in 2006!


Psych Doctor Nemeroff Barred from Emory University Chairmanship after Revelation of Secret Financial Ties to Big Pharma

More examples of white collar crime not being adequately punished in 2006. The fact that it wasn't adequately punished caused this person to commit more white collar crime.

With all the drama that you guys make against blue collar crime (ie: one person advocated that shoplifters should have their hand cut off in one thread), you would think that people would demand more punishment against white collar crime. At least this time he received some punishment.

Oh, and more comments on the FDA and Stevia case

Are the FDA and Coca-Cola at War Over Regulatory Power?

FDA Warns Coca-Cola Over Nutrient Claims in Diet Coke

I also found this link on patents interesting (it goes back to my whole discussion on patents).

http://techdirt.com/articles/20080318/004156568.shtml




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (12/30/2008 1:40:02 AM)

I found this interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg-52mHIjhs

quote:


An examination of internal Bayer company documents by The New York Times reveals that the company was engaged in unsavory, probably criminal marketing practices. The documents reveal that Bayer continued to sell contaminated blood plasma causing thousands of hemophiliac patients to be infected with AIDS. The company continued to sell the contaminated blood in Asia for over a year when it had already introduced a safer, heated blood plasma version in the US and Europe in February 1984.

The documents examined by the Times provide evidence of unrestrained corrupt practices by a pharmaceutical industry giant. According to The Times, records suggest that the reason for continuing to sell an AIDS infected blood product, was to get rid of inventory and "the company hoped to preserve the profit margin from 'several large fixed-price contracts.'"

This previously uninvestigated case demonstrates how this industry's lies and crimes are shielded by officials at the Food and Drug Administration. The Times reports that in 1985 FDA's Dr. Harry Meyer willingly helped Bayer cover up "one of the worst drug-related medical disasters in history." Meyer suggested that the issue should be "quietly solved without alerting the Congress, the medical community and the public." This culture of accommodation continues to prevail at the FDA.


http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/0503/22.php
BAYER dumps AIDS infected drugs overseas

Many people were infected with Aids because of this nonsense and the FDA and Bayer knew about this and the FDA let this happen. Many people got infected with Aids because of these thugs and, for the most part, most of them didn't really get punished. But white collar crime is OK as long as it protects the power and profit margins of the rich and powerful and as long as it maintains the status quo. Yes, the FDA and huge corporations always have our best interest in mind, they are always so honest, everything they do is in the best interest of the American people, and they never ever lie. Please, give me a break.




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (1/1/2009 4:04:04 PM)

quote:


Participants in the forum heard Howard Wyers, owner of a health care benefits administrator in Michigan, speak of his efforts to encourage employees to quit smoking by offering incentives. When that did not deliver the results he wanted, Wyers told his 200 employees that he would no longer hire any smokers, and that anyone who did not quit smoking in the next 15 months would be fired. Eventually, he applied the rule to employees' spouses as well.


Employers Consider Bold New Ways to Halt Smoking Among Workers

I actually see this as a possible (real) threat to huge pharmaceutical corporations (eventually. The fact is that individual Americans independently fighting for what's best for themselves no longer seems to be a threat to large corporations fighting for what's best for their profit margins at he expense of the American people). My reasoning is as follows.

Currently, the actions of the medical community, the actions of the FDA and other governmental bodies, and the actions of large pharmaceutical corporations have very little relevance with what's best for the health of the American people and they have far more relevance with what's best for the profit margins of large corporations. However,

Productive employees = more profits

Healthy employees = more productivity.

Healthy employees = more profits.

So this is the logic they're going to take.

(Healthy employees = more profits) + (unhealthy employees = less profits) = make sure governmental laws endorse healthy employees.

(Notice the word ethics do not appear anywhere in this equation. Even if employers of large corporations claim that their promotion of healthy employees is somehow relevant to ethics, it's probably not).

Currently, the FDA and large pharmaceutical corporations are ran by a bunch of criminals (we're talking the same criminals who allowed Bayer to infect many people with Aids resulting in many deaths). Large corporations who want healthy employees (because healthy employees = more profits) are paying attention to this stuff and their reasoning is going to be as follows. The grand total of all this logic is going to be as follows

(FDA & government = criminals.)

+

(FDA = arbitrator of food and medicine.)

+

(FDA = bans alternative medicine)

+

(FDA = thinks pharmaceutical drugs are best or us)

+

(Can we trust criminals to tell us that pharmaceuticals are better for my employees than alternative medicine? = no)

+

(healthy employees = more profits)

=

Make sure that governmental policies endorse good health. Make sure that my employees know what's best for their health. Make sure that studies on drugs, nutrients, and alternative medicine are conducted independently of the profit margins of large pharmaceutical corporations.

Oh, and some employers may think something like, "well, we can break the law and provide my employees with alternative medicine against the law." Do you really want to provide your employees with illegal herbs and nutrients, herbs and nutrients that are less regulated by governmental resources and the public eye (which means you have to regulate it with your resources = more cost) and hence have a much higher potential of being contaminated with things like cyanide and arsenic (contamination = unhealthy employees = less profits) and they also have a higher potential of being of lower quality (which results in less healthy employees = less profits). It is in the best interest of large (non pharmaceutical) and coordinated corporations (with deep pockets) to ensure that the laws are designed for healthy employees. Pharmaceutical corporations are not endorsing healthy employees, they're endorsing their own profit margins. Large, coordinated corporations with deep pockets may work to correct this.




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (1/1/2009 4:25:28 PM)

quote:


Participants in the forum heard Howard Wyers, owner of a health care benefits administrator in Michigan, speak of his efforts to encourage employees to quit smoking by offering incentives. When that did not deliver the results he wanted, Wyers told his 200 employees that he would no longer hire any smokers, and that anyone who did not quit smoking in the next 15 months would be fired. Eventually, he applied the rule to employees' spouses as well.


Employers Consider Bold New Ways to Halt Smoking Among Workers

I actually see this as a possible (real) threat to huge pharmaceutical corporations (eventually. The fact is that individual Americans independently fighting for what's best for themselves no longer seems to be a threat to large corporations fighting for what's best for their profit margins at he expense of the American people). My reasoning is as follows.

Currently, the actions of the medical community, the actions of the FDA and other governmental bodies, and the actions of large pharmaceutical corporations have very little relevance with what's best for the health of the American people and they have far more relevance with what's best for the profit margins of large corporations. However,

Productive employees = more profits

Healthy employees = more productivity.

Healthy employees = more profits.

So this is the logic they're going to take.

(Healthy employees = more profits) + (unhealthy employees = less

profits) = make sure governmental laws endorse healthy employees.

(Notice the word ethics do not appear anywhere in this equation. Even if employers of large corporations claim that their promotion of healthy employees is somehow relevant to ethics, it's probably not).

Currently, the FDA and large pharmaceutical corporations are ran by a bunch of criminals (we're talking the same criminals who allowed Bayer to infect many people with Aids resulting in many deaths. In France and other places where this occurred, the governmental officials responsible for allowing this were punished. In the U.S it seems like no one was punished).


Large corporations who want healthy employees (because healthy employees = more profits) are paying attention to this stuff and their reasoning is going to be as follows.

(FDA & government = criminals.)

+

(FDA = arbitrator of food and medicine.)

+

(FDA = bans alternative medicine)

+

(FDA = thinks pharmaceutical drugs are best or us)

+

(Can we trust criminals to tell us that pharmaceuticals are better for my employees than alternative medicine? = no)

+

(healthy employees = more profits)

=

Make sure that governmental policies endorse good health. Make sure that my employees know what's best for their health. Make sure that studies on drugs, nutrients, and alternative medicine are conducted independently of the profit margins of large pharmaceutical corporations. Make sure that those who publish these studies are unbiased (that their choice of which studies to publish and which ones not to are unbiased).

Oh, and some employers may think something like, "well, we can break the law and provide my employees with alternative medicine against the law." Do you really want to provide your employees with illegal herbs and nutrients, herbs and nutrients that are less regulated by governmental resources and the public eye (which means you have to regulate it with your own resources = more cost) and hence have a much higher potential of being contaminated with things like cyanide and arsenic (contamination = unhealthy employees = less profits) and they also have a higher potential of being of lower quality (which results in less healthy employees = less profits). It is in the best interest of large (non pharmaceutical) and coordinated corporations (with deep pockets) to ensure that the laws are designed for healthy employees. Pharmaceutical corporations are not endorsing healthy employees, they're endorsing their own profit margins. Large, coordinated corporations with deep pockets may work to correct this.

(this is a message to large pharmaceutical corporations) I think the rest of the corporate world is becoming more aware of the fact that you are a bunch of criminals that can't be trusted with the health of corporate employees. Make no mistake, employers want their employees to be healthy (trust me, I know. Of course they pretend their enthusiasm for healthy employees is somehow relevant to ethics, lol. I think it's more relevant to profits). Be aware, the days of your unethical prosperity are numbered (God willing). You may find it very easy to push a bunch of uncoordinated Americans with little money around, but if you think it's going to be as easy for you to push huge corporations who find healthy employees relevant to good profits around, you're mistaken. You may find it easy to lie to the American people (through your proxy, the FDA), but I don't think it will be as easy to lie to large corporations who want healthy employees when good health is relevant to more profits.




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (1/3/2009 8:46:40 PM)

quote:


John Harris, professor of bioethics and director of the Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation at the University of Manchester is at it again, pushing for drug use by college students who want to "enhance their brain power" before exams. What drugs should they be taking? Amphetamines, he says! (Speed)
...
They should only be able to buy Big Pharma's amphetamines that just happen to make a ton of money for the drug companies.
...
Conventional medicine is now pushing hard for the legalization of mind-altering drugs to be used by students. It was only a few weeks ago that the medical journal Nature published a highly-publicized editorial authored by several doctors (including John Harris) who strongly advocated the use of Ritalin and other mind-altering drugs by students


http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000642_students_drug_use_bioethics.html

They want students to take Ritalin before an exam? I don't know about you, but when I do poorly on an exam, it's usually caused by a lack of studying, not a lack of Ritalin. I've never taken Ritalin to actually know this, but I don't think any amount of Ritalin can help me pass an exam I never studied for.

quote:


When the bioethics professors are recommending the mass-drugging of college students, that's when you know Big Pharma has taken over the world of academia.




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (1/4/2009 8:37:40 PM)

quote:


President-elect Barack Obama is prowling for a new head for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration


(and, if you have been following this thread, you already know most everything else mentioned in that article).
A big dose of change prescribed for FDA

While I do disagree with much of Obama's policies, I hope this is a step in the right direction. The FDA definitely needs a change.

quote:


The need for change could collide with the wishes of the pharmaceutical industry, which donates millions to politicians every year.


I also found this interesting

FDA Finalizes Supplement Claims Substantiation Guidance

regulations.gov

Draft Guidance for Industry




DayStar43 -> RE: The FDA and health (1/5/2009 10:39:39 AM)

If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny"
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (1/5/2009 12:02:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DayStar43
If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny"
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)


If we let the government decide our diet and medicine, our bodies will be in as sorry a state as our government. I wouldn't wish that upon anyone.

The government can't even manage their own issues (ie: budget), much less the health of the American people. They can't do anything else right (except for collect taxes, that they do well), why should I trust them to properly manage my health?

Do you really want your health to be as messed up as our government? If not, then DON'T let them manage it. Stand up for your health freedoms, for your freedom to manage your OWN health.




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (1/7/2009 12:28:10 AM)

quote:


After a decade of pressure from a consumer advocacy group, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will require the food industry to disclose a little known fact: The food dye that goes by the name of carmine - and several other aliases - is made from the crushed bodies of the cochineal insect.

Starting in two years, food manufacturers will have to disclose cochineal-based food additives on their labels. The FDA created the new rule because people who've consumed products that range from yogurt to fruit drinks to candy have developed severe allergic reactions, some of which have been potentially fatal.


FDA: Food makers to acknowledge bug-based additives

Starting in two years? Why not right now? So if anyone suffers because of this, they have to wait for two years to be able to identify products that cause their suffering? That's ridiculous. Why should it take two years to put this into effect? Aren't the potential health benefits to the American people worth more than the cost required to put this into effect immediately? What's worth more, the health of the American people or profits?

I also found this interesting

New Research Scandal: Scientist’s Hidden Tobacco Agenda Exposed




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (1/7/2009 12:40:44 AM)

An update on the Stevia issue

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28506581/




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (1/9/2009 1:47:14 AM)

This is an update on a previous post.

quote:


WASHINGTON (AP) — In an unusually blunt letter, a group of federal scientists is complaining to the Obama transition team of widespread managerial misconduct in a division of the Food and Drug Administration.

"The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the scientific review process for medical devices at the FDA has been corrupted and distorted by current FDA managers, thereby placing the American people at risk," said the letter, dated Wednesday and written on the agency's Center for Devices and Radiological Health letterhead.
...
In their letter the FDA dissidents alleged that agency managers use intimidation to squelch scientific debate, leading to the approval of medical devices whose effectiveness is questionable and which may not be entirely safe.

