The FDA looking out for YOUR interests? NOT!

[Notes_Norton]

Pardon me for not reading the entire thread and perhaps repeating something.

 

The FDA is not doing what it is supposed to be doing at all. Instead of insuring safety for the US public, the FDA has become the lap dog of Big Pharma.

 

They make it extremely costly and difficult for any small company to get a breakthrough product approved. They stifle cures for diseases when Big Pharma sells billions of dollars worth of symptomatic treatment, and they let Big Pharma conduct their own product safety tests and the directive is to just pass whatever big pharma (and big agribusiness like Monsanto) wants.

 

Case in point. Vioxx. For arthritis pain. They tested it against another approved drug that has been around a long time and had no reputation for preventing heart attacks. During the testing, it was determined that the people using Vioxx had a 50 times greater chance of having a heart attack. When Merck wrote up the report, they skewed the test results to show the comparative drug was better at preventing heart attacks.

 

In the five years Vioxx was on the market, it killed more American citizens than the entire Viet Nam war did. Of course the people approving it in the FDA now have high roller jobs with Merck. So after mass murdering millions of US Citizens with a product they knew was going to kill, and making billions of dollars profits, what happened. When it was finally no longer able to hide Merck's fault in this, the FDA charged them a few million in fines to satisfy the public outcry, less than a tenth of a percent profit that Merck made by mass murdering Americans with Arthritis.

 

The FDA needs to be abolished, a new agency put into place, with a few rules. No jobs allowed with a drug company for life, if found the testers cooperated with the drug companies to fudge the figures, a mandatory death sentence should be instituted, and the drug companies should not be allowed to do their own testing.

 

There is a person in Texas curing cancer cases that the medical establishment has given up on and told to get their affairs in order. I've heard of Doctor Burzynski for years. Rent the movie https://www.burzynskimovie.com/

 

Big Pharma and Big Hospital doesn't like this because treating cancer is profitable business, and curing it takes away the profits. So they got the FDA to take him to court for various trumped up reasons. The grand jury acquitted him 3 or 4 times until they finally got the rules of the court so that he could call no cured witnesses and they put him in jail, not for curing cancer, but for some other penny-ante trumped-up charge. Why? Radiation and Chemo is a billion dollar industry and the FDA works for them, not us.

 

If I ever get the "Big C", Leilani has instructions to take me to Texas to see the Burzynski clinic.

 

The US Government is being run by huge corporations. It's no longer 'we the people', no longer a representative republic, but an oligarchy.

 

US citizens are being murdered for corporate profits, and the FDA is a willing partner.

 

And what about GMO foods? 65 countries have banned them because they are cancer causing. It's proven. But Monsanto manipulates the US Government to keep from labeling GMO foods as that. Don't we have a right to know? The government and Monsanto say "No".

 

I avoid all corn, soy, canola, and cottonseed products unless they say non-GMO or organic, and I boycott all Monsanto products that I know of and will continue to do so until they quit strong-arming the public, poisoning them for corporate profits and bribing the government to help them.

 

End of rant.

[milod]

CB...

 

I'm not sure at all that "we" yet know what will bring us the best practical supply of the best nutrition for the best health.

 

That bit from the NIH is troubling to me. Over a beer or coffee some day I'll tell a tale or two.

 

But the bottom line remains that we're just learning about the marvelous mechanism that we inhabit, and how to meet and greet both every day and at some point, a time we no longer must do so.

 

m

[charlie brown]

True, M...and, it's often both amusing, and frustrating, even frightening, as to how

things recommmended (both foods, and behavior) can often change, 180 degrees!

 

So, trying to sort it all out, is a full time gig!

 

CB

[heymisterk]

The FDA is subject to congressional oversight, and too often that congressional oversight cares much more about pleasing big campaign contributors (Big Food; Big Pharma) than it does about protecting consumers. The television ads for prescription drugs are enough to make me want to hurl a rock at the set.

 

People like to talk about personal responsibly, and to an extent, I agree. But too often, these ads are aimed at kids, who lack the sense or education to make a good choice.

[zigzag]

I'd have given you ten plusses, Notes.

