 |
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yeah... It costs a LOT of money to adhere to government regulations... On the other hand, we could just let 'em make snake oil and CALL it sunscreen. But, I'd rather have it the way it is.. I LIKE the FDA testing stuff. You guys want to test stuff on your kids?? Don't make sense to me.
excon
50 bucks a bottle coming your way
Most of the approved drugs are experiments on people . In 2008 2.7 million hospital stays and emergency room visits were due to adverse drug reactions.
Snake oil may have a better track record come to think about it. I know I can safety put the mineral zinc oxide on my skin and have better sun protection than the toxic brew they approve.
Because the drug was at fault, or because the patient didn't take it the way he/she was supposed to? -- like my client Heather who would take the entire day's worth of prescribed depression/OCD/HBP meds at one time before bed (they were supposed to be spaced out throughout the day), promptly threw up, and then cursed the medical community.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Or like my wife, who endured a litany of expensive tests, months of stress and agony to find out why she was swollen like a balloon only to discover it was a drug reaction.
By the same token ;you could improperly apply sunscreen exposing your skin to hamful UVs .
WG ;how many approved drugs have later been removed from the market ? Humans are very often the Guinea Pig .
Let's go to nutrition which is the basis of this op.
What is the latest consensus on salt ?The Journal of The American Medical Association published in May a study that concluded that that as salt intake went up, cardiovascular deaths went down. In other words ;lowering your salt intake increases your risk of heart disease.
So , at very least the consensus is divided (my own opinion is that bleached process salts are the culprit if there is any adverse effect of salt intake) .
Why should the nanny state then attempt and make law to control people's salt intake if there is no conclusive evidence about it being harmful ?
That's the fault of her doctor (not the drug), not to recognize a drug reaction. How many other patients have had the same bad reaction? Has the drug been taken off the market?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Which study does one believe? Which study has been done correctly? Who has been tested? How often?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Do consumers ever read those papers that a pharmacist gives with each prescription?
then what value is labelling specs that the FDA spent 3 decades finalizing ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Darn it, should have just asked you since you obviously know all about the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
If doctors weren't forced to cover every base due to this litigious society and shark lawyers, they could be doctors again.
Actually, I went through a similar thing with an IV solution I was given, but the doctor jumped right on it and saved my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Ever listen to one of those drug ads on TV, or read all the caveats on magazine pages?Quote:
[If doctors weren't forced to cover every base due to this litigious society and shark lawyers, they could be doctors again.
Not every situation is the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Really?Quote:
Ever listen to one of those drug ads on TV, or read all the caveats on magazine pages?
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Without actually seeing the report I would think the conclusion is not that simple. You are correct when you say there is no direct link between salt intake and cardiovascular disease. Salt intake and cardiovascular disease will probably never show a direct link. This is because there are far too many contributing factors. At best I would say that scientists would claim that salt is a contributing factor in exactly the same way as lack of exercise is a contributing factor. Another example would be the physical make up of each individual. Some people are able to tolerate higher levels of salt.
What would normally happen is the relevant authorities would isolated the contributing factors. Some success can be obtained by banning salt. In other words, they can control at least one contributing factor.
The government cannot regulate for exercise. The best they can hope for is to encourage people to do more exercise. In summary, it is the wide spread regulation of, 'the dooable' contributing factors that gives the impression of nanny state bans.
Tut
Tut
Quite the contrary ,they found a link between low salt intake and increased risk of cardiovascular disease. I think the real culprit is processed bleaching of salt which replaces valuable nutrients in salt ,and replaces it with cr@p like anti-caking ingredients.Quote:
You are correct when you say there is no direct link between salt intake and cardiovascular disease...
What would normally happen is the relevant authorities would isolated the contributing factors. Some success can be obtained by banning salt. In other words, they can control at least one contributing factor.
For this op though the government is attempting to control salt intake when there is no conclusive proof it does any good . It is just a power grab.
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
As far as the consensus being divided? I would suggest that it is far from divided if only because more studies have been done on the adverse outcomes of a high salt diet. This does not mean to say that in the future low salt studies won't confirm some type of strong link with heart disease. It is just the way governments do business.
Governments can't sit on their hands forever waiting for results on alternative studies. Governments tend to act on what is before them. If in the future high salt diets decrease the risk of heart disease then the appropriate legislation will be put in place.
It is not a power grab. With respect. Tom, you worry about conspiracies where they are none.
Tut
You don't live in NY... indeed it is a power grab by a soft tyranny .
Yeah that's what governments do... and thalidomide is the result.Quote:
Governments can't sit on their hands forever waiting for results on alternative studies. Governments tend to act on what is before them.
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I agree with you. I am sorry if I have offended you in any way. I will withdraw from the discussion. I will also delete my other post on climate change.
Best wishes
Tut
Well put it this way... I am buying up incandescent bulbs as fast as my budget will allow because I refuse to convent to those ridiculous and dangerous mercury filled CFL bulbs that the nanny state government in it's infinite wisdom will mandate next year .
This will at least buy me the time to work out the logistics of conversion to LED illumination for my home .
Conversion to LED is easy Tom you just pay twice as much as CFL which are about ten times the price of incandescent but I tell you that I haven't changed a light bulb since I converted but I do need to upgrade some of the bulbs which are a little dim on startup. I still have all my old incandescents in reserve, I shouldn't need any light bulbs for yonks and that goes for a lot of other people so I expect the incandescent manufacturers in Asia will be out of business soonQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Those darn South Carolinians may be challenging that incandescent ban with the South Carolina Incandescent Light Bulb Freedom Act.
And those CFL's? Turns out their energy savings are 73% less than anticipated and something I already knew from experience, the burnout rate is higher than expected.
Good news, the nanny state has decided which images designed to make you vomit, to place on cigarette packs next year.
Next up, really fat naked people on bags of potato chips.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:10 AM. |