|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login | |
|
RE: The FDA and health - 2/24/2009 1:27:40 AM
|
|
|
lightshineon
Posts: 1853
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
You are welcome, it was so scary, that I was lied to, and told this dangerous drug was a natural substance sold in health food stores. I know I sound ignorant, but never knew such a street drug exsisted. I am pretty sheltered from these things, or I was even as a grown woman. quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize BTW, thanks for your insights lightshineon. quote:
Pfizer Inc. could pay $153 million or more to the state of Wisconsin after a jury found a company it acquired artificially inflated prices for years, the state's attorney general said Tuesday. Jury rules against Pfizer in Wisconsin lawsuit Hopefully the ruling won't be overturned. When a big corporation does something wrong, they should be punished. I also found this interesting. Voting Himself Rich: CDC Vaccine Adviser Made $29 Million Or More After Using Role to Create Market (both articles originally found on Naturalnews).
_____________________________
Remember, whenever you have pearls, there are always plenty of pigs nearby who would be glad to step on them. F.T., 2007 Be sure you vote for those, whose views you want your children to emulate.
|
|
|
|
RE: The FDA and health - 2/24/2009 1:52:40 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lightshineon I know I sound ignorant Not at all. Given the volumes of information around us, everyone is ignorant of 99.9999.... % of it. It seems like there is just way too much information for anyone to know even the tiniest fraction of it. We're all ignorant together. BTW, an update on the Wyeth v. Levine case. quote:
But a potential conflict of interest stemming from the financial portfolio of Chief Justice John Roberts could sink the crucial court ruling before it is even issued. Roberts’ Shares of Pfizer at Issue As of 2006, Roberts admitted owning between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of shares of Pfizer, one the world’s largest drug companies which has announced it plans to purchase Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. While it is unknown whether the Chief Justice still owns the Pfizer stocks, in the past, Roberts has recused himself from cases that involve Pfizer and other entities in which he has a financial interest. ... Is Wyeth Getting Nervous? On February 4, 2009, Seth P. Waxman, the attorney of record for Wyeth in the Levine case, wrote a letter to the clerk of the Supreme Court, essentially stating his position that Roberts’ shares of Pfizer should not prevent the chief justice from voting in the pending case. Is Wyeth Case Doomed to Deadlock Over Roberts’ Stock Holdings? Oh great, just what we need, potential conflicts of interest in the supreme court and Wyeth lobbying for Roberts to make a decision. He seems to be arguing that this alleged conflict of interest wouldn't affect the decision. If that were really true then Wyeth wouldn't be so interested in lobbying for his decision. I think the fact alone that Wyeth wants him to be able to cast a decision suggests that this potential conflict of interest could influence the decision. Otherwise, Wyeth should have no interest in the matter. Why else would it be so interested (surely it has nothing to do with the principle of the matter, as if Wyeth, by coincidence, decided to be interested enough in principle in this particular case to write such a letter. Is it common practice for Wyeth to write letters to judges about principle regarding cases that have nothing to do with them? Common enough to make such a coincidence likely? I think not. Wyeth wrote the letter because its their money at stake and I highly doubt that Wyeth is more interested in principle than their money (as if they're so altruistic and benevolent)).
|
|
|
|
RE: The FDA and health - 2/26/2009 12:37:31 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
RALEIGH, N.C. — A newspaper report says months passed between federal regulators first receiving complaints about tainted syringes produced at a North Carolina plant and action to pull them from the market. The News & Observer of Raleigh reported Wednesday the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had complaints as early as 2005 about contamination in syringes filled with blood thinner by AM2PAT Inc. at its plant in Angier. The FDA pulled the product from the market in December 2007. Authorities say the syringes sickened hundreds of people and are linked to five deaths. Two company officials pleaded guilty to charges and officials are searching for the company's president. Report: FDA took months to pull tainted syringes quote:
RALEIGH, N.C. - A North Carolina syringe factory linked to hundreds of sicknesses and five deaths operated for almost two years without an inspection despite a series of complaints that its needles were dirty or filled with colored particles. FDA didn’t inspect syringe plant despite reports It seems like the FDA can't go very long without doing something wrong (or not doing something right that they're supposed to do, in this case, protect the American people). quote:
Court documents in the North Carolina case show the U.S. Food and Drug Administration only inspected the AM2PAT Inc. plant in December 2007 after an outbreak of illness was reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It figures that another governmental agency ended up blowing the whistle on this one. The FDA is too busy protecting the profit margins of large corporations to do anything about protecting the American people. It's not until another governmental agency steps in does anything get done. Why even have an FDA, not only aren't they part of the solution, they're part of the problem. quote:
In 2007, before the outbreak of illness was traced back to the company’s syringes, the FDA received more than a dozen reports of problems with AM2PAT’s products. Some reported “orange specks” floating inside the unopened syringes, while others reported “yellow sediment” or “muddy brown” syringes filled with floating white specks. 22-month gap FDA records show the agency first received complaints of particles in AM2PAT syringes in November 2005. FDA spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey said the company was inspected in January 2006 but then wasn’t checked again until the December 2007 inspection: a gap of 22 months. ... Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Cowley said a person who had the title of “microbiologist” at the company was a teenager who had dropped out of high school. Wow, that last paragraph is frightening. But rest assured, the FDA is doing everything they can to protect the profit margins of rich and powerful corporations.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 2/26/2009 12:54:43 AM >
|
|
|
|
RE: The FDA and health - 2/26/2009 1:05:36 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
(Read the article for context) quote:
Three drugs tested at the Paonta Sahib plant are still in U.S. circulation because they are manufactured at the company’s New Jersey plant. Those drugs are a generic decongestant and generic versions of Merck & Co. Inc.’s Zocor and Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Pravachol. Both are widely used cholesterol drugs. Those drugs likely underwent new testing when they were transferred to the U.S. for production, regulators said. FDA: India drug makers lied about test results How likely is it that they underwent new testing? Is it really that likely or is the FDA just protecting big U.S. pharmaceutical corporations again (I don't claim to know the answer, but the quote raises the question).
|
|
|
|
RE: The FDA and health - 2/26/2009 1:21:10 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
So the moral of the story is that if you sell something banned by the FDA that helps people (ie: red yeast rice naturally containing more than just trace amounts of Lovastatin), the FDA will have federal agents come after you in no time (because you're competing with the profit margins of large corporations). If you sell contaminated syringes that kill people, the FDA will look the other way for almost two years (as long as you're not doing anything to threaten the profit margins of rich and powerful entities) and they will only come after you if another governmental agency practically demands it. The FDA has no lack of resources when it comes to protecting the profit margins of rich and powerful corporations (and when it comes to wasting money on pointless political promotions (post 74)). But when it comes to actually protecting the American people, all of a sudden the FDA complains about a lack of funding.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 2/26/2009 1:32:14 AM >
|
|
|
|
RE: The FDA and health - 2/28/2009 1:13:52 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
If manufacturers (read: innovators) cannot rely on FDA approval to defend them against lawsuits, they will have less of an incentive to invest in new devices. When Suing Companies Means Harming Patients This is absolute nonsense. If anything, the threat of being sued will give them more incentive to invest in newer safer devices to avoid being sued. If they know they can't be sued no matter what, this will give them disincentive to improve the safety and effectiveness of their devices (since doing such a thing will be costly and doesn't offer the rewards of fewer lawsuits). Someone's comment on the story quote:
This point rarely makes it beyond the conservative echo chamber. If anything, this is another example of the modern republican position of, "Adopt whatever policies make rich corporations richer even if it comes at the expense of the American people and make up any convoluted excuse you can to justify such policy." It's nonsense and I really hate to see the republican position put the profit margins of rich and powerful corporations before that of the health and welfare of the American people. Unfortunately, modern republicans seem to be really out of touch with reality (the quotes I quoted and my obvious refutations demonstrate this) and I'm really disappointed to see this. quote:
The specter of litigation, with different standards in each state, would sometimes stall development of lifesaving devices; it shifts the profit-risk balance so much that it'll be financially prudent to not sell a device. It will be financially prudent to not sell dangerous devices. They will have incentive to produce safe devices, to ensure that the devices are safe before selling them, even if those devices cost more (and even if ensuring the safety of those devices costs more). Preemption gives them incentive to cut costs, to invest in "innovations" that save money (and not necessarily lives) even if doing so means producing a more dangerous device. They will have no incentive to produce safer devices and to ensure that their devices are safe before selling them. Not to mention, it gives these corporations more inventive to falsify data (which they have a track record of doing) since judges can't order inside documents to be revealed, it gives them incentive to lobby/influence the FDA to approve unsafe devices, it gives them incentive to give the FDA false data on device safety (ie: by cherry picking the data) so that the FDA can approve unsafe devices, etc... it gives them incentive to do everything they can to get the device approved (no matter how corrupt, so long as they don't get caught or in trouble for it) knowing that if the device gets approved, they are free of liability. [added in edit] If the profit-risk balance is such that the risks of selling a device outweigh the profits, perhaps that's precisely why the device is too dangerous to sell and hence shouldn't be sold. If a company can't sell a device that's safe enough for the profit - risk balance to show a profit, perhaps the company should not sell devices and leave it to other companies that can sell a safer device (or perhaps the company should step it up and sell a safer device).