[Notes_Norton]

Thanks.

 

I saw another film about the FDA from a whistle-blower. Sorry, it was long ago and I don't remember the name.

 

The guy said he knew that many of the drugs approved by the FDA are unsafe, some downright dangerous, and some less effective than the ones that the patent is expiring on, but the management of the FDA tells the people on the lower rungs of the ladder to approve the Big Pharma drugs anyway.

 

Here is a link for FDA films, I don't think it was one of these though - I did see the Burzynski movie listed here. As I said earlier, I've know about Burzynski and his successes and the persecution by the FDA for well over a decade.

 

The foxes are guarding the he house.

 

It's time for a change. Write your congress representatives.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

[charlie brown]

Thanks.

 

I saw another film about the FDA from a whistle-blower. Sorry, it was long ago and I don't remember the name.

 

The guy said he knew that many of the drugs approved by the FDA are unsafe, some downright dangerous, and some less effective than the ones that the patent is expiring on, but the management of the FDA tells the people on the lower rungs of the ladder to approve the Big Pharma drugs anyway.

 

Here is a link for FDA films, I don't think it was one of these though - I did see the Burzynski movie listed here. As I said earlier, I've know about Burzynski and his successes and the persecution by the FDA for well over a decade.

 

The foxes are guarding the he house.

 

It's time for a change. Write your congress representatives.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

 

Problem is...(too many of) your "congressman/woman" and Senators are in the same

people's pockets! We need a "house (and senate) cleaning," and Term Limits!

And...once out of office, they're on their own...not on the Government "tit," any

longer! IMHO, as always.

 

CB

[Searcy]

I'm sure that will attract lots of altruistic folks looking to save us from the evils of GMOs to the job.

[EVOL!]

 

The US Government is being run by huge corporations. It's no longer 'we the people', no longer a representative republic, but an oligarchy.

 

US citizens are being murdered for corporate profits, and the FDA is a willing partner.

 

And what about GMO foods? 65 countries have banned them because they are cancer causing. It's proven. But Monsanto manipulates the US Government to keep from labeling GMO foods as that. Don't we have a right to know? The government and Monsanto say "No".

 

I avoid all corn, soy, canola, and cottonseed products unless they say non-GMO or organic, and I boycott all Monsanto products that I know of and will continue to do so until they quit strong-arming the public, poisoning them for corporate profits and bribing the government to help them.

 

End of rant.

 

This. China labels GMO products. China - the country that puts toxins in baby formula to boost the protein content. And we cannot get labeling here?

 

 

Problem is...(too many of) your "congressman/woman" and Senators are in the same

people's pockets! We need a "house (and senate) cleaning," and Term Limits!

And...once out of office, they're on their own...not on the Government "tit," any

longer! IMHO, as always.

 

CB

 

Like I said, rip the money out of the system with both hands.

[surfpup]

We need ...Term Limits!

 

I just can't imagine why isn't Congress willing to do this?

[badbluesplayer]

Evol...

 

Were that it were so simple...

 

m

 

Here's just one example regarding livestock - but one might note that similar variations in "food" produce such as grains and veggies certainly are only too similar, not to mention protection from insects and disease.

 

From the extension service regarding "pasture forage" on rangeland:

 

"With the recent moisture that much of South Dakota received, grass is growing and many cattle have been moved to summer pasture. With that move and change in feed, ranchers need to be aware of the nutrient requirements of their livestock and ensure they are all being met, including energy, protein, minerals, vitamins and water. Although all these elements are important to overall herd health, growers need to pay particular attention to meeting their herd's mineral needs, says Adele Harty, SDSU Extension Cow/Calf Field Specialist.

 

"During the months in which animals are grazing, deficiencies in any of these nutrients can cause negative effects on animal production. In reality, all nutrients interact, and deficiencies in mineral nutrition can create deficiencies in availability of other nutrients, even if those nutrients are adequate in the diet," Harty said.

