The case against Dr. Paul

Checkmite said:
"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.
Click to expand...

I am sure RP's supporters over at Stormfront could suggest some groups that could be used to test new drugs on.
 
Richard Masters said:
No, I was referring to your assertion that Ron Paul's legislation killed people. Nice try, though.
Click to expand...
Right here. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/health/16diet.html?em&ex=1169355600&en=eb3bb4a56a50428b&ei=5087%0A

Also, note where the chairman of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health (the same school you touted a few posts back), concluded: “A best estimate is that less than 1 percent of serious adverse events caused by dietary supplements is reported to the F.D.A. The true proportion may well be smaller by an order of magnitude or more.”

Yes, Ron Paul's legislation has killed hundreds, possibly thousands.

Exactly.
Click to expand...
So what will those entities publish lacking the government requirement for testing as proposed by Ron Paul? :rolleyes:

Nice straw man.

Please, continue on with your fallacies and misrepresentations.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what you proposed when you said "the businesses, the consumer, the result of false advertising lawsuits" will be good enough regulation.
 
Drudgewire said:
So these would be pre-emptive lawsuits? How does that work? :confused:
Click to expand...

I was asked how people would determine quackery without the FDA. I listed a few options that may or may not be ideal.

This is not to say I completely oppose the FDA.

I suggest reading the relevant post.
 
WildCat said:
Right here. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/health/16diet.html?em&ex=1169355600&en=eb3bb4a56a50428b&ei=5087%0A
Click to expand...

No access. Sorry.

Yes, Ron Paul's legislation has killed hundreds, possibly thousands.
Click to expand...

Which one? Source?

So what will those entities publish lacking the government requirement for testing as proposed by Ron Paul?
Click to expand...

They can publish whatever they want.

That's exactly what you proposed when you said "the businesses, the consumer, the result of false advertising lawsuits" will be good enough regulation.
Click to expand...

I never made those claims. Try quoting me correctly.
 
Richard Masters said:
I was asked how people would determine quackery without the FDA. I listed a few options that may or may not be ideal.
Click to expand...

You "listed a few options" which would require people to be hurt, or otherwise suffer damage as a result of using a product, before said product can be called harmful.
 
Drudgewire said:
I suggest thinking before you suggest insane solutions to issues in a terrible attempt to make Ron Paul look like less of a fruitcake than he is.
Click to expand...

I suggest you pay attention to what I wrote, and that you make your criticism less vague. For example, which "insane solutions", and what makes you think "my" solutions have anything to do with Ron Paul?
 
Richard Masters said:
No access. Sorry.



Which one? Source?
Click to expand...
The story you claim you cannot access for some reason...

They can publish whatever they want.
Click to expand...
They can't publish the results of studies that didn't occur because Ron Paul's legislation made them unnecessary.

I never made those claims. Try quoting me correctly.
Click to expand...
Oh, but you did make that claim!
Richard Masters said:
The businesses, the consumer, the result of false advertising lawsuits.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
Checkmite said:
You "listed a few options" which would require people to be hurt, or otherwise suffer damage as a result of using a product, before said product can be called harmful.
Click to expand...

I listed a non-inclusive list of alternatives to the FDA for determining if something is quackery.

Maybe if you bothered to read the post I was responding to instead of pretending to be ignorant you'd get somewhere.
 
WildCat said:
The story you claim you cannot access for some reason...
Click to expand...

So post it here.

They can't publish the results of studies that didn't occur because Ron Paul's legislation made them unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Is it necessary for you to be ignorant? No. But you are anyway. In the same way it's not necessary in this hypothetical example to publish studies. However, if you want legitimate businesses to buy your product, you might choose to do so.

Respectively, if you weren't losing this argument, you wouldn't have to resort to misrepresenting my views and appealing to ignorance.

Oh, but you did make that claim!
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Not the way you framed it.
 
Richard Masters said:
I suggest you pay attention to what I wrote, and that you make your criticism less vague.
Click to expand...
You keep telling us what you wrote means different things from post to post, once it's pointed out how idiotic your point was.

what makes you think "my" solutions have anything to do with Ron Paul?
Click to expand...
It's in a Ron Paul thread about Ron Paul legislation. If it wasn't, it just means you like being an ass to make a spectacle out of yourself... which is reason enough for you to go to ignore.
 
Richard Masters said:
Maybe if you bothered to read the post I was responding to instead of pretending to be ignorant you'd get somewhere.
Click to expand...

No, but if I tried debating someone who was intellectually honest, then I'd get somewhere.


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

You: "The businesses, the consumer, the result of false advertising lawsuits."

A false-advertising lawsuit would be based on the allegation that a company claims a product does something it actually doesn't do. Since we're talking about "medical" products here, that translates to "this product is claimed to treat this ailment". If a person takes the product and his ailment gets worse rather than better, that person has suffered damage as a result of taking that product (where, if the ineffective product weren't allowed to be sold in the first place, the person lacking the option of using it would've taken or done something else that's actually effective instead). And we're not even talking yet about products that cause harm through action rather than omission.

Under your proposed method, some consumer or group of consumers would have to be actually damaged by a product before the product is considered unsafe for use.
 
Drudgewire said:
You keep telling us what you wrote means different things from post to post, once it's pointed out how idiotic your point was.
Click to expand...

You haven't shown why it's idiotic, or how it changed.

It's in a Ron Paul thread about Ron Paul legislation. If it wasn't, it just means you like being an ass to make a spectacle out of yourself... which is reason enough for you to go to ignore.
Click to expand...

I was asked a simple question, then misquoted severely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom