Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill?
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 211 of 327 (369499)
12-13-2006 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by purpledawn
12-12-2006 8:32 AM


Re: Testing Avoidance
But PD, you didn't answer my question.
OK, so what is it that you have a problem with?
What parts do you doubt are true?
What specific claims made do you dispute, and what specific evidence do you dispute them with?
What specific parts of the testing avoidance lobbying effort do you doubt are true, and what specific evidenceis this doubt based upon?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by purpledawn, posted 12-12-2006 8:32 AM purpledawn has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 212 of 327 (369659)
12-13-2006 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by purpledawn
12-13-2006 6:09 AM


Re: Testing Avoidance
quote:
I found info that Barrett may not be as objective as he would lead his readers to believe. The example with Pauling is to show that Barrett is not just opposing unscientific quacks.
No, the fact that he attacks Pauling's claims is evidence against his being biased.
It shows that he looks at the merits of claims independently of the person making them and is not swayed by authority, reputation, or past successes.
You know...like scientific peer-review.
Many of Pauling's ideas about Vitamin C are not supported by the evidence. You can read about that here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by purpledawn, posted 12-13-2006 6:09 AM purpledawn has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 213 of 327 (369700)
12-14-2006 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Wounded King
12-13-2006 7:44 AM


Re: Testing Avoidance
quote:
Why are you pissing and moaning about that specific reference if the claim that that reference supports is entirely irrelevant to your argument?
What is my argument? I asked a simple question in Message 184. I asked for some facts that lead Scraf to feel that manufacturers of herbal "drugs" want their products classified as dietary supplements to avoid having to test for safety and effectiveness?
As I stated in Message 189 concerning Quackwatch: I don't see how this supports that herbal manufacturers want to avoid proving their products are safe and effective.
quote:
If the Supplements industry doesn't want to avoid strict regulation then why does it lobby so fervently to do just that? Why weren't they perfectly happy for their 3 year exemption to lapse and to adhere to the same strictures as food manufacturers that in order to make a health claim, the FDA requires "significant scientific agreement."
Even though there are always groups trying scam the system, I don't feel that respectable supplement manufacturers want to avoid showing that their products are safe and effective. As shown below, some did not agree with the FDA interpretation of "significant scientific agreement".
FDA Regulation of Dietary Supplements
...still others did not object to NLEA's pre-market approval standard of "significant scientific agreement" in principle, but rather viewed FDA's interpretation of the NLEA as overly restrictive.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Wounded King, posted 12-13-2006 7:44 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by nator, posted 12-14-2006 8:15 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 215 by Wounded King, posted 12-14-2006 9:43 AM purpledawn has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 214 of 327 (369705)
12-14-2006 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by purpledawn
12-14-2006 7:41 AM


Re: Testing Avoidance
quote:
Even though there are always groups trying scam the system, I don't feel that respectable supplement manufacturers want to avoid showing that their products are safe and effective. As shown below, some did not agree with the FDA interpretation of "significant scientific agreement".
PD, this is getting silly.
Do you or do you not agree that the PR campaign took place?
If you do, then what is your interpretation of WHY it took place and WHY the industry did it at that time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by purpledawn, posted 12-14-2006 7:41 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by purpledawn, posted 12-14-2006 1:19 PM nator has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 215 of 327 (369712)
12-14-2006 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by purpledawn
12-14-2006 7:41 AM


Re: Testing Avoidance
So even the producers who agree 'in principle' want to make claims which the FDA would consider to be lacking "significant scientific agreement".
In what way is this not wishing to avoid testing to the standards required by the FDA to establish "significant scientific agreement"?
It isn't even a question of not being classified as a drug, they don't even want their supplements classified as food. The standards they don't want to have to adhere to aren't those of a radical new drug therapy, they are those of a box of bran flakes. If bran flakes claims that they can make you more regular as part of a balanced diet then they need to have the same degree of "significant scientific agreement" which the supplement manufacturers do not wish to be held to.
This isn't about being required to provide the level of evidence needed for a new cancer drug, just the level of evidence needed for a new breakfast cereal. Of course the more wild and outlandish the claims made the more work may be needed to get even that level of "significant scientific agreement".
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by purpledawn, posted 12-14-2006 7:41 AM purpledawn has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 216 of 327 (369738)
12-14-2006 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by nator
12-14-2006 8:15 AM


Re: Testing Avoidance
quote:
Do you or do you not agree that the PR campaign took place?
The campaign wasn't the issue. The links we read so far make it evident that the campaign was waged.
quote:
If you do, then what is your interpretation of WHY it took place and WHY the industry did it at that time?
It took place to prevent the FDA from finalizing regulations they had proposed in 1993. Some consumers and manufacturers apparently still had problems with the proposed regulations.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by nator, posted 12-14-2006 8:15 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Wounded King, posted 12-14-2006 5:52 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 218 by nator, posted 12-14-2006 8:00 PM purpledawn has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 217 of 327 (369781)
12-14-2006 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by purpledawn
12-14-2006 1:19 PM


Re: Testing Avoidance
And would you agree that one of those problems was that they considered the FDA's standards of support for health claims too stringent?
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by purpledawn, posted 12-14-2006 1:19 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by purpledawn, posted 12-15-2006 4:29 PM Wounded King has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 218 of 327 (369809)
12-14-2006 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by purpledawn
12-14-2006 1:19 PM


Re: Testing Avoidance
quote:
It took place to prevent the FDA from finalizing regulations they had proposed in 1993. Some consumers and manufacturers apparently still had problems with the proposed regulations.
And what problems do you think the industry had with the laws?
And the PR campaign actually IS the issue, because if they had legitimate reasons for wanting to prevent the law, they would have used those instead of the false claims they made in the campaign.
Also, do you agree that the PR campaign was intentionally misleading to consumers when it depicted Mel Gibson being arrested for possession of vitamin C?
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by purpledawn, posted 12-14-2006 1:19 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by purpledawn, posted 12-15-2006 4:37 PM nator has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 219 of 327 (369821)
12-14-2006 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Buzsaw
11-20-2006 7:36 PM


Re: autism-sorry, long
autism is a disorder in the development of the anxiety sector of the brain. it is well begun by one or two years of age. the increase in cases is due to an increase in reporting and people who don't just send their useless children off to institutions instead of bothering to find out what is actually wrong with them. many people with autism are more or less "normally" functioning people and not monsters in boxes.
there has been plenty of research in the vaccine-autism arena and there is just as much evidence for antiperspirant causing cancer... NONE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Buzsaw, posted 11-20-2006 7:36 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Buzsaw, posted 12-15-2006 6:45 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 220 of 327 (369977)
12-15-2006 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Wounded King
12-14-2006 5:52 PM


Re: Testing Avoidance
quote:
And would you agree that one of those problems was that they considered the FDA's standards of support for health claims too stringent?
They considered the FDA interpretation overly restrictive.
but rather viewed FDA's interpretation of the NLEA as overly restrictive
From what I have read, the supplement industry feels that the FDA is in the pocket of the drug and food industries. They claim that these industries feel that the supplement industry threatens their profits. The respectable supplement industries seem to be working towards legal intervention instead of the FDA having the power. For example: The supplement industries want the FDA to prove before a court that a supplement is unsafe etc.
I think it is a very big political game being played by all sides. We are on the fringe.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Wounded King, posted 12-14-2006 5:52 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Wounded King, posted 12-15-2006 6:03 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 228 by nator, posted 12-16-2006 3:17 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 221 of 327 (369980)
12-15-2006 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by nator
12-14-2006 8:00 PM