 

"As plants mature, mineral content changes such that phosphorus and potassium decrease, but not at an equal rate across all plant species, as this decrease is less pronounced in legumes than grasses. Harty explains that mineral content of grasses and forbs is influenced by mineral content of the soil, plant species, and plant maturity. Legumes, such as alfalfa and clovers, tend to be higher in calcium, magnesium, and potassium, as well as iron, copper, zinc, and cobalt than grasses.

 

"In general, calcium levels are adequate in forages, while phosphorus levels tend to be low and often inadequate, especially in mature forages," she said. "In regards to potassium, these levels tend to be excessive, while magnesium levels can be deficient, especially in lush, rapidly growing pastures."

 

Basically, Harty says that a "one-size fits all" mineral package rarely meets the needs of the livestock depending on plant diversity, soil mineral content, plant maturity and supplemental feeds.

 

"There can be a measurable difference within a pasture, let alone across an entire ranch or state," she said.

 

Whew. By the time I read the whole thing I had to go lick the block in the pasture. Now I feel better!

 

[milod]

RE: Term limits...

 

The weakness to that concept is that then the bureaucrats rule because there's nobody in the legislative branch that knows how to find skeletons in various bureaucratic closets, including how bureaucrats over time get into bed with various money interests.

 

I've been watching exactly that happen where I live. Since term limits, at least three state bureaucracies basically have been writing their own checks. By the time somebody in the legislature starts to call them on it, they're "out."

 

That's a totally non-partisan comment where I live largely because so much of state level politics is regional as opposed to partisan, regardless that "parties" can be talked into stuff either by bureaucrats or outside cash while accusing the other party of evilly taking money from those they don't agree with.

 

So... Honestly, I think term limits cause, and have caused, more abuse of governance than they have solved. It just ain't that obvious until you've watched over decades of what changes.

 

EDIT: BadB... Hey, I've even seen times when folks have displayed lick blocks as "art!"

 

m

[charlie brown]

RE: Term limits...

 

The weakness to that concept is that then the bureaucrats rule because there's nobody in the legislative branch that knows how to find skeletons in various bureaucratic closets, including how bureaucrats over time get into bed with various money interests.

 

I've been watching exactly that happen where I live. Since term limits, at least three state bureaucracies basically have been writing their own checks. By the time somebody in the legislature starts to call them on it, they're "out."

 

That's a totally non-partisan comment where I live largely because so much of state level politics is regional as opposed to partisan, regardless that "parties" can be talked into stuff either by bureaucrats or outside cash while accusing the other party of evilly taking money from those they don't agree with.

 

So... Honestly, I think term limits cause, and have caused, more abuse of governance than they have solved. It just ain't that obvious until you've watched over decades of what changes.

 

EDIT: BadB... Hey, I've even seen times when folks have displayed lick blocks as "art!"

 

m

 

Well, that only reinforces what many believe, that "elected officials" are NOT to be trusted,

regardless of term limits, or not! They all crooks, to begin with! Which, by the way, has

been my opinion, all along! Sure, there ARE "exceptions," as there are, to any "rule," or

situation. But, the level of corruption (seems, at least) to be unprecedented. But...really,

it all starts "at home," so to speak. Corrupt people, start early...usually way before they

are "elected" to anything.

 

I LOVE "America," the country, and the ideal! I just HATE what's become "normal=acceptable"

apparently, in both Goverment, and other areas of behavior. Sorry...that's just me!

 

CB

[milod]

CB...

 

Believe it or not, and I've covered elective government for going onto 50 years as a journalist, I think it's easy for the average person not to realize the different information sets that those folks are hit with.

 

Yeah, I question not so much the integrity, but more the bandwagon effect that hits so many of them. That's true IMHO from the nonpolitical local government board member up to Congress.

 

Too, there are perspectives from geography. I'm certain that at times both the GOP and Dem reps from my state to Congress are seen as being unreasonable when it comes to a number of ag and land use issues. Many folks here think that they're being unreasonably gentle versus "urban" perspectives - although folks at home and in Congress will play various partisan games for PR purposes.

 

But I'm absolutely convinced that geographical perspective is often a significant factor.

