Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Those BPA-Free products you've been using? Turns out they contain more Synthetic Estrogen than BPA, and the Plastics Industry has developed the testing methods the EPA uses that intentionally don't detect it because: Free Market   (motherjones.com) divider line 169
    More: Scary, BPA, EPA, free markets, idea, Environmental Health Perspectives, Michael Green, estrogens, big tobacco  
•       •       •

5932 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2014 at 1:59 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-07 06:37:06 PM  

meat0918: We're talking about two different things here.


What are you talking about, then?  Certainly EMF is harmful, and if it's harmful it isn't much of a stretch to say that some people can tell when they're exposed and so harmed, is it?  And I'm not talking about a healthy person, or even the average person, but people who already have weak constitutions - that's where the problem is.  EMF creates more biological stress, and disease follows that stress.  Period.

Hell, I went through a period where I had extremely high levels of ONS (oxidative and nitrosative stress) .. and during that period I had a wireless mouse that I used all the time.  Sure..lower power.. bluetooth..2.4ghz.. but .. my hand ached whenever I used that mouse.  Switching to a corded mouse made it go away (no, it wasn't the shape or muscle strain).  Same thing with using a laptop keyboard (fingertips ached) vs. an external USB keyboard with no EMF from all the gadgets inside.  At the time I measured the EMF from the mouse and laptop.. both created ridiculously high levels of EMF.. well in excess of 100mG at the surface (continuously for the laptop, during use for the mouse) .. which is well beyond what anyone should be exposed to on an ongoing basis.  And for a while I stayed right underneath (<10m) a cluster of power lines (extended stay hotel).  ~15mG in bed, which is also well in excess of what people should be exposed to.  I felt like shiat there, couldn't sleep, etc.  When I realized, I moved and felt better immediately.  So unless you've experienced it .. and unless you've done the research, which it doesn't appear you have, you probably ought not comment.  How about that?
 
2014-03-07 06:53:18 PM  

meat0918: And just for clarification, I am talking about so called EMF sensitives that think wifi is killing them.

I was not speaking of the broader possibilities of interactions between various power levels, frequencies, intensities, etc.

I've watched someone handing out "orgone" pucks claiming it would do everything from protecting them from (the nonexistent in our water here) fluoride to the naphthalene fumes from the creosote plant that sits in the middle of our neighborhood as well as EMF.

As an aside, this woman was also poisoning herself with borax to counter act the fluoride that again, doesn't get added to our water, until someone called a local clinic that helps deal with people that cannot afford normal healthcare.


WiFi is killing them, albeit very slowly and imperceptibly, for most.  There are no 'broader possibilities'.  That EMF affects our biophysiology is a proven fact.  There's no debate.  There's no discussion.  See above.

I've read about the orgone stuff and it's way out there.  While I don't understand it, there are people who swear it 'works'.  Maybe they're nuts, but until I see hard evidence that they actually *are* nuts I tend to reserve judgement.  I don't see much benefit in condemning someone, or someone's ideas, particularly when they harm no one.  As long as they aren't cramming it down my throat, I couldn't give a shiat less what they think/believe/do.  Why do you?

And people take Borax, too, because it's a source of boron (as far as I know), which is more-or-less an essential mineral.  And while I don't take it, myself, Borax's LD50 is roughly the same as that for table salt (~3g/kg), so to say she was poisoning herself at the dose she was likely taking (probably just a tiny, tiny fraction of the LD50, if she's following what she read online) is just flat wrong.  Most people eat far more sugar, which is far more toxic, than the people who use borax take.
 
2014-03-07 07:02:06 PM  

nexxus: meat0918: And just for clarification, I am talking about so called EMF sensitives that think wifi is killing them.

I was not speaking of the broader possibilities of interactions between various power levels, frequencies, intensities, etc.

I've watched someone handing out "orgone" pucks claiming it would do everything from protecting them from (the nonexistent in our water here) fluoride to the naphthalene fumes from the creosote plant that sits in the middle of our neighborhood as well as EMF.

As an aside, this woman was also poisoning herself with borax to counter act the fluoride that again, doesn't get added to our water, until someone called a local clinic that helps deal with people that cannot afford normal healthcare.