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 2/28/2009 2:04:04 AM >
|
|
|
|
RE: The FDA and health - 3/1/2009 10:08:04 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
...the gold standard of consumer protection: Before any pharmacist can hand over an orange bottle, the FDA must study the data on that drug and approve it. But a recent report by The Oncologist medical journal has exposed how flimsy that standard really is. The article’s authors counted the number of drug company clinical trials that get published — versus how many trials the companies actually conduct. The answer: only a tiny fraction. ... The pattern these registrations show is shocking. Commercial drug companies published fewer than six percent of all the clinical studies they undertook to test their drugs. FDA allows too much data about poor drug outcomes to be hidden I've always contended that pharmaceutical drugs are far more dangerous and less effective than pharmaceutical corporations (and the medical community) claim them to be. It's too easy to skew and hide data to the advantage of pharmaceutical corporations. Of course, without an unreasonably high amount of extremely substantial evidence, too many people would label me a crazy conspiracy theorist for even suggesting that pharmaceutical corporations are in any way deceptive. We should all assume they are completely benevolent and honest no matter what the evidence (and anyone who thinks otherwise is a crazy conspiracy theorist). I'm sure that some crazy modern republican will come up with the insane idea, "but skewing data and hiding inconvenient data from consumers is somehow good for them. It allows the pharmaceutical corporations to gain more profits so that they can invest that money into better innovations that would save lives and help people." It's similar to the logic behind preemption laws.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/1/2009 10:22:03 PM >
|
|
|
|
RE: The FDA and health - 3/1/2009 11:12:45 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Regional health officials see drop in flu vax demand quote:
"Actually, this has been a mild season; we've not seen as many cases this year as in past years, but activity is picking up," said Brenda Williams, communicable disease program manager for the Wicomico health agency. Teen deaths bring flu vaccine reminder I find it interesting that, in the same year that fewer people got flu shots, flu deaths have declined (not saying anything good or bad about flu shots in general). Added in edit: Also found this interesting quote:
But weeks after announcing a ban on the widely used antibiotic cephalosporin last summer, the FDA quietly reversed its decision after getting a trough full from agribusiness and pharma. Even the hearings on the Hill in September sponsored by the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry flew under the public's radar. They were termed a "review" of "advances in animal health within the livestock industry." Sea, Sand and Fish May Be Hazardous to Health Say Scientists
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/1/2009 11:40:35 PM >
|
|
|
|
RE: The FDA and health - 3/2/2009 1:58:49 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
An update on the Seroquel case quote:
In documents unsealed last week, a 1997 e-mail message from Richard Lawrence, an AstraZeneca official, praised Lisa Arventis, the Seroquel project physician at the time, for minimizing adverse findings in a "cursed" study. "Lisa has done a great 'smoke-and-mirrors job," Lawrence wrote. Seroquel maker denies hiding side effects But, of course, these corporations are way too innocent to ever hide important information from the public. We are just a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists. [added in edit] BTW, notice the FDA's complete failure to protect us from these monsters. They are too busy protecting the profit margins of rich and powerful corporations.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/2/2009 2:15:15 AM >
|
|
|
|
RE: The FDA and health - 3/3/2009 4:14:21 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
An update on the Stevia issue quote:
A few months ago, Coca-Cola announced it would begin using its stevia-derived sweetener Truvia in a few products, prior to being approved by the FDA. ... Recently, I saw both Truvia and PureVia on the shelf at my grocery store. ... Both PureVia and Truvia are made by extracting rebaudioside A (Reb A) from the leaves of the stevia plant. While the FDA has not yet approved the use of whole-leaf stevia or stevia extracts as sweeteners, they have issued a "No Objection Letter" to the use of Reb A, saying that it's "generally safe http://www.fitsugar.com/2866994 http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20090223/LIFESTYLE/902230310 More examples of how the FDA protects the profit margins of rich and powerful corporations (ie: allowing them to sell patented products extracted from natural herbs while banning the herbs themselves only to protect their profit margins) at the expense of the American people. The FDA says that this is safe now, but lets see them change their tone once the patent expires. Also found the following interesting. NC body parts supplier's alleged fraud detailed Congressmen Push To Nullify Supreme Court’s Medical Device Decision
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/3/2009 4:25:40 PM >
|
|
|
|
RE: The FDA and health - 3/4/2009 1:14:18 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
I think this is evidence of the potentially irresponsible (either that or corrupt) nature of large corporations. This is more evidence that preemption laws should not be in place. Vaccines as Biological Weapons? Live Avian Flu Virus Placed in Baxter Vaccine Materials Sent to 18 Countries BTW, I'm not claiming this was done on purpose and I'm not claiming this was done on accident. I don't know. Assuming it was an accident (which it probably was, but the fact is that we never really know. I wouldn't be surprised if it was done on purpose though), this is substantial negligence and the company should pay for the damages it caused. This is more evidence against the notion that preemption laws should exist. Also note, even if this was an intentional occurrence, we should not be so quick to claim that the entire corporation acted intentionally to commit this crime. It could have just been a single, malicious employee acting independently of the rest of the corporation. It's not like a corporation always acts as a single coordinated body. Of course, this certainly should not excuse the corporation from negligence and from paying the damages it owes (and the responsible individual, in the case of malice, should be held criminally responsible). [added in edit] I wonder how many actual vaccines were contaminated? If it got to 18 countries, this seems to suggest it was a lot? Is it plausible for a single malicious person to contaminate that many vaccines (well, I don't even know how many shots were contaminated). What are the chances of the company making such a huge mistake?
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/4/2009 1:28:07 AM >
|
|
|
|
RE: The FDA and health - 3/4/2009 1:16:13 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday enhanced the ability of people to hold drug companies financially responsible for injuries. In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that federal law does not block a lawsuit in state court by a woman who lost an arm to gangrene after receiving an injection of an anti-nausea drug. The ruling, a rejection of the Bush administration's position, affirms a Vermont jury's $6.7 million award to Diana Levine, a former guitarist, who sued drugmaker Wyeth for the loss of her arm after she had gone to a local health clinic in April 2000 for treatment of a migraine. Supreme Court rejects limits on drug lawsuits
|
|
|
|
RE: The FDA and health - 3/5/2009 2:00:00 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
doctors are asking patients to sign agreements that bar them from posting comments on everything from review sites to blogs, and then attempting to have the reviews removed if they break the gag order. In fact, these doctors are going so far as enlisting the help of monitoring companies that watch for negative posts attempting to in check. One such company ... [has an] entire business ... built upon pushing patient waivers to doctors and then hunting out their commenting indiscretions online. ... "They're basically forcing the patients to choose between health care and their First Amendment rights, and I really find that repulsive," RateMDs cofounder John Swapceinsk told the AP. [text in brackets added] Doctors try to silence negative reviews from patients I think this is a violation of our first amendment rights. Also found these links interesting. INSIDE WASHINGTON: Is the FDA a broken agency? NY county lawmakers vote to ban BPA baby bottles Of course the FDA did nothing to protect the public (they're too busy protecting the profit margins of rich and powerful corporations), so we have to leave it up to other governing bodies to protect them.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/5/2009 2:21:15 AM >