 

For example, after so many years as a ag region journalist, were I to be hired by an Ag company to bolster their PR and connections to legislatures through my experience, would that be unethical? I don't think so. What of a "legislator" who wanted away from the stresses of a given "legislature" and went to work for a corporation that he had supported as regionally beneficial?

 

Actually I think people would be surprised that whether I agree or disagree with given politicians I know, I actually think most have been internally honest. I think some have forgotten who brought 'em to the dance after being in Washington, but given needs for various compromises in any "legislative" process (think of band members compromising on a set list, then imagine yet bigger issues) I think most do what they believe at a given time is "best" according to their own lights.

 

Yeah, I've got some pretty strong partisan political perspectives myself, but much as I get disgusted by certain sorts of political argument I hear that obviously is emotional rather than rational, and much as I may lose respect for that individual, I seldom question the personal integrity.

 

OTOH, I guess I also always expect people to be human.

 

Bureaucrats? That's a different game. They're not there to do the people's work in the final analysis, but to maintain the bureaucracy. They may believe in the value of the bureaucracy to the people, but that's where it ends, as opposed to a perspective outside their bureaucracy.

 

m

[Searcy]

RE: Term limits...

 

The weakness to that concept is that then the bureaucrats rule because there's nobody in the legislative branch that knows how to find skeletons in various bureaucratic closets, including how bureaucrats over time get into bed with various money interests.

 

I've been watching exactly that happen where I live. Since term limits, at least three state bureaucracies basically have been writing their own checks. By the time somebody in the legislature starts to call them on it, they're "out."

 

That's a totally non-partisan comment where I live largely because so much of state level politics is regional as opposed to partisan, regardless that "parties" can be talked into stuff either by bureaucrats or outside cash while accusing the other party of evilly taking money from those they don't agree with.

 

So... Honestly, I think term limits cause, and have caused, more abuse of governance than they have solved. It just ain't that obvious until you've watched over decades of what changes.

 

EDIT: BadB... Hey, I've even seen times when folks have displayed lick blocks as "art!"

 

m

 

Term limits sound good till you see them in action. It's also a lazy solutions. If you don;t like them vote them out. Don't pass a law that does it for you.

[charlie brown]

Well, we've had term limits for Presidents, for decades. I don't see why Congress should

be imune to that? But, it really comes down to the voters. Until, unless you can better

educate them, to know Shite from Shinola, I don't see anything changing, much, at all. In

fact, it will most likely get worse. (Cynic, that I am!)

 

As to "most government officials being honest?" Maybe ...in the begining. But, the

herd effect/mentality, and all that money/perks, can be pretty persuasive! Humans, being

the greedy sots, they are! Never mind, the "compromises" that have to be made, to get where

they want to go, politically=finacially. Justification, is an endless, and easy cop-out,

in D.C. And, it happens in Large and Small town America, as well.

 

"Power, tends to corrupt, and Absolute Power Corrupts, Absolutely...great men, are almost always

bad men!" John Dalberg (AKA Lord Akton)

 

So...maybe we're just "Stuck?" I don't know...

 

 

CB

[surfpup]

Well, we've had term limits for Presidents, for decades. I don't see why Congress should be imune to that?

 

They shouldn't be immune. However, the people cannot write or pass a federal law (unlike at the state level where many state constitutions allow for the referendum). So it is therefore up to Congress to create term limits. The fox is watching the chicken coop!

 

A related problem is campaign finance. Seems to me, the first priority of a newly-elected US Representative or Senator is to make sure he or she gets re-elected. If he or she supports a law that upsets a powerful industry, there goes $ in the PAC or super PAC. And the time spent fund-raising is substantial.

[milod]

I think we're "stuck," but that it's not necessarily "bad."

 

I figure it takes two years just to get into the basics of being an elected "representative" without making a fool of oneself, whether at town board, state legislature or Congress. Four to six years to start to learn how to make things happen that are less likely to have unintended consequences.

 

I've seen far too many people get into office with an agenda, screw things up for that agenda, and have unintended consequences that caused major problems for literally decades.

 

Again, that's not at all a "partisan" comment, just facts of life in a republic - and potentially worse when one finds a bit of a demagogue stirring up things for special elections, overturning or creating new "law." Again, the unintended consequences are often far from being pretty.

