wheelrite
14 years ago

Not at all what was being discussed. The FDA was the topic.

I suppose you can be all 'do it all by myself' and learn how to test meats, foods and drugs for contaminents and bacteria, run drug studies at your own expense, all to protect your family because that's the Rand way. But I think having a government agency over-seeing these things is actually a good thing.

FuzzNJ wrote:



Jeebus...

as much as it pains me to say...

Fuzz may be partially correct on this point,ONLY..

But Michelle still looks like Wilt Chambelrain with teats..
View All Posts by User
DrafterX
14 years ago
does the FDA make the gubment cheese..?? 😕
View All Posts by User
teedubbya
14 years ago

Teedubya is so easy going I figured him for a seabreeze kinda guy.

And yes Fuzzy FDA is a failure and will be no matter how much chinese money we throw at the DC black hole.

ZRX1200 wrote:



I'm not placing a value on this but I assume from what you are saying we should not need an RX to get any drugs and the drug companies should be able to deliver anything they like to the market regardless of effacy or safety. As long as someone buys it, its cool? Thus the massengill reference. A nice safe company looking out for our interests.
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

Not at all what was being discussed. The FDA was the topic.

I suppose you can be all 'do it all by myself' and learn how to test meats, foods and drugs for contaminents and bacteria, run drug studies at your own expense, all to protect your family because that's the Rand way. But I think having a government agency over-seeing these things is actually a good thing.

FuzzNJ wrote:




Sorry, but there are agencies that could dry up and we'd be better for it.

If you think your precious FDA is testing the food around here you're SADLY mistaken!
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

does the FDA make the gubment cheese..?? 😕

DrafterX wrote:




They don't make the cheese...they make it cheesier![whip]
View All Posts by User
FuzzNJ
14 years ago

You think every piece of meat is inspected?

ZRX1200 wrote:



Not even close.
View All Posts by User
teedubbya
14 years ago
Aside from the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 and the Harrison Act of 1914 banning the sale of some narcotic drugs, there was no federal regulatory control ensuring the safety of new drugs until Congress enacted the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in response to the elixir sulfanilamide poisoning crisis.

In 1937, S. E. Massengill Company, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, created a preparation of sulfanilamide using diethylene glycol (DEG) as a solvent, and called the preparation "Elixir Sulfanilamide".[3] DEG is poisonous to humans, but Harold Watkins, the company's chief pharmacist and chemist, was not aware of this (although it was known at the time).[1] Watkins simply added raspberry flavoring to the sulfa drug which he had dissolved in DEG and the company then marketed the product. Although animal testing should have been routine in most drug company operations, Massengill performed none and there were no regulations requiring premarket safety testing of new drugs.

The company started selling and distributing the medication in September 1937. By October 11, the American Medical Association received a report of several deaths caused by the medication. The Food and Drug Administration was notified, and an extensive search was conducted to recover the distributed medicine.[4] Frances Oldham Kelsey assisted on a research project that verified that the excipient DEG was responsible for the fatal adverse effects. At least 100 deaths were blamed on the medication.

The owner of the company, when pressed to admit some measure of culpability, famously answered, "We have been supplying a legitimate professional demand and not once could have foreseen the unlooked-for results. I do not feel that there was any responsibility on our part."[5] Watkins, the chemist, committed suicide while awaiting trial.[5]

Congress responded to public outrage by passing the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which required that companies perform animal safety tests on their proposed new drugs and submit the data to the FDA before being allowed to market their products. The Massengill Company paid a minimum fine under provisions of the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act, which prohibited labeling the preparation an "elixir" if it had no alcohol in it.

View All Posts by User
FuzzNJ
14 years ago

Sorry, but there are agencies that could dry up and we'd be better for it.

If you think your precious FDA is testing the food around here you're SADLY mistaken!

DrMaddVibe wrote:



The agency is WAY underfunded and understaffed for what is needed. Saying it's a failure because of that does not make it unnecessary, it actually says it requires more attention.

I certainly don't trust a company to put safety above profits. If there is a chance of getting away with letting something slide and selling the product at a profit, or recalling or destroying it all because of something 'wrong' with it that there is a chance they can get away with, I'm sure they would do the latter the majority of the time. If it doesn't work, oh well, insurance will pay out, bad press for a month or less, change the name of the company, and back on with business. No one is ever held accountable for that sh*t anyway.
View All Posts by User
teedubbya
14 years ago
douche
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

The agency is WAY underfunded and understaffed for what is needed. Saying it's a failure because of that does not make it unnecessary, it actually says it requires more attention.

I certainly don't trust a company to put safety above profits. If there is a chance of getting away with letting something slide and selling the product at a profit, or recalling or destroying it all because of something 'wrong' with it that there is a chance they can get away with, I'm sure they would do the latter the majority of the time. If it doesn't work, oh well, insurance will pay out, bad press for a month or less, change the name of the company, and back on with business. No one is ever held accountable for that sh*t anyway.

FuzzNJ wrote:




Yesss...so you surrender yourself to more government...more...more...more...more...more...more!

In my best Fuzzy screechy voice - - HELP!!! I'm not able to do anything for myself and need 25 people to look over me...help! Help!!! Somebody please pay for it all too! I cannot so we need to do it for the children...think of the children. Why do you hate clean water and air?


[frypan]
View All Posts by User
teedubbya
14 years ago
The FDA is quite inept at many things but not all things. And sometimes you can blame the agency when they are actually following the law. *shrug*

I do want the govt screening drugs etc. prior to them hitting the market and taking them off when there are issues. I also think toyotas brake issue would be largely invisible without the govt involvement etc.

I'm for smaller govt but not a free for all.
View All Posts by User
teedubbya
14 years ago
I can understand someone wanting to abolish the FDA. But would you somehow abosorb some of their functions somewhere or just go back to the 1800s in this regard?
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

The FDA is quite inept at many things but not all things. And sometimes you can blame the agency when they are actually following the law. *shrug*

I do want the govt screening drugs etc. prior to them hitting the market and taking them off when there are issues. I also think toyotas brake issue would be largely invisible without the govt involvement etc.

I'm for smaller govt but not a free for all.

teedubbya wrote:




I'm not advocating a total free for all, but there's a limit to what they do.

Besides in Toyota's case they KNEW about the issue and pushed it out the door for YEARS!!! There's your' government in action..ps...that review in Consumer Reports was favorable for YEARS too!
View All Posts by User
ZRX1200
14 years ago
Fuzzy I want those responsible for damages held accountable but that's really being done now. How much money you gonna throw at it?

Teedubya that comment was actually directed at the food segment. But they have been a failure with drugs as well.
View All Posts by User
FuzzNJ
14 years ago

Yesss...so you surrender yourself to more government...more...more...more...more...more...more!

DrMaddVibe wrote:



How would I be surrendering anything in this scenario? Attempting to keep the food and drug supply as safe as possible for the American people? I just don't get it.

You the type of person who grows and hunts for all your food and only prays for medical needs? I know you aren't Amish, you're here on this board.

I guess I also surrendered to more government by allowing the court system to be in place, hell, all three branches of the federal government, etc. And the military, wow, now there's a huge expense. Don't need them either.

You've done it all by yourself, you continue to do it with no help from anyone and you are the hero Galt himself.

You are also full of crap. Again may I suggest Somolia as a new place of residence because there you will be free from all that pesky government sh*t and be able to rise to King quickly.
View All Posts by User
teedubbya
14 years ago

I'm not advocating a total free for all, but there's a limit to what they do.

Besides in Toyota's case they KNEW about the issue and pushed it out the door for YEARS!!! There's your' government in action..ps...that review in Consumer Reports was favorable for YEARS too!

DrMaddVibe wrote:



Limit is cool, but some say all. and at some point you need to draw that line which is ever changing.

In the case of the Food Drug and Cosmetic act of 1938 there was a large movement towrds less govt involvement. The concept of this act had been around for years and had been opposed by the small govt types. It took massengill's total disregard for life and regard for profits to force the bill through. Somethings don't change.

As for toy.... why it was not reported earlier was the fault of Toyota first and formost. If the govt agency knew and didn't report there must either be a reason (usually the way the law is written) or heads should roll.

There is a reason and purpose for govt. It's just expanded to much and needs to shrink. But the everything about govt is bad crowd is silly at times.
View All Posts by User
teedubbya
14 years ago

Fuzzy I want those responsible for damages held accountable but that's really being done now. How much money you gonna throw at it?

Teedubya that comment was actually directed at the food segment. But they have been a failure with drugs as well.

ZRX1200 wrote:



Certainly there have been failures. bad drugs got through.... good drugs took too long to get through. But the get rid of it all mantra is nothing but knee jerk reactionism.
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

As for toy.... why it was not reported earlier was the fault of Toyota first and formost. If the govt agency knew and didn't report there must either be a reason (usually the way the law is written) or heads should roll.

There is a reason and purpose for govt. It's just expanded to much and needs to shrink. But the everything about govt is bad crowd is silly at times.

teedubbya wrote:





$$$$$$$$$$$
View All Posts by User
teedubbya
14 years ago
As for food, I'm pretty aware of that process too. It is largely a low resource and a train the trainer system that will often fail. Just get rid of the fda? um ok. but you better replace it with somethin.
View All Posts by User
teedubbya
14 years ago

$$$$$$$$$$$

DrMaddVibe wrote:



Maybe so but is the solution really to just get rid of such agencies?
View All Posts by User
Users browsing this topic
Mobile! Terms | Privacy | Contact Us | Help | © 1998-2026, CigarBid.com