WiFi is killing them, albeit very slowly and imperceptibly, for most.  There are no 'broader possibilities'.  That EMF affects our biophysiology is a proven fact.  There's no debate.  There's no discussion.  See above.

I've read about the orgone stuff and it's way out there.  While I don't understand it, there are people who swear it 'works'.  Maybe they're nuts, but until I see hard evidence that they actually *are* nuts I tend to reserve judgement.  I don't see much benefit in condemning someone, or someone's ideas, particularly when they harm no one.  As long as they aren't cramming it down my throat, I couldn't give a shiat less what they think/believe/do.  Why do you?

And people take Borax, too, because it's a source of boron (as far as I know), which is more-or-less an essential mineral.  And while I don't take it, myself, Borax's LD50 is roughly the same as that for table salt (~3g/kg), so to say she was poisoning herself at the dose she was likely taking (probably just a tiny, tiny fraction of the LD50, if she's following what she read online) is just flat wrong.  Most people eat far more sugar, which is far more toxic, than the people who use borax take.


The symptoms she was attributing to fluoride poisoning were consistent with borax ingestion.  Headaches, nausea, diarrhea, cramping, and they stopped after she stopped taking the borax, so I'll go with the borax was what was making her sick, and not the non-existent fluoride.
 
2014-03-07 07:14:39 PM  

nexxus: nocturnal001: You spend hours researching a bottle of water?

Not saying you are cool with the corporate veil thing but that is something suspiciously absent from most free market soap boxes.

I've spent a lot of time researching water, yes.  Not a bottle so much, but water in general.  Though I do test bottled waters.  The easiest way is to distill them and see what's left over.  You'd be surprised if you've never done that.  And try it with your muncipal water - that's great fun.  Talk about sludge (in many places) ...

I've actually been considering investing in a GC-MS to take it to the next level.


Let's ignore the borderline insane scenario you are claiming to live in, not water. An individual brand of water. In your world either a third party business fulfills the exact same role as the FDA with comparable problems of reliance.

Your idea of how things should be is impossible. Consumers would be paralyzed by choice and innovation would halt.
 
2014-03-07 07:14:46 PM  

meat0918: The symptoms she was attributing to fluoride poisoning were consistent with borax ingestion. Headaches, nausea, diarrhea, cramping, and they stopped after she stopped taking the borax, so I'll go with the borax was what was making her sick, and not the non-existent fluoride.


Well, some people are farking stupid and don't know how to read or measure very well.  It's very possible she was overdosing.

It's also possible that the Borax was just killing the yeast (typically candida albicans) that most chronically ill people harbor excessive quantities of in their digestive tracts, which would also explain those symptoms (they fit perfectly with the effects of candida die-off).  You can check that out, too..PubMed has some good research on it, or you can just google 'candida' or 'candidiasis'.  Doctors typically prescribe antifungals in the -azole family, like fluconazole, imidazole, etc., or polyenes like nystatin in those cases, but Borax works too.
 
2014-03-07 07:21:04 PM  

nocturnal001: Let's ignore the borderline insane scenario you are claiming to live in, not water. An individual brand of water. In your world either a third party business fulfills the exact same role as the FDA with comparable problems of reliance.

Your idea of how things should be is impossible. Consumers would be paralyzed by choice and innovation would halt.


I can't imagine third parties would have the same problems the FDA does - sure, maybe here or there there'd be issues - but not across the board.  And if they were held liable for their mistakes, they'd be damn careful, wouldn't they?  The government isn't liable, and they don't have to be careful, really.  I mean, this system works for electrical devices, doesn't it?  Underwriters Laboratories isn't a government agency, yet everyone trusts them because they know their shiat, they do a good job testing things, and the "UL" mark means something almost universally.  That could, and would, be done in every part of industry and the economy, if only government kept their noses out of shiat.

So.. I have to disagree, generally.
 
2014-03-07 08:20:23 PM  

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


Right, consumers would do their own reseach.

Wait...if they did that, wouldn't the problem be fixed now?
 
2014-03-07 08:36:19 PM  

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


OK.

Assuming you really believe this shiat, let's take an example from history.

Frances Oldham Kelsey.

In 1960, she worked for the FDA, and was assigned the job of reviewing the application for thalidomide. Its use was already approved in many other countries; she withheld approval and requested further studies.

The manufacturer put pressure on the FDA to approve it, yet she held strong and insisted on further studies.

At the same time, children in countries that had approved its use started being born with birth defects, caused by thalidomide being prescribed to pregnant women.

Without the strength of her character, thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of deformed children would have been born in the US.

Do you think she was a bad person? Do you think that the citizens of the US would be better off without the FDA?
 
2014-03-07 08:43:07 PM  

iron de havilland: OK.

Assuming you really believe this shiat, let's take an example from history.

Frances Oldham Kelsey.

In 1960, she worked for the FDA, and was assigned the job of reviewing the application for thalidomide. Its use was already approved in many other countries; she withheld approval and requested further studies.

The manufacturer put pressure on the FDA to approve it, yet she held strong and insisted on further studies.

At the same time, children in countries that had approved its use started being born with birth defects, caused by thalidomide being prescribed to pregnant women.

Without the strength of her character, thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of deformed children would have been born in the US.

Do you think she was a bad person? Do you think that the citizens of the US would be better off without the FDA?


Who said they don't do *some* good?  Not me.. certainly they do do some good, occasionally.  My point is that they're not reliable (they don't *always* do good), they're corrupt and easily corruptible, and they have soverign immunity so they can't be held responsible for .. virtually anything.
 
2014-03-07 09:00:57 PM  

nexxus: iron de havilland: OK.

Assuming you really believe this shiat, let's take an example from history.

Frances Oldham Kelsey.

In 1960, she worked for the FDA, and was assigned the job of reviewing the application for thalidomide. Its use was already approved in many other countries; she withheld approval and requested further studies.

The manufacturer put pressure on the FDA to approve it, yet she held strong and insisted on further studies.

At the same time, children in countries that had approved its use started being born with birth defects, caused by thalidomide being prescribed to pregnant women.

Without the strength of her character, thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of deformed children would have been born in the US.

Do you think she was a bad person? Do you think that the citizens of the US would be better off without the FDA?

Who said they don't do *some* good?  Not me.. certainly they do do some good, occasionally.  My point is that they're not reliable (they don't *always* do good), they're corrupt and easily corruptible, and they have soverign immunity so they can't be held responsible for .. virtually anything.


And this is different from unregulated corporations in what way, exactly?

Well, unregulated corporations would have put thalidomide on the market in the US with no further questions, and it would have been down to the consumer to research, through experience, the side effects.

Oh, and if your democratic republic is working for you, you have an influence over the likes of the FDA that you don't have over the boards of corporations, who answer only to shareholders and not to every citizen who votes. Shareholders tend to want maximum profit for minimum cost, such as pesky environmental/health considerations.

But, other than that... yay free market.
 
2014-03-07 09:34:28 PM  

iron de havilland: And this is different from unregulated corporations in what way, exactly?

Well, unregulated corporations would have put thalidomide on the market in the US with no further questions, and it would have been down to the consumer to research, through experience, the side effects.


'Unregulated corporations' would also be unshielded, and could be sued out of existence if they knowingly sold toxic substances.  Eventually people would have figured out that thalidomide was bad (we did, obviously) and linked it to corporate malfeasance (which is what you're suggesting would be the case), and without damage caps and such, that would be the end of that corporation.  And people would eventually learn that it isn't in their best, long-term, interest to poison little children.  Painful lesson?  Yes.  But who's to say it would have happened that way at all if there were [possibly, and ideally, many] objective, 3rd party evaluations in advance of it being used widely?  If there were no 'regulator', I doubt people would just accept whatever some random corporation tells them .. it seems you're assuming they would?

Oh, and if your democratic republic is working for you, you have an influence over the likes of the FDA that you don't have over the boards of corporations, who answer only to shareholders and not to every citizen who votes. Shareholders tend to want maximum profit for minimum cost, such as pesky environmental/health considerations.

Our influence over regulators, as citizens (unless you have extremely deep pockets and/or cachet), is more-or-less nil.

And, again, you're forgetting that corporations could and would be held liable, unlike now where they're largely shielded as long as they follow regulatory rules/processes and 'pay off' the right people (directly, indirectly .. or however .. maybe it's just a 'favor').

But, other than that... yay free market.

Yay.

/Thanks, everyone, for the discussion.  Enjoyed it.
 