|
|
|
|
RE: The FDA and health - 3/7/2009 2:49:11 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
More on BPA quote:
The six largest manufacturers of baby bottles will stop selling bottles in the United States made with bisphenol A ... The manufacturers declared their intentions after Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, joined by the attorneys general in Connecticut and New Jersey, wrote to the bottle makers and asked them to voluntarily stop using the chemical. No BPA For Baby Bottles In U.S. Also found this interesting quote:
WASHINGTON -- The recent approval of a new device to treat knee injuries followed a lobbying campaign that overcame repeated rejections by scientists within the Food and Drug Administration, agency documents show. ... Some senior FDA staff members complained in documents that the handling of Menaflex, made by ReGen Biologics Inc., shows how political and industry pressure can influence scientific conclusions. ... In one instance, emails show the FDA's integrity office excising language from a draft letter an FDA lawyer said would "document special treatment for ReGen." ... Dr. Mabrey also says, "In retrospect, I think they [the FDA] were stacking the committee to get the decision the company wanted." Political Lobbying Drove FDA Process The following is regarding my last post (post 116) about, "Doctors try to silence negative reviews from patients" Someone (Pont) made a very good point on that site, quote:
You ignore the very special circumstance that doctors are in: patients can say anything they want, but doctors can't respond to a review without breaking confidentiality rules and risking their medical license. This is actually a very good point (and for some reason I overlooked it). If patients should have the freedom to criticize doctors, doctors should have the freedom to defend themselves. Freedom of speech should go both ways. A complicated system could be that doctors give patients patient numbers. When a patient complains about a doctor online, they have to state their patient number so the doctor can look up the patient. Then, without revealing the identity of the patient, the doctor can defend himself. The law should hold that once a patient publicly complains about a doctor, confidentiality rules do not apply only to the extent needed for the doctor to defend himself (ie: doctors can't unnecessarily reveal personal information just to retaliate. The information they reveal must be part of their defense). quote:
Mr. Zerden’s minor stir four years ago has lately grown into a full-blown movement by more than 200 Harvard Medical School students and sympathetic faculty, intent on exposing and curtailing the industry influence in their classrooms and laboratories, as well as in Harvard’s 17 affiliated teaching hospitals and institutes. ... The students argue, for example, that Harvard should be embarrassed by the F grade it recently received from the American Medical Student Association, a national group that rates how well medical schools monitor and control drug industry money. Harvard Medical School in Ethics Quandary (originally found on naturalnews). The new Dean at Harvard really has a very tough situation on his hands (read the article for more details). While I do sympathize with him, I also think it's very important for all conflicts of interest among teachers and industry to be disclosed to students (this should be mandatory with strict punishment for those who don't comply). I found this suspicious. quote:
Of Harvard's 8,900 professors and lecturers, 1,600 admit that either they or a family member have had some kind of business link to drug companies — sometimes worth hundreds of thousands of dollars — that could bias their teaching or research. Additionally, pharma contributed more than $11.5 million to the school last year for research and continuing-education classes. The Times covered these details in its stories and included the ... fact that during the November demonstration, a Pfizer employee was on campus photographing protesters with a cell-phone camera. Is Drug-Company Money Tainting Medical Education? (link originally found on naturalnews).
|
|
|
|
RE: The FDA and health - 3/12/2009 12:48:00 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
(NaturalNews) Internal FDA documents have revealed that top agency officials strongly objected in 2006 and 2008 when the Bush administration took steps to enshrine a "preemption" policy for drugs. More examples of how George Bush ruined this nation (and Obama, with his plans to have the government control everything, doesn't seem to be much better. Obama wants to give the FDA more authority when the FDA is causing enough harm with the authority that it has). quote:
In 2006 and 2008, the FDA sought to strengthen its preemption policy by requiring drug companies to get agency approval before making any changes to the safety section of drug labels. At the time, top FDA officials blasted these changes as "naive to what actually occurs in practice," and said they were based on "false assumption," "false and misleading" assertions" and "gross overstatement." "Much of the argument for why we are proposing to invoke preemption seems to be based on a false assumption that the FDA-approved labeling is fully accurate and up-to-date in a real time basis," objected Office of New Drugs head John Jenkins. "We know that such an assumption is false. ... We know that many current approved drug labels are out-of-date and in many cases contain incorrect information. ... It is unwise to suggest that FDA approved labeling is always up-to-date and always contains a full and complete listing of all pertinent risk information." ... The report notes that the new preemption rules may have already led to consumer harm. It cites the case of when Glaxo sought to change the label of its breast cancer drug Tykerb to warn of the potential for pneumonitis or interstitial lung disease, but the FDA delayed on approving the change for three months. The FDA delayed for the same amount of time when Johnson & Johnson sought to add warnings of the potential for liver toxicity to its antibiotic Levaquin. Top FDA Officials Say Preemption Policy Based on "False and Misleading" Information It seems like those who run the FDA can get away with just about anything unpunished. They constantly promote the profit margins of rich and powerful corporations at the expense of the American people, they fail to protect us, and they never seem to get punished.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/12/2009 12:54:57 AM >
|
|
|
|
RE: The FDA and health - 3/18/2009 1:36:05 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
The FDA, Jewell added, had access to Study 15 when it declared Seroquel safe and effective. A Silenced Drug Study Creates An Uproar More examples of how our current patent system is compromising the integrity of our research. Of course, many on these forums would disagree, ignoring any bad news that may imply rich and powerful corporations are partly responsible (or that something that helps rich and powerful corporations, like the patent system, is partly responsible).
|
|
|
|
RE: The FDA and health - 3/23/2009 4:01:13 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
For some reason, this comment didn't show up on naturalnews so I decided to post it here. It's in response to this article. HR 875 Could Result in Arrest, Imprisonment of CEOs of Processed Food Companies (if enforced) My response Get a clue. This bill is not intended to prosecute corrupt CEO's of rich and powerful corporations like Pepsi or Monsanto, who sell dangerous products, and it won't be used for that. It will be used to prosecute small farmers who sell safe products. Bayer got away with selling Aids tainted blood and the FDA allowed it for crying out loud. This site has documented tons of cases where rich CEO's have broken laws and, for the most part, they get away with it. Look at http://www.naturalnews.com/025833.html . Get a clue, these people are NOT going to be held accountable. This country doesn't hold rich corporations (ie: Bayer) accountable for destroying peoples lives, it only punishes small farmers [or entities] for trying to sell healthy products (ie: healthy food). Mike Adams, you're dreaming if you think this bill will get used to punish the CEO's of Pepsi, big corporations have already broken many many laws and were not held accountable, what's a few more laws going to do? It just means they'll get away with breaking more laws. The U.S government; for big corporations, by big corporations. I also want to comment on this article. quote:
FDA’s proposed regulatory revision was the result of three notifications submitted to the agency under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The first notification referred to by FDA was the so-called seafood processors notification - which included the companies Alaska General Seafoods, Ocean Beauty Seafoods, and Trans-Ocean Products. The second notification was submitted by Martek Biosciences Corporation, while the third notification came from Ocean Nutrition Canada. Omega-3 nutrient content claims valid until at least 2012 I'm not saying the FDA's position on this issue is right or wrong, I just want to point out how the FDA is quick to respond to industry demands and how slow they are to act in the best interest of the American people (ie: the peanut butter mess and the tainted syringe mess. They listen carefully to what rich and powerful entities want but they don't pay very much attention to what's best for the American people). It's just amazing how the health and welfare of the American people has so little to do with FDA decisions and how the wealth and power of huge entities that lobby the FDA has a much more powerful impact on their decisions.
|
|
|
|
RE: The FDA and health - 3/29/2009 1:31:05 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Coast Independent Review Board, of Colorado Springs, was recently snared when undercover federal investigators created a sham medical study to see how closely companies like Coast evaluate the studies they are paid to review. Two of Coast’s competitors refused to approve the study’s design. But Coast approved a trial, involving a make-believe surgical product called Adhesiabloc and researchers who did not exist. An Overseer of Trials in Medicine Draws Fire But of course, medicine today isn't based on politics and corruption whatsoever, it's all based on very sound honest science. Politics, corruption, data fabrication, statistic manipulation, etc... play no role in determining the truth about the safety and effectiveness of modern medicine. If authorities say something is safe and effective, and if they allege that scientific studies prove it, it must be true because there can't be any corruption in these studies. It just doesn't exist.
|
|
|
|
RE: The FDA and health - 4/4/2009 10:50:32 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
FDA Hasn't Intensified Inspections At Peanut Facilities, Despite Illness Of course not, they're too busy protecting rich and powerful entities to protect the American people from the rich and the powerful. I also found this interesting. quote:
In documents Pennock obtained as part of the lawsuits, the most serious of the possible conflicts detailed involves Armenteros. Conflicts for FDA committee set to weigh risks of Seroquel But of course conflicts of interests are nothing new. There are so many conflicts of interest and so much corruption between rich and powerful corporations and the government (ie: the FDA, the EPA, etc...) that to keep up with it all constitutes a full time job. Yet many on these forums are quick to try and defend the FDA and rich and powerful corporations and are not outraged at their atrocities. They complain about blue collar crime (ie: the shootings in Germany) but as soon as I mention that the shooter was on psychiatric drugs (associating the incident with drugs sold by rich and powerful corporations, something our corrupt mainstream media substantially failed to communicate) they are quick to drop the subject (but then they continued discussing another shooting on another thread at the same time. You don't think I notice this?). More examples of how modern republicans are out of touch with reality. They claim to care for humanity but they seem to care less about the atrocities performed by rich and powerful corporations no matter what the cost to humanity (I also don't buy the notion that democrats are any better). quote:
"How can someone sit as chair of an FDA advisory committee crucial to AstraZeneca and Seroquel for five years even though he was an extensively trained speaker for AstraZeneca on Seroquel?" asked Pennock, a lawyer for the New York firm Weitz & Luxenberg. The revelations come amid intense scrutiny of the FDA and of relationships between researchers and drug companies. "The industry is infected with greed," said Sheller, who runs the Philadelphia law firm that bears his name. "You can't trust the approvals, you can't trust the studies, and now you can't trust the FDA." As far as I know this has almost always been the case. When was the FDA ever trustworthy? So many of their decisions in the past seem politically motivated, not just "now." This is nothing new.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/4/2009 11:05:17 PM >
|
|
|
|
RE: The FDA and health - 4/17/2009 4:44:09 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
However, general manager of Big Tree Organic Farms Wendy Larson told FoodNavigator-USA.com that she believes “it is the end of the line for unpasteurized almonds” and criticized those that raised the case for being under-involved in the discussion process. “There were numerous discussion and education opportunities presented to the entire almond industry – organic included – well in advance of the mandatory pasteurization rule being put in place and that was the time to iron out concerns,” she said. “It’s time for them to come back to the conference table and participate in innovation.” Judge upholds almond pasteurization law It figures that the FDA is siding with big industry on this one. quote:
There are also concerns about the cost of pasteurization, its availability, and how acceptable it is to consumers who prefer organic produce. In other words they are worried about profits. More evidence that this has little to do with what's best for the American people and more to do with what's best for rich and powerful corporations. What their main concern here is how will this affect profits, it has little to do with what's best for Americans. quote:
The primary reasons for passing this law are two isolated outbreaks of salmonella, in conjunction with conventional almond farms a few years ago. To the best of our knowledge no salmonella outbreaks have EVER been associated with organic almonds. http://www.rense.com/general77/almonds.htm Again, none of these laws are based on evidence, it's just all speculation and scare tactics put out by rich and powerful corporations. Yet the FDA turns around and allows salmonella outbreaks to occur from rich and powerful peanut corporations and they practically turn a blind eye and do little about it. They also allow contaminated syringes to be injected into us and they do nothing. The hypocrisy. They're not interested in what's best for us. quote:
This means that the Almond farmer will have to truck thousands of pounds of almonds to one of the five facilities that are already set up for the pasteurization process and then truck them back again to the processing plant. This just so happens to be a burden for the poor and the powerless. Eliminating the competition is good for the rich and the powerful. quote:
Besides having a vital part of our food supply pasteurized--against our will, it will now have a huge cost attached to it. The will of the American people doesn't matter anymore (when has it mattered?). Only the will of the rich and the powerful. What's best for the American people matters not, what's best for rich and powerful corporations is what matters. quote:
“it is the end of the line for unpasteurized almonds” (first link) The rich and the powerful have spoken, let it be done!!!! Nevermind what the people want. The poor and the powerless, what's best for the people, matter not. quote:
The problem is the law has been passed with little public input (if any) or notification whatsoever. (Second link) quote:
“It’s time for them to come back to the conference table and participate in innovation.” (first link) Forcing something on us against our will is not innovation, it's tyranny. quote:
In addition, all pasteurized almonds available in the marketplace will still be labeled as raw almonds. Can this be considered fraudulence or an outright lie? (second link) False advertising brought to us by the U.S. government. Buyer beware.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/17/2009 7:04:51 PM >
|
|
|
|
RE: The FDA and health - 4/17/2009 10:57:54 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1177
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Also found this interesting. quote:
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), in response to major evidence of an alarming link between mercury in vaccines and autism a number of years ago, went to great lengths to cover it up and fund a new study designed to rule out mercury’s link to autism. It made its database available to a private company, kept it from independent researchers, and to prevent financial losses to vaccine manufacturers, the CDC and FDA bought up large supplies of mercury-containing vaccines for export to developing countries as they prepared to phase them out here. Robert F. Kennedy, in a piece published in Rolling Stone a number of years ago exposed a level of corruption that shocked even me; the story is available online for those interested. http://www.vueweekly.com/article.php?id=11601 quote:
Sandpoint, ID–Congressional investigators and federal health officials have secreted a report prepared by experts proving vaccine mercury is harming children far worse than previously known. The “Thimerosal VSD Study: Phase I” document was secreted in 2000, and subsequent congressional hearings and news reports neglected it. The study, conducted by scientists commissioned by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), shows statistically significant links between vaccine-injected mercury and “neurological developmental disorders” including misery, depression, and suicide. Additional links to autism were strongly suggested by the data that heavily discourages the use of the drug Thimerosal containing mercury used for vaccine sterility. The official documents marked “CONFIDENTIAL . . . DO NOT COPY OR RELEASE” were obtained by class action attorneys through Freedom of Information petitions and posted this week on the Internet attached to a filmed commentary by public health expert, Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz. The iMovie is viewable on YouTube. “This is an obvious vaccination genocide,” Dr. Horowitz said. He called it “gross criminal negligence and murderous official malfeasance” that the report was secreted by congressional investigators and public health protectors. “These traitors have purposefully manipulated and impaired millions of American children, and the economic burden of caring for their special needs with be catastrophic.” http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=1534 Also see http://www.mercuryexposure.org/index.php?article_id=328 But, of course, these criminals (at the FDA and CDC) will be held unaccountable. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7395411/deadly_immunity/
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/17/2009 11:34:25 PM >
|
|
|
|
RE: The FDA and health - 4/18/2009 4:36:19 AM
|
|
|
shakezula
Posts: 912
Joined: 3/9/2009
Status: offline
|
people need to decide how much this matters to them. at face value, we all want safe food. but the kind of oversight you want will cost huge bucks. maybe it is money well spent, but where will the funding come from? do you really want to make the budget that much bigger? to me the fda is in a no-win situation on prescription drugs. if they tighten regulations, new drugs come out slower, and desperate people get angry over the time it takes and the red tape. if you speed it up, people get new drugs faster, but lots of bad drugs get on the market before they were properly tested. i think people should sign a waver. if we know a drug was hurried out to market, the drug company must let that be known. people who want it would have to sign a contract acknowledging that they understand this. they would have to agree that they are taking a big risk by taking the drug, and they will not sue the company if they get a bad side effect. btw, there was a report that came out a while ago about the study that started the autism/vaccine scare. turns out the data was forged.
|
|
|
|
New Messages |
No New Messages |
Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
Locked w/ New Messages |
Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|