Re: Testing Avoidance
quote:
And what problems do you think the industry had with the laws?
They supposedly didn't like the FDA interpretation. What they didn't like specifically about the interpretation, I don't know. From what I've read it sounds like they don't want the FDA to have all the power to decide.
quote:
And the PR campaign actually IS the issue, because if they had legitimate reasons for wanting to prevent the law, they would have used those instead of the false claims they made in the campaign.
Also, do you agree that the PR campaign was intentionally misleading to consumers when it depicted Mel Gibson being arrested for possession of vitamin C?
Could be. That is the American way! Incite the public! But, again, the campaign was not the point of my question.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by nator, posted 12-14-2006 8:00 PM nator has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 222 of 327 (370004)
12-15-2006 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by purpledawn
12-15-2006 4:29 PM


Re: Testing Avoidance
They considered the FDA interpretation overly restrictive.
I think the word you were looking for in that case was, 'yes'. Unless you are drawing some peculiar distinction between stringent and restrictive
The respectable supplement industries seem to be working towards legal intervention instead of the FDA having the power. For example: The supplement industries want the FDA to prove before a court that a supplement is unsafe etc.
Oh yes, you've totally convinced me now. The manufacturers don't want to avoid doing testing to demonstrate the efficacy or safety of their product. They just want the entire burden of proof to be on the FDA and to obviate themselves from having to provide any evidence to support their claims.
Are you even reading what you are typing anymore? Your last couple of posts just seem to be agreeing with the points Schraf and I have been making all along, that these companies want to avoid complying with the same standards of evidence for efficacy that every other type of product making similar health claims does. So why you still act as if these manufacturers are a model of concern for the wellbeing and informed status of their consumers, I mean apart from the way they lie about the implications of proposed legislation which obviously just confirms their good character.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by purpledawn, posted 12-15-2006 4:29 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Buzsaw, posted 12-15-2006 6:30 PM Wounded King has replied
 Message 227 by purpledawn, posted 12-16-2006 9:21 AM Wounded King has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 327 (370009)
12-15-2006 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Wounded King
12-15-2006 6:03 PM


Re: Testing Avoidance
WK writes:
The manufacturers don't want to avoid doing testing to demonstrate the efficacy or safety of their product. They just want the entire burden of proof to be on the FDA and to obviate themselves from having to provide any evidence to support their claims.
When it comes to simple compounds and sometimes whole granulated herbal suppliments, it is a given that life threatening and serious illness effects are not going to result from reasonable usage any more than a stomach ache from too much garlic in the spaghetti. There is no need for years of research to make a determination. That's why determination has heretofore been made without expensive testing proceedures on most herbal remedies. If any of these wholistic suppliments were needing to warn of possible death on the label, it would never be even considered safe for consumption by the FDA. It's only the powerful pharmaceuticals that get by with ligitimate murder.
A bag of jelly beans or double bubble gum has more potential for serious illness than 98% of the herbals.
The MDs bury their mistakes.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Wounded King, posted 12-15-2006 6:03 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Wounded King, posted 12-15-2006 7:26 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 229 by nator, posted 12-16-2006 3:21 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 327 (370013)
12-15-2006 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by macaroniandcheese
12-14-2006 9:14 PM


Re: autism-sorry, long
Most carcinogens (cancer causing agents) are cumulative in that an accumulation of a number of these in usage will increase the incidence of cancer significantly. For example if one uses perfumes, fumigators, hair and arm sprays, tanning/sunburn lotions, hair dyes, lipsticks, et al, et al, their cancer risk rises significantly. Many who use any one of these use many and are unapprised on bad diet as well as other unhealthy life habits.
As the Bible says, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." Hosea 4:6

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-14-2006 9:14 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by nator, posted 12-16-2006 3:26 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 327 (370016)
12-15-2006 6:55 PM


If the FDA were to do an honest and comprehensive study on pepsi, either sweetened with sugar or artificially, the results would prove that it should be immediately permanently banned in it's present state relative to health concerns. It is about as addictive to children as tobacco is to adults and many times more of a health threat than 98% of herbal and other health suppliments found on the natural health suppliment shelves.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by nator, posted 12-16-2006 3:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024