2014-03-07 10:05:21 PM  

nexxus: kroonermanblack: Still no.

Just completely wrong in every possible way. But an A for effort.

I wasn't asking you to approve.  I was trying to help you.  Maybe you'll learn eventually.


I've already learned. You're a high-functioning paranoid schizophrenic, possibly a narcissist, and even more likely delusional.

Is there any argument that it's possible to have radio force effect the body? No. It's energy. Is there argument that some people are 'sensitive' to EMF? Yes. Because they are not. They are psycho somatic people with mental illness, just like you.

Here's a tip: there is, constantly, a very high threshold of 'emf' 24x7 everywhere. EVERYWHERE. It doesn't matter whether you are in a city, using a cell phone, or in the middle of the arctic. EMF is issued forth by ANYTHING electrical. These people who are 'sensitive' only display the sensitivities when given poorly administered tests with cueing, like a three year old who 'tests as a genius', it later comes out that the mother was in the room unconsciously or consciously directing the child.

These sensitives should not be able to be around anything using electricity. Like, say, a car. Those have motors and stators, and other significant EMF generating events. Or a light bulb. That's massive EMF. Or a space heater. That's literally nothing but EMF.

But they focus on 'radio waves' or 'wifi' or 'cell signals' as though those are some magical different version of EMF. It's simply people with existing mental illnesses fastening on to issues. They 'feel better' in the safe houses because the entire thing is psychosomatic. I've seen these 'safe houses'. They use tin foil for 'protection'. Guess what tin foil does for EMF?

I'm going to trust a series of doctors and scientists who studied this, coupled with people having lived around 'bad EMF' for decades now with no actual measurable issues, and say you're, again, a person with some mental illnesses who needs to seek help, and possibly medication.

And your 'self education' is highly biased to confirm what you want it to, as well as selective, and quite frankly wrong.
 
2014-03-07 10:23:00 PM  

kroonermanblack: nexxus: kroonermanblack: Still no.

Just completely wrong in every possible way. But an A for effort.

I wasn't asking you to approve.  I was trying to help you.  Maybe you'll learn eventually.

I've already learned. You're a high-functioning paranoid schizophrenic, possibly a narcissist, and even more likely delusional.

Is there any argument that it's possible to have radio force effect the body? No. It's energy. Is there argument that some people are 'sensitive' to EMF? Yes. Because they are not. They are psycho somatic people with mental illness, just like you.

Here's a tip: there is, constantly, a very high threshold of 'emf' 24x7 everywhere. EVERYWHERE. It doesn't matter whether you are in a city, using a cell phone, or in the middle of the arctic. EMF is issued forth by ANYTHING electrical. These people who are 'sensitive' only display the sensitivities when given poorly administered tests with cueing, like a three year old who 'tests as a genius', it later comes out that the mother was in the room unconsciously or consciously directing the child.

These sensitives should not be able to be around anything using electricity. Like, say, a car. Those have motors and stators, and other significant EMF generating events. Or a light bulb. That's massive EMF. Or a space heater. That's literally nothing but EMF.

But they focus on 'radio waves' or 'wifi' or 'cell signals' as though those are some magical different version of EMF. It's simply people with existing mental illnesses fastening on to issues. They 'feel better' in the safe houses because the entire thing is psychosomatic. I've seen these 'safe houses'. They use tin foil for 'protection'. Guess what tin foil does for EMF?

I'm going to trust a series of doctors and scientists who studied this, coupled with people having lived around 'bad EMF' for decades now with no actual measurable issues, and say you're, again, a person with some mental illnesses who needs to seek help, and possibly medication.

And your ...


All of that sounds great.  However, you've sidestepped quite a few things, ignored others, and generally just dismissed anything that doesn't fit neatly within your worldview by attacking me personally (which means you lose, by default).

I suppose calling me mentally deficient is all you have, though.

Best of luck.
 
2014-03-07 11:07:21 PM  

nexxus: nocturnal001: Let's ignore the borderline insane scenario you are claiming to live in, not water. An individual brand of water. In your world either a third party business fulfills the exact same role as the FDA with comparable problems of reliance.

Your idea of how things should be is impossible. Consumers would be paralyzed by choice and innovation would halt.

I can't imagine third parties would have the same problems the FDA does - sure, maybe here or there there'd be issues - but not across the board.  And if they were held liable for their mistakes, they'd be damn careful, wouldn't they?  The government isn't liable, and they don't have to be careful, really.  I mean, this system works for electrical devices, doesn't it?  Underwriters Laboratories isn't a government agency, yet everyone trusts them because they know their shiat, they do a good job testing things, and the "UL" mark means something almost universally.  That could, and would, be done in every part of industry and the economy, if only government kept their noses out of shiat.

So.. I have to disagree, generally.


First I would like to applaud you for taking an unpopular stance and defending it in an intelligent and civil manner. (or you are a paid commentor on this topic and are earning your pay well)

Second, liability is the crux of this entire argument. I find it hard to imagine a world where third parties are truly liable for their actions. I can not argue that the government has zero liability in that area. My problem is that there is no sane business person that would risk so much to confirm the safety of a new drug let's say.

Why would I ever create a company to build the next new cancer drug if it had the risk of being the new thalidomide if that meant I'd be on trial for deforming babies? I wouldn't. The risks that a third party FDA would face are so astronomical that no sane person would take that investment. In the end that scenario would destroy innovation.

We must accept some risk in the form of an agency that may not face penalties for screw ups at least has no reward for making those mistakes happen.
 
2014-03-07 11:10:05 PM  

nocturnal001: nexxus: nocturnal001: Let's ignore the borderline insane scenario you are claiming to live in, not water. An individual brand of water. In your world either a third party business fulfills the exact same role as the FDA with comparable problems of reliance.

Your idea of how things should be is impossible. Consumers would be paralyzed by choice and innovation would halt.

I can't imagine third parties would have the same problems the FDA does - sure, maybe here or there there'd be issues - but not across the board.  And if they were held liable for their mistakes, they'd be damn careful, wouldn't they?  The government isn't liable, and they don't have to be careful, really.  I mean, this system works for electrical devices, doesn't it?  Underwriters Laboratories isn't a government agency, yet everyone trusts them because they know their shiat, they do a good job testing things, and the "UL" mark means something almost universally.  That could, and would, be done in every part of industry and the economy, if only government kept their noses out of shiat.

So.. I have to disagree, generally.

First I would like to applaud you for taking an unpopular stance and defending it in an intelligent and civil manner. (or you are a paid commentor on this topic and are earning your pay well)

Second, liability is the crux of this entire argument. I find it hard to imagine a world where third parties are truly liable for their actions. I can not argue that the government has zero liability in that area. My problem is that there is no sane business person that would risk so much to confirm the safety of a new drug let's say.

Why would I ever create a company to build the next new cancer drug if it had the risk of being the new thalidomide if that meant I'd be on trial for deforming babies? I wouldn't. The risks that a third party FDA would face are so astronomical that no sane person would take that investment. In the end that scenario would destroy innovation.

We must accept some risk in the form of an agency that may not face penalties for screw ups at least has no reward for making those mistakes happen.


Blech. Combo of autocorrect on my phone and excessive Bourbon consumption made my post a very awkward read. (though my points are valid)
 
2014-03-08 12:00:30 AM  

nexxus: All of that sounds great.  However, you've sidestepped quite a few things, ignored others, and generally just dismissed anything that doesn't fit neatly within your worldview by attacking me personally (which means you lose, by default).


No, that was my entire point. You ARE mentally deficient, and I haven't remotely attempted to step into your little funhouse of pop psychology and self educated faux science.  I'm saying you have a mental illness. It doesn't mean you can't be functional, many people with bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, and other such illnesses can be, at times.

You're simply paranoid. It's treateable, just like depression.

So no, I'm not going to bother trying to 'debate' you. You've found enough semi science to self justify predisposed answers, and will simply ignore, sidestep, or fish hole any reasonable argument, because it doesn't match with what you've convinced yourself is true.

As I said, I'm going to trust the scientists, doctors, and decades of data and research over one spunky self educator.
 
2014-03-08 12:51:21 AM  
nexxus 2014-03-07 05:35:11 PM
nexxus 2014-03-07 05:37:47 PM
nexxus 2014-03-07 05:39:45 PM
nexxus 2014-03-07 05:41:01 PM
nexxus 2014-03-07 05:48:40 PM
nexxus 2014-03-07 05:49:48 PM
nexxus 2014-03-07 05:51:51 PM


Merciful Baby Jesus on a rocket ship to Pluto, man, you're overdoing it.
 