 

My opinion tends to be that lack of communication with constituencies - as much the fault of the constituency as the elected "legislator," is what often brings anger. At local level, for example, the nastiest anti-"government" responses I've ever seen were actually the best decisions by elected city/county officials for the majority for the long term - but the howling by a few people affected literally put the majority at potential risk.

 

I guess having seen a lot of that sort of demagoguery is why I'll even sometimes side with elected officials I generally don't agree with on occasions. It's brought some really nasty stuff into "local politics." In fact, it's resulted in one of the more credible death threats I've had on me and my wife, against elected officials and even children.

 

Luckily that wasn't where I live now.

 

EDIT: BTW, these are the same basic arguments involved during the creation of the US Constitution.

 

m

[Aster1]

It seems to me that the FDA worries about tons of stuff that really isn't their Mission Statement and totally overlooks too much that is. Case in point MSG that is in so much stuff now and processors are now using crafty ways (about 15 different term ways to guise MSG like "Hydrolyzed Soy Protein" as a safe sounding foodstuff. Well, the hydrolyzed part had me looking right away and I found a bunch of listings that are ALL legal but hide the name MSG. Many people get migraines from MSG, like me it's a trigger and it's dang hard to avoid it. The bottled water bottles & plastic pop bottles are not safe at all until months of daily washing to remove the carcinogen agents. The list can go on and on. IMHO, those are the things they need to help protect us from. Most know I'm not a big fan of China and the thought that they will be owning our largest pork processor "Smithfield Foods" is REALLY not a good thing. No one seems to care about that at all. They killed our dogs/cats several years back with the poisons in the food, what makes people warm & cozy with them owning our food industry too?

 

Aster

[milod]

Aster...

 

How about the Brazilians? As in JBS?

 

Talk about cornering various markets...

 

m

[Aster1]

I know I'm a narrow minded guy in several areas and one is National Security. I don't believe that Canada is the "total model" on what we want, however I did always like how they barred "non citizens" from owning land and other things "Canadian." At least that's what it was in the 70's when I was up there. I would like that here, no foreign businesses or non citizens owning USA land or BUSINESSES. They can do business here but can't own/purchase a USA owned business. ESPECIALLY one that are related with our national security. Food, Energy, weapons, communications etc. Just doesn't seem to make much sense to me and many other too. Which part of "sovereignty" don't we understand anymore? You know "freedom from EXTERNAL CONTROL" as I recall it means.

 

Aster

[BobF_]

I know I'm a narrow minded guy in several areas and one is National Security. I don't believe that Canada is the "total model" on what we want, however I did always like how they barred "non citizens" from owning land and other things "Canadian." At least that's what it was in the 70's when I was up there. I would like that here, no foreign businesses or non citizens owning USA land or BUSINESSES. They can do business here but can't own/purchase a USA owned business. ESPECIALLY one that are related with our national security. Food, Energy, weapons, communications etc. Just doesn't seem to make much sense to me and many other too. Which part of "sovereignty" don't we understand anymore? You know "freedom from EXTERNAL CONTROL" as I recall it means.

 

Aster

 

Good point Aster, re: ownership. That should be extended to debt as well. How much are we into to China for these days?

 

As far as "Made in China" goes, a lot of the quality concerns should be addressed with the companies providing the specs. That doesn't stop them from making unauthorized poisonous substitutions, but it could fix the overall fall-apart quality problems.

 

Why would somebody prefer to buy seven $50 toaster ovens instead of one for $100? A lot of us aren't very smart about overall *value*.

 

Too many ask "How much a month?" instead of "How much?" ... <sigh ...>

[Rocky4]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oq24hITFTY

 

speaks volumes....

 

http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=8959

[Notes_Norton]

Regarding GMOs. All we ask for is labeling so we know what we are eating.

 

There is very strong evidence that the insecticide spliced into corn gets assimilated in the flora in your gut and that flora will continue to produce the insecticide in your gut for years. And the incidence of perforated intestines is skyrocketing in the USA - exactly what it does to the insects that eat the corn - coincidence? Perhaps. But just tell us that the corn is GMO and let us make the choice. What? Freedom of choice? Isn't that an American concept? It was before the corporate oligarchy gained control of our republic.

 

And the "round-up" ready crops (corn, soy, canola, cottonseed and sugar beets). Round-up is a close cousin to Agent Orange. I know a person who is dying from Agent Orange cancer, and there is nothing anybody can do about it. It's not an easy death, but a slow, painful one.

 

And the weeds are evolving to become round-up resistant themselves, so the farmer has to put more and more round-up on the food. Shouldn't we know if we are eating Round-up-ready Corn, Soy, or whatever? So we can have the choice?

 

Monsanto, the FDA and the members of congress who have received huge cash incentives from Monsanto in the form of swinging door jobs, campaign funds, and the like (tacit bribes) have decided that the US citizens do not have the freedom of choice, because that would diminish the Monsanto profits.

 

And sadly, although it sounds great, term limits won't fix the problem. The new guys need campaign funds too. And it not only gets rid of the dishonest, but gets rid of the good representatives too.

 

We also need to get back to the original concept of each representative in the House Of Representatives that there be one representative for every 30,000 citizens. Now we have one rep for 700,000 citizens. So they representatives are no longer really in touch with their constituents. But 700,000 saves the corporations a lot of tacit bribe oops! campaign fund money.

 

And how about getting rid of the Republican AND Democratic parties, and initiating a multi-party system so that no one party can control the legislature? And have the runner up for President become the vice president with veto power that can be overruled by a simple majority?

 

And how about a fair tax system so the people making millions of dollars per year pay the same rate as the middle class?

 

I also would like to propose (it will never happen) that any lawmaker caught either using his/her position for his/her own monetary gain and/or breaking any law of the land more serious than a traffic violation be tried for treason and if found guilty put in front of a firing squad. They make the laws. Shouldn't they be required to obey them? Or is it "Do as I say, not as I do"?

 

So the FDA people and the Merck who approved Vioxx and murdered at least 60,000 documented U.S. citizens for profit, should be tried, and if each was proved to be aware of the nature of the drug and participated in the approval, they should be executed. Isn't that what they do with mass murderers? They knew it was going to kill thousands of people, but corporate profits were more important. This bears repeating: They knew it was going to kill thousands of people, but corporate profits were more important.

 

And Vioxx was no more effective at reducing Arthritis pain than Aspirin or Ibuprofen.

 

And these same multi-national corporations are building products in countries with the cheapest labor and weakest regulation (like China and India) and since they own the Corporate media (which is 90% of all media) they blame China for putting toxic paint in the toys, not the Mattel company that authorized the use of that paint. Wake up, it's not the country's fault, it's the company. If you believe the company doesn't know 100% of what goes into the products made there, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

There is something terribly wrong with our government right now. It's being run by giant multi-national corporations. And I have no idea how to fix it.

 

It's not government by the people and for the people anymore. It's government by the special interest groups and for the special interest groups.

 

The founding fathers must be turning in their graves.

[milod]

Actually Roundup is a plant killer. Roundup resistant means that a plant is resistant biologically to Roundup.

 

So... one might make a case that Roundup on or in one's food is not good, but the concept of crops biologically resistant to it is not by itself "bad," any more than crops that have been resistant to other factors.

 

I doubt too that many who are outside ag areas recognize that there are varieties of "corn" that mature in differing lengths of time to suit rather different climate conditions. Etc.

 

Depending on one's perspective on "government," the EPA model considers "Roundup" not to be a danger to humans.

 

Me, I trust the EPA about as far as I can toss the average adult elephant, but I think one must also consider the options available which then mean other factors would be necessary to protect food crops from weed invasions. Additional tillage means loss of moisture which can in many circumstances functionally mean significant lessening of the crop. Given that "more cheap food" is the overall desire of consumers regardless of where they live or economic status (except for the very top), one must consider that "we" are getting what "we" want.

 

In developed nations, "we" probably could get along with a 20 to 50 percent increase in food prices. One might question the result in nations and areas where subsistence is marginal.

 

m