Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 23 of 23
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,954
    Thanks (Given)
    4821
    Thanks (Received)
    4637
    Likes (Given)
    2473
    Likes (Received)
    1562
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    3
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    It is relevant. It is your opinion. Article III, Section 2 I believe.

    I don't disagree that the FDA has it in its power to suck.
    Just so I'm clear

    Are you saying that the FDA is NOT corrupt.
    And there are NO corrupt laws or law creation around that Big Pharma.
    And NO laws that are protectionist for Big Pharma.
    And NO protectionist bureaucratic regulations and regulators.
    And that the revolving door from to FDA & Dept of Ag into well paid big pharma post is NOT corrupt.

    that there's nothing legally wrong with any of that therefore it's NOT corrupt.
    And that's the FACT in you mind?
    Last edited by revelarts; 01-30-2023 at 10:17 AM.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    47,819
    Thanks (Given)
    34251
    Thanks (Received)
    26352
    Likes (Given)
    2315
    Likes (Received)
    9915
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    368 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    Intellectual Property. Gen Z would think Internet Protocol.

    Point noted. We're victims of the FDA's mission creep which is based on onerous government regulations, SCOTUS Chevron deference, governmental overreach to protect us from bad drugs and food, etc. We have met the enemy and they is us.

    I think we share a similar opinion on the FDA.
    I didn't guess "internet anything"

    Still at a loss. Not sure where the tie-in is where the (on paper) protection for intellectual property and drug makers allegedly knowingly marketing harmful drugs.

    Late 90s - early 2000s (?) I noticed cable tv was basically being paid for by what I called "wonder drugs". Drugs to cure every ailment, 10 seconds of selling the drug and 50 seconds of disclaimer. I always wondered who it was that thought up the names for the crap. MY knee jerk reaction was: nope. They started dumping too much on the market all at the same time. I wrote it off as TV revenue rather than selling dope, but still wanted no part of any of it.

    I point this out as a frame of reference to where I stand. There's more than one issue here. Already touched on one. Individual responsibility/choice. don't take the shit. If you choose to, no crying down the line. Nothing in my life that's been sold as too good to be true ever has been.

    On the other hand, is it not the FDA's responsibility to protect the people from dangerous substances? What trumps what? Protecting the people? Or protecting the "intellectual property" of a for-profit, pharmaceutical company which allows it to hide what it's feed us? In this regard, I can easily see corrupt FDA officials taking kickbacks/bribes rather than giving them a pass as dumbasses.

    I AM allowing for collective/individual circumstance.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,895
    Thanks (Given)
    4182
    Thanks (Received)
    4529
    Likes (Given)
    1414
    Likes (Received)
    1066
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    I didn't guess "internet anything"

    Still at a loss. Not sure where the tie-in is where the (on paper) protection for intellectual property and drug makers allegedly knowingly marketing harmful drugs.

    Late 90s - early 2000s (?) I noticed cable tv was basically being paid for by what I called "wonder drugs". Drugs to cure every ailment, 10 seconds of selling the drug and 50 seconds of disclaimer. I always wondered who it was that thought up the names for the crap. MY knee jerk reaction was: nope. They started dumping too much on the market all at the same time. I wrote it off as TV revenue rather than selling dope, but still wanted no part of any of it.

    I point this out as a frame of reference to where I stand. There's more than one issue here. Already touched on one. Individual responsibility/choice. don't take the shit. If you choose to, no crying down the line. Nothing in my life that's been sold as too good to be true ever has been.

    On the other hand, is it not the FDA's responsibility to protect the people from dangerous substances? What trumps what? Protecting the people? Or protecting the "intellectual property" of a for-profit, pharmaceutical company which allows it to hide what it's feed us? In this regard, I can easily see corrupt FDA officials taking kickbacks/bribes rather than giving them a pass as dumbasses.

    I AM allowing for collective/individual circumstance.
    Sorry, different issues there in my book. Are pharmaceutical companies products covered by IP laws? Yes. Are they protected for knowingly marketing harmful drugs? I don't think so. Do they have other levels of protection? I think so but can't recite any particular laws.

    That is essentially the mission of the FDA if I'm not mistaken and as such people pass laws, regulations, etc. to do that. Do they go overboard? I'm pretty sure they do but I don't think patent law comes into play except when the pharmaceutical companies want the government to grant them longer protections so that they can recoup drug development costs.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  4. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,895
    Thanks (Given)
    4182
    Thanks (Received)
    4529
    Likes (Given)
    1414
    Likes (Received)
    1066
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    Just so I'm clear

    Are you saying that the FDA is NOT corrupt.
    And there are NO corrupt laws or law creation around that Big Pharma.
    And NO laws that are protectionist for Big Pharma.
    And NO protectionist bureaucratic regulations and regulators.
    And that the revolving door from to FDA & Dept of Ag into well paid big pharma post is NOT corrupt.

    that there's nothing legally wrong with any of that therefore it's NOT corrupt.
    And that's the FACT in you mind?
    What I'm saying is that a huge governmental, bureaucratic organization has every level of incompetence that can be expected in that scenario (see Gunny's FDA link). Do you want to know why the FDA might suck? Look at the laws that regulate it, and yes some of them are even constitutional. There's a difference between a corrupt organization, corrupt regulators, and just bad laws and regulations.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  5. Thanks Gunny thanked this post
  6. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Georgia!
    Posts
    11,810
    Thanks (Given)
    738
    Thanks (Received)
    666
    Likes (Given)
    1133
    Likes (Received)
    819
    Piss Off (Given)
    24
    Piss Off (Received)
    1
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1203901

    Default Tucker Carlson interviews Dr Aseem Malhotra on the corruption of medicine by Big Phar

    Well worth your time.