"Managers with incompatible, discordant and irrelevant scientific and clinical expertise in devices...have ignored serious safety and effectiveness concerns of FDA experts," the letter said. "Managers have ordered, intimidated and coerced FDA experts to modify scientific evaluations, conclusions and recommendations in violation of the laws, rules and regulations, and to accept clinical and technical data that is not scientifically valid."
...
"Currently, there is an atmosphere at FDA in which the honest employee fears the dishonest employee, and not the other way around," the scientists wrote.
...
Top FDA managers "committed the most outrageous misconduct by ordering, coercing and intimidating FDA physicians and scientists to recommend approval, and then retaliating when the physicians and scientists refused to go along," the letter said.


FDA scientists complain to Obama of 'corruption'

I also found these links interesting

quote:


Drugs that receive FDA approval right before deadline are more likely to cause serious side effects than those approved with more time to spare, according to a study published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.

Fast-Track FDA Drug Approvals Leads to Deadly Drugs Entering Market

FDA Investigated Over Knowledge of Fraudulent Conduct by Drug Company Ranbaxy

UC's Henney may be offered top FDA job

A Wolfe in Regulator's Clothing: Drug Industry Critic Joins the FDA

quote:


But some legislators weren’t buying that. Rep. John Shimkus (R., Ill.) told the WSJ: “To remove managers for two days to discuss this morale problem, instead of putting food and drug safety first, is ridiculous.”


FDA Morale-Booster Backfires Over Comparison of Woodcock to Gandhi

Coca-Cola's Orange Drinks Found to Contain 300 Times More Pesticides than Legal Limit in Water




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (1/9/2009 12:25:35 PM)

An update on a previous post

quote:


Some lawmakers are fuming about a $1.5 million contract for morale-boosting that the FDA awarded the consultant that prepared the slideshow....

Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, said of the slide presentation: "It's a cinch that if I spent a nickel of taxpayers' money to rank myself with [Sam] Houston and [Stephen F.] Austin, I'd have some explaining to do after the laughter died down."


FDA's Visionaries: Golda Meir, Gandhi, and Nader


Then the FDA complains that the problem is a lack of funding when they're wasting taxpayer money and resources on promotions. What a joke. The problem isn't a lack of funding (though that may contribute to the problem a little), it's too much criminal behavior.




Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (1/11/2009 12:25:55 AM)

quote:


The FDA approved two versions of a new zero-calorie sweetener developed by the Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo.

Cargill, which is marketing the sweetener Truvia from Coca-Cola, received notification from the FDA that it had no objection to the product, calling it “generally recognized as safe.”

PepsiCo said it also had received a similar letter and the same “generally recognized as safe” designation for its sweetener, PureVia.

Both products use rebiana, an extract from the stevia plant.


FDA Approves Two New Stevia-Based Sweeteners

When small entities tried to use stevia as a sweetener, the FDA stopped them. When the rich and the powerful want to use it, the FDA does nothing. The only difference between the Stevia that Pepsi and Coca - Cola are using and the Stevia that the FDA suppressed from smaller entities for many years is that this stevia is patented and helps the profit margins of the rich and the powerful. As soon as a company like Coca - Cola wants to use Stevia, it's ok, but before that, it was not.

Why not just ban bananas from poor and powerless entities and, when a huge corporation wants to use them for something they want to sell, allow them to get a patent on a banana variant and then sell it? Lets just do this for all fruits and vegetables.

The FDA didn't ban Stevia as a dietary supplement, so they didn't seem to think it was very dangerous. The reason the FDA didn't ban Stevia as a dietary supplement during the time that it was banned as a sweetener is because, as a dietary supplement, Stevia did not compete with patented sweeteners (but as a sweetener, it would). As a dietary supplement, Stevia doesn't really compete with pharmaceutical drugs either (because, traditionally, it was mostly used as a safe sweetener, not to treat any illnesses that pharmaceuticals claim to treat), so the FDA and big pharmaceutical corporations really had little economic reason to ban it as a dietary supplement. Every step of the way, the actions of the FDA just so happen to be convenient for the profit margins of the rich and the powerful.

Naturally occurring substances should not be subject to intellectual property and, as a result, the American people should demand that the patents on these products be removed and that these products not be banned as a result of the removal of their patents (ie: just because the FDA or some other entity may choose to fabricate some study indicating that these products are somehow harmful just because they are no longer subject to intellectual property).




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI