Water does not prevent dehydration......

[bigb]

Oh it might. It depends on what the definition of "not" is. Or something similarly specious.

That would totally depend on which dictionary website you choose to use.

 

[One Brow]

A few years ago, the FDA and FTC in concert with Canadian and Mexican cohorts began fining herbal retailers, vitamin and supplement distributors who made any statement not backed by peer-reviewed research on their labels, on the internet, or any media.

Only half true. They are still allowed to make claims that have no medical meaning. So, they can't say that shaken water (aka homeopathic remedies) cure cancer, but they can still says it boosts the immune system, and similar nonesense.

Most companies just paid the fine and went out of business.

Most companies changed their claims and are still raking in a huge amount of money for products that have no medicinal value.

But Big Pharma pill pushers don't have to comply with these laws,

Flat-out false. Pharmaceuticals have to go though numerous rounds of testing for efficiency for a particular medical condition, as well as safety on any newly released drug. Some drugs have been around before the current system existed (for example, aspirin), and have not been subjected to such testing. Anytime pharmaceuticals make a new medical claim for a product, they must produce additional testing for that claim.

There is such a "revolving door" arrangement with personnel rotating between industry jobs and FDA assignments, all the Big Pharma companies have their people on the inside at the FDA.

That would not surprise me, but it does not make your other claims true.

 

[TheItinerantSon]

So, folks, this isn't just funny, it's the law. Worldwide, including in the United States. International standards for medical claims are being enforced by regional governance. A few years ago, the FDA and FTC in concert with Canadian and Mexican cohorts began fining herbal retailers, vitamin and supplement distributors who made any statement not backed by peer-reviewed research on their labels, on the internet, or any media. Most companies just paid the fine and went out of business. But Big Pharma pill pushers don't have to comply with these laws, and they don't have to submit any peer-reviewed "research" to the FDA to get their pills on the market, nor to back up any of their medical claims. There is such a "revolving door" arrangement with personnel rotating between industry jobs and FDA assignments, all the Big Pharma companies have their people on the inside at the FDA. These big players get their stuff approved merely on their "word of honor", just a nudge or payoff to the man with the application in his file.

this is how excessive regulation generally works to drive out the little guys for the big cartelists with their lobbyists and satchels of campaign cash.

What we need to do is to Occupy The Bureaucracy.

this is a joke right?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Only half true. They are still allowed to make claims that have no medical meaning. So, they can't say that shaken water (aka homeopathic remedies) cure cancer, but they can still says it boosts the immune system, and similar nonesense.



Most companies changed their claims and are still raking in a huge amount of money for products that have no medicinal value.



Flat-out false. Pharmaceuticals have to go though numerous rounds of testing for efficiency for a particular medical condition, as well as safety on any newly released drug. Some drugs have been around before the current system existed (for example, aspirin), and have not been subjected to such testing. Anytime pharmaceuticals make a new medical claim for a product, they must produce additional testing for that claim.



That would not surprise me, but it does not make your other claims true.

Which Pharmaceutical company do you work for?

 

[One Brow]

Which Pharmaceutical company do you work for?

One Brow Pharmaceuticals, of course.

 

[babe]

Only half true. They are still allowed to make claims that have no medical meaning. So, they can't say that shaken water (aka homeopathic remedies) cure cancer, but they can still says it boosts the immune system, and similar nonesense.



Most companies changed their claims and are still raking in a huge amount of money for products that have no medicinal value.



Flat-out false. Pharmaceuticals have to go though numerous rounds of testing for efficiency for a particular medical condition, as well as safety on any newly released drug. Some drugs have been around before the current system existed (for example, aspirin), and have not been subjected to such testing. Anytime pharmaceuticals make a new medical claim for a product, they must produce additional testing for that claim.



That would not surprise me, but it does not make your other claims true.

Rules mean nothing when you're on the inside track. Take a look at all the recent lawsuits that have been lodged against the Big Pharma elites, and at what the FDA response has been. Rather than anyone on the inside being willing to reform their system, they have sought and obtain new legal protections against damages from the people who die, or are irreparably affected by their products.

Anyone who will take a position of blanket denial that this system is broken is just unwilling to break with their mental addiction to our government authority.

 

[babe]

For One Brow:

required reading before offering any more ad hoc opinions that the FDA is your friend:

https://www.mttlr.org/volfifteen/miller.pdf

Note: this is a legal review article based on "conventional wisdom" which recommends that governments should not consider FDA approvals of pharmaceuticals as the final authority for our society, considering the reliance of the FDA on applicant's statements in approving their drugs, bribery, and fraud issues, and the agencies insufficient ability to screen for all risks within any reasonable period of time.

It is a continuing debate, with the FDA and drug companies on the side of making FDA approval a competent and final defense against liability claims from patients under the theory that the FDA process affords the optimum protection to patients.

 

[One Brow]

Rules mean nothing when you're on the inside track. Take a look at all the recent lawsuits that have been lodged against the Big Pharma elites, and at what the FDA response has been.

You mean how Merck was fined hundreds of millions? $50 million of that was for advertising a pain-killer as a treatment for ar6thritis before it was approved by the FDA,

Rather than anyone on the inside being willing to reform their system, they have sought and obtain new legal protections against damages from the people who die, or are irreparably affected by their products.

Yes, the pharmaceuticals do not differ from the supplementers there. They're not particularly more successful, either.

Anyone who will take a position of blanket denial that this system is broken is just unwilling to break with their mental addiction to our government authority.

I'm unwilling to break my addiction to facts to bolster my preferred conspiracy theory.

 

[One Brow]

Note: this is a legal review article based on "conventional wisdom" ...

So far, according to that article, only one state has treated the FDA approval as the final word, the other 49 states do not.

Could the FDA be better and do better? Sure, with more funding. Dopea that make your rant about vitamin and supplement researches being subjected to greater scrutiny true? No, it's quite the opposite.

 

[babe]

You mean how Merck was fined hundreds of millions? $50 million of that was for advertising a pain-killer as a treatment for ar6thritis before it was approved by the FDA,



Yes, the pharmaceuticals do not differ from the supplementers there. They're not particularly more successful, either.



I'm unwilling to break my addiction to facts to bolster my preferred conspiracy theory.

Smaller companies are simply put out of business by being fined millions of dollars. Merck considers it a risk worth taking because the $50M fine is a slap on the wrists compared to the billions they can make in the time its takes for this "system" to react, and the market share position they can acquire.

Supplementers, that is food supplementers, are another subject in general. People have been saying water prevents dehydration for a long time. Most human beings have this general idea. Today "prevents dehydration" is for the first time being regulated as a specific medical claim. And yes, there are some pathogens that cause "dehydration", such as E. Coli and other pathogenic bacteria, and no, water is not going to prevent this serious medical disease. That is probably generally understood just as well. Now we have the EU equivalent of our FDA moving forward to enforce international standards in regard to medical claims ruling that people no longer can claim their bottled water "prevents dehydration".

But although food supplementers and international cartel Pharmaceuticals have somewhat different market schemes, they are both subject to the agencies who are beginning to enforce the "international standards". Typically, your food supplementers may be much smaller companies, and generally have not participated in the international working groups who have crafted the international standards. Companies like Merck and Bayer typically have influenced government selections of representatives sent to these meetings or conferences. Guess who will gain market share when these standards are enforced?

 

[babe]

So far, according to that article, only one state has treated the FDA approval as the final word, the other 49 states do not.

Could the FDA be better and do better? Sure, with more funding. Dopea that make your rant about vitamin and supplement researches being subjected to greater scrutiny true? No, it's quite the opposite.

The legal review article I linked above is from fifteen years ago. The legal hurdles that any injured patient must clear have been generally raised acrosss these years. A lot of injured or dead patients and/or their families are deciding not to sue, and just go on somehow if they are still alive, sometimes living off disability payments paid by the taxpayers or their employers, shifting the costs outside of the medical arena.

An effort was made to move the Michegan "experiment" into the Obamacare legislation, but it would have meant the defeat of Obamacare in the House of Representatives. The ABA and tort lawyers who work the medical claims market won one for us all. Typical liberals wailed and called it a travesty that this legislative "cure" for high medical costs was left out.

 

[babe]

Typical liberals raise the charge of "conspiracy theory" when they have no facts to discuss.

Here is a link to the alleged international conspiracy that is the fundamental source of regional governance/national governance in regard to medical claims regulations on food or supplements or medicines:

https://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp

And yes, this whole process is an end-run around individual rights once considered fundamental to our Constitutional form of government. And it is heavily supported politically and financially by the Rockefeller circle of Big Pharma companies.