    UNITED STATES ARMY AVIATION

    Above the Best

    Why the Hell should I have to press “1” for ENGLISH?

  7. Thanks Gunny thanked this post
    Likes revelarts liked this post
  8. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    47,819
    Thanks (Given)
    34251
    Thanks (Received)
    26352
    Likes (Given)
    2315
    Likes (Received)
    9915
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    368 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    Sorry, different issues there in my book. Are pharmaceutical companies products covered by IP laws? Yes. Are they protected for knowingly marketing harmful drugs? I don't think so. Do they have other levels of protection? I think so but can't recite any particular laws.

    That is essentially the mission of the FDA if I'm not mistaken and as such people pass laws, regulations, etc. to do that. Do they go overboard? I'm pretty sure they do but I don't think patent law comes into play except when the pharmaceutical companies want the government to grant them longer protections so that they can recoup drug development costs.
    That sounds very clinical, neat and tidy, minus any moral responsibility.

    What you are stating then is that corporate legal protection is more important than protecting the public; which, is the entire scope and purpose for the existence of the FDA to begin with.

    I'm quite sure they are not covered legally down the line for selling bad dope. I'm also pretty sure no one has ever proven intent, by design. Seems everybody and their brother has a class action suit going about something. Doesn't help the dead/permanently disabled much. Small consolation any compensation pays for medical bills or funerals for victims.

    It is my understanding that (on paper at least) the purpose of the FDA is to at least minimize such risk to the people, not the drug companies.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  9. Thanks fj1200 thanked this post
  10. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,895
    Thanks (Given)
    4182
    Thanks (Received)
    4529
    Likes (Given)
    1414
    Likes (Received)
    1066
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    That sounds very clinical, neat and tidy, minus any moral responsibility.

    What you are stating then is that corporate legal protection is more important than protecting the public; which, is the entire scope and purpose for the existence of the FDA to begin with.

    I'm quite sure they are not covered legally down the line for selling bad dope. I'm also pretty sure no one has ever proven intent, by design. Seems everybody and their brother has a class action suit going about something. Doesn't help the dead/permanently disabled much. Small consolation any compensation pays for medical bills or funerals for victims.

    It is my understanding that (on paper at least) the purpose of the FDA is to at least minimize such risk to the people, not the drug companies.
    I don't think it lacks moral responsibility. I think it is important to identify what the problems are before a solution can be made. To harp on and on that it's a corrupt organization when 99% of those who might care know that the organization is not corrupt. At that point all you've accomplished is ginning up some rage by a select few people. If you instead say these laws are bad and lead to bad outcomes because of A, B, and C like opioids, allowing more widespread usage of experimental drugs for terminal patients, etc. I think you've got a much better shot at a bipartisan solution to the underlying problems; because it's going to take bipartisan solutions to get anything passed.

    And I'm not saying that at all. If someone wants to point out that the FDA has problems and might lean towards the corporate over the individual then I probably wont' have much disagreement but hair-on-fire is not the path forward in my estimation. I probably won't disagree if you want to say that the FDA has lost in way in some respects.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  11. Thanks Gunny thanked this post
  12. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    47,819
    Thanks (Given)
    34251
    Thanks (Received)
    26352
    Likes (Given)
    2315
    Likes (Received)
    9915
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    368 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    I don't think it lacks moral responsibility. I think it is important to identify what the problems are before a solution can be made. To harp on and on that it's a corrupt organization when 99% of those who might care know that the organization is not corrupt. At that point all you've accomplished is ginning up some rage by a select few people. If you instead say these laws are bad and lead to bad outcomes because of A, B, and C like opioids, allowing more widespread usage of experimental drugs for terminal patients, etc. I think you've got a much better shot at a bipartisan solution to the underlying problems; because it's going to take bipartisan solutions to get anything passed.

    And I'm not saying that at all. If someone wants to point out that the FDA has problems and might lean towards the corporate over the individual then I probably wont' have much disagreement but hair-on-fire is not the path forward in my estimation. I probably won't disagree if you want to say that the FDA has lost in way in some respects.
    I don't have any hair to catch fire

    As I stated previously, the FDA's incompetence caught my attention over nutrition, not drugs. I don't find pharmaceutical company kickbacks to corrupt officials a far stretch either.

    Either way, I consider it just another alphabet agency that doesn't do what it is supposed to because it's too busy meddling in what I use for shaving cream.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  13. Thanks fj1200 thanked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums