The case against Dr. Paul

[ZenFountain]

Debating Ron Paul's legislation is a moot point outside of motive and structure. Why?

Ronald Paul has sponsored 350 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 345 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 0 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers).

He's never written a bill that made it to vote. There are a litany of bills Paul perennially introduces knowing they'll never make it out committee. What's the motive? To provide talking points with his friends at the Mises Institute and show his constituents that he's ostensibly doing something other than tucking pork into Dr. No votes. It's made a crafty backdrop for his farce campaign too, a veritable Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. If the founding fathers saw what Paul was doing they would laugh hysterically, the man has no political abilities and no support. Great that he stands on principal but he has done zilch to effect change, thus making his seat essentially useless other than sending home the mandatory bacon to TX-14.

 

[WildCat]

Source?

Did you miss what was quoted from Paul's web site? Or is that not authored by him either?

Did you even read the legislation?

Yep, apparently I have to spell it out for you though.

(E) The Secretary shall allow with reasonable and concise disclaimers not to exceed three sentences claims of the type described in subparagraph (1)(B) not authorized under this subparagraph or subparagraph (5)(D) unless the Secretary determines that--

`(i) there is no scientific evidence that supports the claim; and​

`(ii) the claim is inherently misleading and incapable of being rendered nonmisleading through the addition of a disclaimer.​

Gives quacks free rein?

Yes, because it puts the government in a position where they will be required to scientifically test every silly quack product out there. Such testing takes years, and is quite expensive. Not to mention the ethics of final-stage testing of quack products on human volunteers. And by the time the government test results are in and the product pulled, the quack supplements/drugs can be slightly modified, the bogus claims resurrected, and the government has to go through another costly and time-consuming and ethically questionable round of testing to pull it off the market. Ad infinitum.

I prefer to make drug companies prove their product is safe and effective before it hits the market. Ron Paul and his supporters want to make the general population human guinea pigs for quack products.

At least until you (1) read the legislation, or (2) stop spreading half-truths.

Except it's 100% true...

 

[Drudgewire]

Alright new day. Let's see if I can avoid getting a bit mean-spirited like I did at the end last night. Sorry bout that.

 

[Richard Masters]

Such testing takes years, and is quite expensive. Not to mention the ethics of final-stage testing of quack products on human volunteers.

If the product is quack, it should be easy to prove.

And by the time the government test results are in and the product pulled, the quack supplements/drugs can be slightly modified, the bogus claims resurrected, and the government has to go through another costly and time-consuming and ethically questionable round of testing to pull it off the market. Ad infinitum.

You are begging the question.

I prefer to make drug companies prove their product is safe and effective before it hits the market. Ron Paul and his supporters want to make the general population human guinea pigs for quack products.

Not everyone owns a multi-million dollar drug company that they can use to jump through hoops.

Except it's 100% true...

Really? Do you consider embryonic stem-cell research to be quackery?

 

[WildCat]

If the product is quack, it should be easy to prove.

Easy? Sure, but it will still take years to do so. And money, lots of it.

You are begging the question.

Nope, that is exactly what Ron Paul wants to happen.

Not everyone owns a multi-million dollar drug company that they can use to jump through hoops.

If the company has no way to test their drugs properly they have no business making them in the first place.

Really? Do you consider embryonic stem-cell research to be quackery?

Non-sequitur.

 

[Drudgewire]

If the company has no way to test their drugs properly they have no business making them in the first place.

I was SWEARING I was reading his post wrong, because holy crap...

 

[Richard Masters]

Easy? Sure, but it will still take years to do so. And money, lots of it.

Then you didn't read the legislation which explicitly shows that if there is no scientific evidence to support the claims, or if the claims are inherently misleading, then these cannot be made.

Nope, that is exactly what Ron Paul wants to happen.

What? You are assuming that the claims are all quackery right from the start.

If the company has no way to test their drugs properly they have no business making them in the first place.

We're not talking about drugs. It's dietary supplements.

Non-sequitur.

It's fine with me if you oppose embryonic stem-cell research. Just don't go around pretending it's quackery.

 

[WildCat]

Then you didn't read the legislation which explicitly shows that if there is no scientific evidence to support the claims, or if the claims are inherently misleading, then these cannot be made.

The legislation puts the burden of proof on the government to prove the claims false. Most rational people think it should be on the people making the claims in the first place.

What? You are assuming that the claims are all quackery right from the start.

No, I'm saying that Ron Paul wrote his legislation to specifically remove the burden of proof on the supplement manufacturers to prove their products safe and effective and instead requires the government to prove they aren't safe and effective.

We're not talking about drugs. It's dietary supplements.

Because what could possibly go wrong with "supplements"?

It's fine with me if you oppose embryonic stem-cell research. Just don't go around pretending it's quackery.

I never said whether I supported it or not. It simply has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[WildCat]

Hey look, Ron Paul's bill has resulted in at least hundreds of deaths and over a million hospitalizations. Way to go Ron Paul!

Those figures, of course, don't include deaths from disease that could have been cured if the patient hadn't used supplements instead of actual medical cures.

 

[Richard Masters]

The legislation puts the burden of proof on the government to prove the claims false. Most rational people think it should be on the people making the claims in the first place.

Most rational people? Stats?

Also, so what if it puts the burden of proof on the government?

No, I'm saying that Ron Paul wrote his legislation to specifically remove the burden of proof on the supplement manufacturers to prove their products safe and effective and instead requires the government to prove they aren't safe and effective.

That's not what you wrote.

And by the time the government test results are in and the product pulled, the quack supplements/drugs can be slightly modified, the bogus claims resurrected, and the government has to go through another costly and time-consuming and ethically questionable round of testing to pull it off the market. Ad infinitum.​

Then I said you were begging the question. Which you were. You are assuming, from the start, that the supplements are quack.

Because what could possibly go wrong with "supplements"?

Here is some advice for you: Don't buy quack medicine.

I never said whether I supported it or not. It simply has nothing to do with this discussion.

Sure it does. You claim Ron Paul endorses quackery. You must be talking about the stem-cell research proposals he made.

 

[Thorn]

Here is some advice for you: Don't buy quack medicine.

Who determines the quackery if the FDA does not? The business themselves?

 

[WildCat]

Most rational people? Stats?

Bizarre.

Also, so what if it puts the burden of proof on the government?

Because the government cannot possibly be expected to test an unlimited number of quack medical products effectively. There is neither the time nor the money to do so, and deaths will result as they already have thanks to Ron Paul.

Then I said you were begging the question. Which you were. You are assuming, from the start, that the supplements are quack.

No, I assumed from the start that there is limited ability of the government to test medical products, and nearly unlimited ability of manufacturers (shady and otherwise) to keep pumping them out.

Here is some advice for you: Don't buy quack medicine.

Under Ron Paul's proposed legislation you will have no way to tell what is legitimate and what is quack. Because it eliminates assurances that it will have been properly tested before it hits the market.

Sure it does. You claim Ron Paul endorses quackery. You must be talking about the stem-cell research proposals he made.

This is an excellent example of the poor logic skills the typical Ron Paul supporter has. Saying that Ron Paul supports the marketing of quack medical products is not the same as saying that Ron Paul supports only quack medical products.

 

[Richard Masters]

Who determines the quackery if the FDA does not? The business themselves?

The businesses, the consumer, the result of false advertising lawsuits.

There is nothing wrong with having an FDA, I personally like that the FDA keeps me from having to think too much about whether my medication is safe or not.

What is wrong is that the FDA tells you what you can and can't take instead of merely admonishing you. It also prevents safe medications from entering the market by delaying their approval sometimes for up to 10 years. Then, when the medication is finally approved everyone cheers about the 10,000-15,000 lives a year that will be saved by that medication, but everyone forgets the 100,000-150,000 that died in that 10-year period.

An ideal FDA would operate the same way, but would allow adults, especially terminally-ill adults, to sign a release form if they choose to take an unapproved medication.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Well - why does the skepticism fail in politics?

Because politics is a subjective exercise in the pursuit of power and influence.

If I may bring to your attention RandFan's old observation: this is the politics sub forum, you don't get an objective opinion.

DR

 

[Richard Masters]

Because the government cannot possibly be expected to test an unlimited number of quack medical products effectively. There is neither the time nor the money to do so, and deaths will result as they already have thanks to Ron Paul.

I'm not familiar with your sources. Either way, I suppose if you were on your deathbed after taking ephedra you would place all responsibility on Ron Paul for letting you make your own decisions.

Under Ron Paul's proposed legislation you will have no way to tell what is legitimate and what is quack.

Have you ever heard of scientific studies? Google Scholar? Peer-Reviewed Journals? The Harvard School of Public Health?

Because it eliminates assurances that it will have been properly tested before it hits the market.

So don't buy it if it hasn't been tested.

This is an excellent example of the poor logic skills the typical Ron Paul supporter has. Saying that Ron Paul supports the marketing of quack medical products is not the same as saying that Ron Paul supports only quack medical products.

Hey, I'm just engaging in half-truths and misrepresentations, like you. Besides, everyone knows what you were really implying.

 

[WildCat]

I'm not familiar with your sources.

Sources? You need sources to determine whether or not the government has unlimited resources to test every medical product that the world's 6 billion people can dream up?

Have you ever heard of scientific studies? Google Scholar? Peer-Reviewed Journals? The Harvard School of Public Health?

You mean those places that publish the reports on the testing the government requires drug companies to perform?

So don't buy it if it hasn't been tested.

Sure, let people be human guinea pigs for Ron Paul's stand on "medical freedom". On second thought, I prefer to live n a civilized country that values life.

Hey, I'm just engaging in half-truths and misrepresentations, like I falsely accused you of doing.

Fixed that for you.

Besides, everyone knows what you were really implying.

Ah, it's not what I say it's what your Sylvia Browne-like psychic powers tell you I was really implying.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Ronald Paul has sponsored 350 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 345 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 0 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers).

He's never written a bill that made it to vote.

This is his core problem: weak to no peer leadership. John Kerry had a similarly abysmal record of getting legislation through, and that factored into why I didn't vote for him.

Not a leader.

Paul's problem, in vote attractin, is that iconoclasm as a platform, unless accompanied by considerable charisma, doesn't sell well outside of libertarian enclaves.

Great that he stands on principal but he has done zilch to effect change, thus making his seat essentially useless other than sending home the mandatory bacon to TX-14.

That is what all reps are charged with doing by their constituents, the taxpayers who vote them in.

Our Congress is a parliament of whores. (See book of same name by P.J. O Rourke.

DR

 

[Richard Masters]

Sources? You need sources to determine whether or not the government has unlimited resources to test every medical product that the world's 6 billion people can dream up?

No, I was referring to your assertion that Ron Paul's legislation killed people. Nice try, though.

You mean those places that publish the reports on the testing the government requires drug companies to perform?

Exactly.

Sure, let people be human guinea pigs for Ron Paul's stand on "medical freedom". On second thought, I prefer to live n a civilized country that values life.

Nice straw man.

Please, continue on with your fallacies and misrepresentations.

 

[Checkmite]

The businesses, the consumer, the result of false advertising lawsuits.

"False advertising lawsuits"??? You're essentially saying that any product should be allowed freely on the market until it is proven dangerous by people having suffered damage or even death after using it.

 

[Richard Masters]

"False advertising lawsuits"??? You're essentially saying that any product should be allowed freely on the market until it is proven dangerous by people having suffered damage or even death after using it.

No. That's is not what I am saying.