2014-03-08 04:13:16 PM  

nocturnal001: First I would like to applaud you for taking an unpopular stance and defending it in an intelligent and civil manner. (or you are a paid commentor on this topic and are earning your pay well)


Thank you.  I'm neither paid nor a troll.  This is an issue that I have an interest in and consider important.

I appreciate intelligent discussion, generally, and thank you for contributing.

Second, liability is the crux of this entire argument. I find it hard to imagine a world where third parties are truly liable for their actions. I can not argue that the government has zero liability in that area. My problem is that there is no sane business person that would risk so much to confirm the safety of a new drug let's say.

Liability is important, yes, but I'm not sure I'd call it the crux, generally.  That the government increasingly feels they have the right to, effectively, control (and micromanage, at this point) the whole of our society with impunity is the key issue, for me.

That said, I don't disagree that it'd be harder to convince a sane business person to develop a drug that may do harm without protection from liability.  It's pretty much a given that more drugs are developed faster because pharmaceutical companies are protected, though I don't necessarily agree that that's a good thing.  That's mainly because I consider this whole "better living through pharmaceuticals" thing just an experiment (albeit a profitable one) that's slowly proving to be a failure.  I'm not suggesting that all drugs are bad - far from it..some are extremely useful in treating acute illness and trauma - but my position (which I can substantiate, generally, I think) is that, on balance, most pharmaceutical drugs taken over any period of time, for most people, do more harm than they do good.  Statins are more or less proven harmful.  Oncologists (the good ones, anyway) are more and more considering chemotherapy a last resort because statistics prove that people live longer, and have better quality lives, the longer they wait to start; that is, the longer they wait to begin chemo., the longer and better they live.  Even aspirin can be toxic taken over a long enough period of time (particularly when the user has compromised health).  And I could go on and on.

As a bit of an aside, it also appears more and more likely (depending on whose statistics you accept) that more people are killed by errors, accidents, and oversights related to pharmaceutical and other 'medical' interventions than by most other causes.  The most aggressive numbers suggest that up to ~1mm people per year in the US die an iatrogenic death, and a very significant fraction of those deaths are medication/drug-related.  If those numbers are accurate, that would make iatrogenic death the leading cause in the US.  On the other side, the most conservative (and widely accepted) numbers suggest that 225k deaths per year are iatrogenic, which makes death-by-doctor (don't mean to be inflammatory) the third leading cause of death.  And these are just death statistics, which say nothing about the numbers of injuries (significant or otherwise), reductions in quality of life, etc. caused by the 'system'.  So choose whichever set of numbers you think are more reasonable .. either way it's a major problem and ties into all of this because doctors, as long as they follow standard practices, aren't negligent, don't commit fraud, etc. are also largely shielded from liability in the same way.  You might argue that this is tolerated because our medical system does more harm than good, overall, but if you exclude care for acute illness and trauma (which our system is extremely good at), you're left with little more than a dubious claim that would ultimately be impossible to substantiate and accept.

(Personal note:  About 2 years ago I was accidentally poisoned with medication [allergic to ingredient, serious consequences], myself.  I know it happens, that it's covered up, and is significantly underreported.  So.. who knows what the real statistics are - I certainly don't.  This is partially why I'm so interested in this topic.)

Why would I ever create a company to build the next new cancer drug if it had the risk of being the new thalidomide if that meant I'd be on trial for deforming babies? I wouldn't. The risks that a third party FDA would face are so astronomical that no sane person would take that investment. In the end that scenario would destroy innovation.

Well, this is probably the best argument to be made in favor of liability shielding and the system that we have now (and I'm glad you made it - was wondering when someone would!), but I would argue that it's precisely our culture of government intervention that makes the risks associated with developing a new drug so high, not the potential negative effects of the new drug.  What I mean is that if new drugs were developed and we didn't have so many approval processes which effectively rubber stamp drugs as 'safe' - or if the 'approval processes' were managed by third parties with actual liability - not as many people would leap to use them until they were proven, and if a problem was found, far fewer would have be harmed than are now.  Yes, this could result in a slower 'rate of innovation', but it could also speed the process up in some cases, and it would likely give people willing to accept more risk an opportunity to try a new drug (think about a breakthrough drug that can't be used for X years because of a slow approval process), too.

