Dietary supplements: the free market vs. the FDA

We are the Borg.
User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Thu Jun 24, 2004 1:12 am

Something else to consider: how advances are introduced.

Before government meddling, medical advances progressed pretty much like every other technological advancement: it was available for the "early adopters" for a huge price. Once they started buying more, production increased, and the price dropped; then more people bought, production increased further, and long story short it's not very long before pretty much anybody can afford it. Look at how color TVs entered the market, for example.

However, when they released the MRI, the government stepped in. After all, it's so unfair to the poor people to allow only the rich elite to take advantage of this, right? So essentially they forbade ANYONE from using it until the price could be lowered. It ended up that the government had to seriously subsidize MRIs in order for them to be put into widespread use. But if they had just left it alone, those "greedy" rich would actually have been paving the way for middle class and even the poor to be able to have this procedure done when needed, much sooner than it ended up being available.

Regulations stifle innovation and hinder the introduction of new technologies. And in the field of medicine, that only hurts people.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 11439
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve » Thu Jun 24, 2004 5:37 pm

shanek wrote: Funny, I don't see a line item in the CDC report for "just wearing out"...
On that note, I think we can close this discussion. Your mind is closed, your words are simply created to make a dispute out of anything, and while your goals do not become obvious, I can see that you have an agenda that supercedes any real discussion.

I know where to file people like you.

and adding, after reviewing this topic

Mercy sakes, alive, fella, how many times do you have to repeat yourself. It's not like a prayer, you know, it won't come true no matter how many times you repeat it.
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
MRC_Hans
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Denmark

Post by MRC_Hans » Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:07 pm

Pulling out, too.

Hans
[i]Fly pretty, anyone can fly safe...[/i]

User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

Post by DanishDynamite » Thu Jun 24, 2004 8:40 pm

MRC_Hans wrote:Pulling out, too.

Hans
While I enjoyed seeing shanek explode in his personal style of argumentation by ALL CAPS when he didn't have a reasoned response, I can completely understand you decision.

I gave up having a civil, reasoned discussion with shanek, many months ago.

I'm in awe of people like Earthborn and RCC, who can ignore the constant putdowns and selective quoting, and still respond to this fanatic in a civil manner.

If shanek is even slightly representative of Libertarians in general, a party whose platform I would otherwise have some sympathy for, then it is obvious to me why they remain unelectable to any higher office.

Earthborn
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: Terra Firma

Post by Earthborn » Thu Jun 24, 2004 9:33 pm

shanek wrote:Sure. Would you accept the FDA as a reliable source? ;)

http://www.fda.gov/oc/whitepapers/drugprices.html
Thanks. That wasn't so hard, was it?
I have an idea how to figure out how well regulations work: compare the system before the regulations to the system after the regulations. At least in the case of the US, that comes down solidly on the side of the free market. We didn't have any of the major problems with health care today back before the 1960s when government started overregulating the market.
That does have many similar problems as culture in the US changed quite a bit since the 1960s. And as you mention it shows it only how it apperently happened in the US, so it is difficult to generalize it to a universal trend, that is: regulation caused these problems.
And again, it couldn't be that he reached this conclusion because of the facts, right?
Sure, anything is possible. Maybe he came to this conclusion because of the facts as he came to see them, or maybe he already saw them in that way and only sees those facts that seem to fit with his preexisting ideas.

Either way, he sees a complex issue in a particular light and does not seem to acknowledge the possibility that he may be right, but the people who claim the FDA is under too much influence of the drug industry are also right.
Now, you're dishonestly trying to hone in on the drug industry when you KNOW that the regulations sap out so much of the money it makes studies like these practically impossible.
So you admit that such studies can only be done with government support? You only blame the government for that fact. That's certainly nothing unexpected.
Huh? The blood pressure monitor studies used human test subjects.
I'm sure it did. But I assume it was still a material test, as there was no test whether the blood pressure meters made people feel better or worse. It was a test whether these meters accurately measured someone's bloodpressure, was it not?

