subbie responds to me:
quote:
Well, the very disclaimer that you quote shows that the FDA doesn't perform the same kind of testing for products bearing the disclaimer as it does on drugs.
And thus, you show you missed the point:
Since there has been no testing, why would anybody accept the claim that it does what the advertister says it does?
quote:
If it were only to give people information, then the sale of untested drugs, or drugs that were tested but not approved, wouldn't be illegal.
Huh? Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to lie. If you're going to say that "X does Y," then you need to back it up. It's why all those cosmetic commercials make heavy use of the word "appear." They don't say it actually gets rid of your wrinkles...merely that the wrinkles "appear" to be "less noticeable."
And that's why the "alternative" therapies are carefully advertised so as not to actually claim to be doing anything. With no real claim to prove, they avoid any regulation.
quote:
Instead, the government would require companies to inform people that the drugs haven't been tested
Um, what do you think that disclaimer says? Here it is again:
This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
What part of "has not been evaluated" is in conflict with the phrase of "haven't been tested"?
quote:
No, FDA regulation is far more than just a full disclosure program for informed decision making.
I never said it wasn't. The FDA is a lot of things and one of them is a means for people to learn about things they don't have the ability to find out for themselves.
quote:
The FDA makes the decisions itself, then makes it a federal crime for anyone to prescribe the drug contrary to FDA decree.
Incorrect. A doctor is allowed to prescribe any drug for any reason. It's pretty much the entire basis for the pediatric psychopharmacopeia. Drugs don't work the same in children as they do in adults and we really don't have much testing for any of the drugs that we have upon children. The only way we've found out anything is because doctors prescribed them off-label. It's how we dealt with childhood cancers: The drugs were tested off-label on children.
The way we managed to get a hold on childhood cancers (at least the ones we have a hold on) is because the doctors banded together to organize all of this off-label use. Every child ever treated for cancer is part of a study. They just are. You don't leave the data sitting on the table waiting for somebody to notice it and collect it. You specifically share it with others so that we can see what's going on.
So why don't the "alternative" practitioners do this? Make everything part of a study.
quote:
Of course, it doesn't follow from that fact that the government has to do it.
I never said it did. And technically, the government doesn't do it, either. The government just organizes it. You have to do your own study and the report your findings to the FDA for evaluation.
quote:
There are hundreds, thousands of sources of information that people can turn to to see what those with informed opinions have to say about virtually anything.
Indeed. They're called doctors. But in order to be trusted, you have to be evaluated. That's why there's such a thing as "malpractice." And there has to be. There has to be a way to weed out the wrong answers.
quote:
Learning how to investigate and evaluate claims would be of considerably more value to people than for them to rely on someone else to simply outlaw bad decisions.
That's the importance of a good education in science. But that doesn't solve the problem of the average person...even the average scientist...being incapable of doing the appropriate research.
There's an old fake ad from
Saturday Night Live for the "Leland Myers Home Headache Test." You take vial of blood, run a chemical analysis of it, and wait two hours. If the spot turns blue, you have a headache! Now, for something like a headache, that's obviously ridiculous, but how is the average person supposed to determine if they have a deficiency in a particular protein? And how are they supposed to go about finding an effective treatment for it? That requires an awful lot of time, equipment, money, and study that most people don't have the means to do.
Who else is going to check on these things? Isn't that part of the function of government?
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2