Right now, those who test new drugs - most often by engaging scientists to conduct research/studies (who then often select the most favorable results, ignore negatives, or otherwise 'find' the results that they want on behalf of their employer) - see the process as a expense/cost center and as a source of risk to be managed.  Think for a moment about the innovation that would come of reversing that:  if a dozen or more companies considered 'drug safety testing' a source of revenue and a mistake in that process was an actual liability, what would happen?  And also consider who would be attracted to that.  Probably the most competent and confident - those who felt they could do well ('good') without making mistakes - in my opinion, anyway.

Anyway, to respond to the rest of what you've said here:  again, cancer drugs aren't a good example because while they're effective in some cases, on balance people end up dying (generally very) prematurely, their quality of life significantly decreases, and their chances of full recovery begin to approach zero once they start chemo.  'Cancer' exists in all of us all the time, though our bodies normally keep it under control and the cancerous cells can't proliferate; it's when the body can no longer manage itself that that happens, which is often when disease develops and doctors ultimately diagnose us with "cancer".

And again, even if 'innovation' does slow, who's to say that's a bad thing?  I'm very much an innovator, generally, and that's a part of both my personal and professional lives, but lately I'm taking steps 'backwards' because I'm realizing that I am (and we are) better off that way.  Plastics like those discussed in this article are a prime example.  Sure, plastic bottles are convenient and cheap, but what's wrong with glass or stainless steel?  Nothing.  Sure, they cost a little more initially, but they're likely going to last forever (relatively speaking), and ultimately the long-term net cost is much lower, particularly if you account for health-related risks and impacts of the alternatives.

We must accept some risk in the form of an agency that may not face penalties for screw ups at least has no reward for making those mistakes happen.

I'm happy to agree that everyone should have the right to live within any structure or use any method they'd like to manage and balance the rate of innovation with risk, but I object to having someone else impose their ideas wrt those things on me and on the market.  It's not the government's, or anyone's, place.  The only system that can treat everyone fairly is a free market.

The sooner people accept that controlling others is not in their best, long-term interests, the sooner we'll all be better off.

/Again, thanks for the discussion.  Enjoyed it.
//No problem on the 'convolutions'.  You were clear enough.
//Apologies if I've made any typos or errors.  I proofed it, but only once.
 
2014-03-08 04:42:00 PM  

kroonermanblack: No, that was my entire point. You ARE mentally deficient, and I haven't remotely attempted to step into your little funhouse of pop psychology and self educated faux science. I'm saying you have a mental illness. It doesn't mean you can't be functional, many people with bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, and other such illnesses can be, at times.

You're simply paranoid. It's treateable, just like depression.

So no, I'm not going to bother trying to 'debate' you. You've found enough semi science to self justify predisposed answers, and will simply ignore, sidestep, or fish hole any reasonable argument, because it doesn't match with what you've convinced yourself is true.

As I said, I'm going to trust the scientists, doctors, and decades of data and research over one spunky self educator.


Your attempts to attack me personally are increasingly transparent and weak.  And your "Internet diagnoses" are laughable, Doc.  I meet virtually none of the critieria for any of the mental illnesses you've mentioned - certainly not enough to support any kind of diagnosis.  And I guess the hundreds of scientists, including those at the US EPA, NIOSH, and OSHA (who all state that EMF has been found harmful), and those behind the EU regulators who are busy establishing laws and regulations, including PELs, for EMF exposures, are all paranoid schizophrenics, too?  Yes, you can look all of this up.

Some unsolicited advice:  Generally, you should back up what you say with things other than (effectively) "I know people" and "I know what I know" if you want to be taken seroiously by anyone intelligent (though maybe that isn't your goal?).  Your best bet, right now, is to cruise over to PubMed and do some reading - you can start with the links I posted above - and then come back when you have a clue.

What do you do for a living, anyway?

/Let's put this to bed, really.  There's no point in continuing, as you aren't trying to have rational discussion.  You might as well have Godwin'd.
 
Displayed 19 of 169 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report