A medicine test is something else entirely, because it tests not the medicine itself but the reaction of people on it. That is quite a bit more complicated.
[sigh] Yes, you need to actually (gasp!) subscribe to Consumer Reports to read it! That's how magazines work! Duh....
You know as well as I do, that I can't possibly subscribe to every magazine in the world. So everytime you link to an article that requires subscription you know I can't view it. If you want to support your claims, I propose the following:
  • Try to find a relevant freely available source.
  • If you can't find that, find a freely available article to describes what is in it.
  • If you can't find that, give the link to the page that requires subscription and present a representative quote that gives one an idea of what it is about.
Sure, when you can cook up excuses to ignore the facts, you can conclude whatever you like.
Since you have not convincingly shown what the facts are, you can't accuse me of ignoring them.
Um, maybe the one with the best evidence, that best agrees with the facts? Maybe? Ya think?
Alright. Who are the ones with the best evidence, and what is that best evidence?

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni » Thu Jun 24, 2004 11:52 pm

Geni wrote:
shanek wrote: THEY CAN'T MAKE ANY CLAIM THAT ISN'T FDA APPROVED. And in order for it to be FDA approved, they have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars doing FDA-approved tests,
Did the dollar fall even further over the last few days? Source for this claim?
Did I miss where you produced a source for this claim?

Rolfe
Posts: 201
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 9:00 pm
Location: England

Post by Rolfe » Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:23 am

Why do I keep thinking that Shanek is Wrath of the Swarm?

No, surely not....

Rolfe.
"The thing about medicine is, that it all comes down to the numbers."
- Dr. Stephen Franklin, <I>Interludes and Examinations</I>.

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:52 am

Skeeve wrote:On that note, I think we can close this discussion. Your mind is closed, your words are simply created to make a dispute out of anything, and while your goals do not become obvious, I can see that you have an agenda that supercedes any real discussion.

I know where to file people like you.
Well, I guess we see what you do after someone responds to your unfounded assertions with a post chock full of data directly from the CDC...Any old excuse to ignore the data, I guess.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:57 am

Earthborn wrote:That does have many similar problems as culture in the US changed quite a bit since the 1960s.
But it took quite a long time, much longer than it took the face of health care in this country to change.
So you admit that such studies can only be done with government support?
Where did I say that? I said that, right now, it's very difficult to do them on your own because the government is leeching so much from the system. That doesn't mean that they couldn't easily be done without that system of regulations in place, the same system which saps out so much money and makes these kinds of things so difficult.
I'm sure it did. But I assume it was still a material test, as there was no test whether the blood pressure meters made people feel better or worse. It was a test whether these meters accurately measured someone's bloodpressure, was it not?
And this means what, exactly? Even with pharmaceuticals they try to avoid basing the results of their studies on how people "feel," choosing instead, wherever possible, to go with more objective measurements. So, for example, people who take blood pressure medication could be tested equally well: you check their blood pressure before they start taking the drug and then during the time they take it and see what happens. Side effects are also objectified whenever possible; if someone claims they feel feverish, they'll start taking their temperature. They really don't like concluding results based on what people say they feel.
You know as well as I do, that I can't possibly subscribe to every magazine in the world.
Man, if there were ever only one to subscribe to, Consumer Reports would be it. I just don't understand how people survive in the marketplace without it!
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 11439
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve » Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:44 am

shanek wrote:
Skeeve wrote:On that note, I think we can close this discussion. Your mind is closed, your words are simply created to make a dispute out of anything, and while your goals do not become obvious, I can see that you have an agenda that supercedes any real discussion.

I know where to file people like you.
Well, I guess we see what you do after someone responds to your unfounded assertions with a post chock full of data directly from the CDC...Any old excuse to ignore the data, I guess.
I guess you mean that bit about where you disavow the fact that people get old and die when you say data? That's the only meaningful data I would think would address my concerns. Have you any that says people don't get old, when you heap scorn on the simple, well known fact that people, just like any other complex life, get old and things wear out, or were you just out and out blowing smoke?

Damn, sonnie, when I look in the mirror, I know people get old. I'm the one with the data, and I look at it every morning when I brush my hair and shake out the knots.
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:01 pm

Skeeve wrote:I guess you mean that bit about where you disavow the fact that people get old and die when you say data?
That was NOT your claim. Your claim was that that was one of the main reasons people die, and as the evidence I posted shows that wasn't even in the top ten according to the CDC.
Have you any that says people don't get old, when you heap scorn on the simple, well known fact that people, just like any other complex life, get old and things wear out, or were you just out and out blowing smoke?
No, you're the one that's just blowing smoke now, and everyone here can see it. You said, your exact words, "Now, in 2000, what do we die of? Mostly of catastrophic cancer, catastrophic infections, catastrophic trauma, or of just wearing out." Well, the data from the CDC just doesn't jive with that claim. YOU ARE WRONG.

Now, you're dishonestly rewriting your claim. Figures.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 11439
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve » Fri Jun 25, 2004 4:50 pm

shanek wrote:
Skeeve wrote:I guess you mean that bit about where you disavow the fact that people get old and die when you say data?
That was NOT your claim. Your claim was that that was one of the main reasons people die, and as the evidence I posted shows that wasn't even in the top ten according to the CDC.
Since everyone, and I do mean everyone, knows how the process works, and knows that even though age is the responsible party, what gets entered onto the books is whatever failed first, now we can all tell you're just looking for a fight.

You are both mean and very, very insincere.
Now, you're dishonestly rewriting your claim. Figures.
Do I understand correctly that you are calling me a liar because I disagree with you?

You are an astonishingly arrogant, mean, and insincere person.
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Fri Jun 25, 2004 7:26 pm

Skeeve wrote:Since everyone, and I do mean everyone, knows how the process works, and knows that even though age is the responsible party, what gets entered onto the books is whatever failed first, now we can all tell you're just looking for a fight.
Bullshit. Back it up with numbers. If you can. I used statistics from the Centers for Disease Control, which DO list things such as "exhaustion" and "natural causes" as causes of death, but they aren't anywhere near approaching the top ten.
You are both mean and very, very insincere.
Ah. Ad hominems. Now we see the stuff you're made of.
Do I understand correctly that you are calling me a liar because I disagree with you?
No, I'm calling you a liar because you're movign the goalposts after you were shown to be wrong.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 11439
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve » Fri Jun 25, 2004 7:35 pm

shanek wrote:
Skeeve wrote:Since everyone, and I do mean everyone, knows how the process works, and knows that even though age is the responsible party, what gets entered onto the books is whatever failed first, now we can all tell you're just looking for a fight.
Bullshit. Back it up with numbers. If you can. I used statistics from the Centers for Disease Control, which DO list things such as "exhaustion" and "natural causes" as causes of death, but they aren't anywhere near approaching the top ten.
You're really not very nice when you have both ears plugged, both eyes shut, and you're shouting "neener neener I can't hear you".

I don't have to show you any numbers. I know lots of folk like me who died because something just wore out. None one of them was listed as natural causes or exhaustion.

The onus is on you to refute that experience, I think.
You are both mean and very, very insincere.
Ah. Ad hominems. Now we see the stuff you're made of.
What I say is true, sir, and I have in no way said that your arguments are devalued just becase you are a mean, nasty person, so in fact I have not used the classical argumentum-ad-hominem at all.

I gather, then, that you are mean, nasty, insincere, and that you further don't know much about rhetorical quibbling, and that's not ad-hominem, that's simple fact, supported by your obnoxious, evasive behavior as well as your failure to name rhetorical quibbles properly and your namecalling.
Do I understand correctly that you are calling me a liar because I disagree with you?
No, I'm calling you a liar because you're movign the goalposts after you were shown to be wrong.
A lie, my child, is a statement made with the knowledge that it is not true. A lie is not a statement that a single egotistical, incompetant debator does not like to deal with.

Calling a simple, obvious, well-understood fact a lie, simply because you can't refute it is what, then?

You are not a reasonable person. You are mean. You are inconsistant, and you are inconstant. You are evasive, and you are insulting. Each and every one of those statements, none of which I have related to your argument, are true, and evidently so by the words you are quoted as saying in this thread. None of them are ad-hominem, as I have not used them to attack your argument via attacking you. I am, my child, simply attacking you by telling the gospel truth about you.

If that hurts, I'm sorry. I am not trying to be mean, I am trying to educate you to the error of your ways.
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Fri Jun 25, 2004 8:58 pm

Skeeve wrote:I don't have to show you any numbers. I know lots of folk like me who died because something just wore out. None one of them was listed as natural causes or exhaustion.

The onus is on you to refute that experience, I think.
I am not under any onus whatsoever to refute anecdotes. I gave you official statistics from the CDC that show YOU ARE WRONG. You DO need to provide numbers to refute that.
A lie, my child, is a statement made with the knowledge that it is not true.
Yes, and you knew perfectly well that you were pretending your claim was something other than it clearly was. Hence, it was a lie.
Calling a simple, obvious, well-understood fact a lie, simply because you can't refute it is what, then?
Except that I didn't call a simple, obvious, well-understood fact a lie, simply because I can't refute it; I called it simple, obvious, well-understood fact a lie because it wasn't what you ARGUED.

So you go on, spread the GOSPEL TRUTH. Just don't be surprised when we skeptics demand numbers.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni » Fri Jun 25, 2004 9:11 pm

Geni wrote:
Geni wrote:
shanek wrote: THEY CAN'T MAKE ANY CLAIM THAT ISN'T FDA APPROVED. And in order for it to be FDA approved, they have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars doing FDA-approved tests,
Did the dollar fall even further over the last few days? Source for this claim?
Did I miss where you produced a source for this claim?
So I apear to be on your ignore list fine fine fine.

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 11439
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve » Fri Jun 25, 2004 9:18 pm

shanek wrote:Except that I didn't call a simple, obvious, well-understood fact a lie, simply because I can't refute it; I called it simple, obvious, well-understood fact a lie because it wasn't what you ARGUED.
Hold on there, Jack, you don't get to say what I argued, you only get to say how you failed to understand my argument. We all, including you, know that you're being absurd when you claim that age-related death is reported as age-related death first, rather than being reported as heart failure or somehing like that. You're simply hiding behind an insult and you know it.

So you go on, spread the GOSPEL TRUTH. Just don't be surprised when we skeptics demand numbers.
We have the numbers, and you, the evasive mean person, haven't anything but an untoward way of calling people who disagree with you liars.

Is this your one big trick? Do you just call everyone who outpoints you or out argues you a liar?

The facts are simple, you're evasive, you avoid the facts of questions and rely on your own misinterpretations, and then you call others liars when they point out the base error of your way.

You sound entirely like someone selling a religion, complete with your various sound bites like "one can not be a tyrant to one's self", something that you, yourself, are the living, breathing I presume you're not some advanced version of Eliza counter example to.
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Fri Jun 25, 2004 9:18 pm

Geni wrote:So I apear to be on your ignore list fine fine fine.
No, I just feel no need to provide support for a claim I never made. Especially when it's off-topic. The devaluation of the dollar, to my recollection, hasn't even come up ONCE in this discussion.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Fri Jun 25, 2004 9:21 pm

Skeeve wrote:Hold on there, Jack, you don't get to say what I argued,
Yes, I do. It was there in black and white. You DON'T get to backpedal and claim you really said something else. "Now, in 2000, what do we die of? Mostly of catastrophic cancer, catastrophic infections, catastrophic trauma, or of just wearing out." That was very clear and succinct. And WRONG.
We have the numbers,
Then why don't you present them?
and you, the evasive mean person, haven't anything
Bullshit. I presented many numbers.
The facts are simple, you're evasive, you avoid the facts of questions and rely on your own misinterpretations, and then you call others liars when they point out the base error of your way.
YOU'RE the one who's resorting to name-calling rather than respond to the numbers.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 11439
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve » Fri Jun 25, 2004 10:14 pm

shanek wrote:YOU'RE the one who's resorting to name-calling rather than respond to the numbers.
Teacher, Teacher, Skeeve said it!

You remind me of one of my grandboys, when I ask him what he's holding behind his back.

You really aren't worth any more effort. You're determined to be blind. In a few years, you'll be shouting to an empty house, wondering, like Win, where everyone has gone.
Then Skank Of America could start in...