What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
96 Comments
- kemp34, on 11/25/2008, -7/+79What a ***** surprise, the FDA is corrupt. Big surprise there. HUGE surprise.
All these big government lovers always claim the FDA as some counterargument against limited government. It is clear that a single, authoritarian centralized bureaucracy is NOT the long term answer to food and drug safety.
Many in this organization are BOUGHT. - PollyTickle1, on 11/25/2008, -1/+64Notice on page 2 of the letter to congress that the scientists state they were coerced into using "unsound evaluation methods and accept clinical and technical data that is not scientifically valid nor obtained in accordance with legal requirements such as OBTAINING PROPER INFORMED CONSENT FROM HUMAN SUBJECTS" .
- StigNordas, on 11/26/2008, -0/+42Ever since the FDA loosened restrictions on prescription drug advertising, they lost all backbone and certainly proved that they're more responsive to the dollar than to public well-being (suddenly drug marketing budgets eclipse research costs, and who pays?)
- DavidPurnell, on 11/25/2008, -1/+36The hyperlink (above) to the NaturalNews.com article includes a link to letter from FDA physicians and scientists to Congressman John Dingell, chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce. This committee maintains principal responsibility for legislative oversight relating to telecommunications, consumer protection, food and drug safety, public health, air quality and environmental health, the supply and delivery of energy, and interstate and foreign commerce in general.
- maxtangent, on 11/26/2008, -5/+22Talk about cherry picking a quote. This Troll totally ignores the part where the FDA scientists are quoted:
"Don't take my word for it, though: The FDA's own top scientists are now on the record saying much the same thing! Their complaint to Congress alleges top FDA managers "ordered, intimidated and coerced FDA experts to modify their scientific reviews, conclusions and recommendations in violation of the law.” "
Gives you a little insight into this Troll's agenda, and we should all thank it. - kemp34, on 11/25/2008, -3/+20But they have the tool of monopolized force at their disposal. That is the kicker.
- maxtangent, on 11/26/2008, -1/+17Ummmm... what? Because of what is in the article, the FDA uses the threat of violence to raid vitamin companies? How can a threat be used to raid anything?
Well, then I suppose the Troll should provide a definition for 'terrorist'.
http://www.terrorism-research.com/
"The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”
Admittedly the scientists have not yet elaborated on the intimidation nor the coercion involved, but if it included threats of prosecution, that matches the threat of violence used to raid vitamin companies. - tgc1, on 11/26/2008, -2/+18Issues with the FDA
- Approving artificial sweeteners like Aspartame.
- Trying to get GM foods approved without labeling requirements.
- Making it impossible for local farmers to butcher their own livestock for sale at their own farms. This legal requirement to have them all slaughtered in slaughtering houses is one of the reasons large scale industrial farming has overtaken small (family) farming.
- Making the sale of unpasteurized (raw) milk illegal.
- Approving BGH for use with cattle to produce more milk. Even despite evidence that doing so may cause cows to become sick and introduce things like puss into their milk, from infected udders.
- Eliminating certain additional, independent testing procedures for things like Mad Cow disease.
The list goes on... but it's not like i'm the only one who has noticed these things. That organization is dictating to the masses what we can and cannot put into our bodies. And they're getting paid under the table to rubber stamp things that are not really safe or have unscientific or incomplete or in many cases unsound testing to back them up. - jgubbe, on 11/26/2008, -8/+22We really need a Revolution.
Our country is corrupt at every corner with a Dollar sign!
What happened about respect, (For the People by the People).
As long as we tolerate these abuses we will be abused. - Ellipsys, on 11/26/2008, -0/+13I'm studied in both conventional and "alternative, natural" medicine. I personally don't care for the naturalnews website all the time, the same way I don't care for huffington post even though I'm generally liberal - both sites tend to make "the rest of us" look bad. That said, don't discount this story simply because of who's reporting on it - there is a legit, linked issue at hand here that is of great importance to medicine. This isn't about conventional or alternative, this is about scientists who are supposed to be testing BOTH getting bullied into changing their findings to pad some corporate wallets. I hate fox news,but if they report that 3/4 of new york has been blown up in a terrorist attack, I'm going to at least listen long enough to confirm their sources.
Oh and for all you hypocrites out there championing the legalization of medical marijuana, ron paul, and "freedom", yet saying "alternative medicine" is all a hoax, Marijuana is the purest example of "herbal medicine" (along with opium!) that I can think of. - MelvinSchlubman, on 11/26/2008, -1/+12If you voted for Bush, you voted for business profit over consumer safety. But, if you never consume anything then you have nothing to worry about.
- DangerCollie, on 11/26/2008, -1/+12The people they're talking about are political lackeys installed by the Bush administration. It's the same strategy they've followed in every government agency. The ones we've heard about like Justice, NASA and FEMA, then there are many, many more we're just finding out about. These stories are going to be pretty routine for the next few years, until we cut that cancer out of our government.
- 21froggy21, on 11/26/2008, -1/+11I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
- quimbymouse, on 11/26/2008, -0/+10umm... all you guys who are burying this because it's natural news.. the article mentions in the 5th paragraph that even the NY Times is reporting it. This is why as critical thinkers, it is always important to listen to the viewpoints of those you may consider to be "stupid". AssUme.. oh, you get it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/health/policy/18 ... - graeh, on 11/26/2008, -10/+20You know - before using this as an example against "big government" - try looking all around the world at the various governments and their related oversight and admin bodies.
The whole "big government is inherantly flawed" viewpoint seems to stem from magical thinking that person A is somehow rendered incompetent if their employer is a government, vs corporate.
It's foolish - and it stems from ideaology, not pragmatism.
Ask yourself a question - a company's primary motivation is what? To profit the shareholders. A government department's motivation can vary from profit as primary motivation, to service as a primary motivation.
Just because some governments are unable to pull their heads out of their own asses and actually provide the required services to their citizens, does not by any means serve to invalidate government departments. - wycked169, on 11/26/2008, -2/+10It doesn't stop at just Medical devices and Pharmaceuticals, How about bioengineered unlabeled food (rice, potatoes, various fruits and vetetables), Genetically altered farm animals that are then slaughtered and sold for food consumption, Also Canola oil made from the Rapeseed plant and sold as an alternative cooking oil for heart patients. Canada uses it for machine oil...
Canadian researchers looked at LEAR oils again in 1997. They found that piglets fed milk replacement containing canola oil showed signs of vitamin E deficiency, even though the milk replacement contained adequate amounts of vitamin E.14 Piglets fed soybean oil-based milk replacement fortified with the same amount of vitamin E did not show an increased requirement for vitamin E. Vitamin E protects cell membranes against free radical damage and is vital to a healthy cardiovascular system. In a 1998 paper, the same research group reported that piglets fed canola oil suffered from a decrease in platelet count and an increase in platelet size.15 Bleeding time was longer in piglets fed both canola oil and rapeseed oil. These changes were mitigated by the addition of saturated fatty acids from either cocoa butter or coconut oil to the piglets' diet. These results were confirmed in another study a year later. Canola oil was found to suppress the normal developmental increase in platelet count.16
Finally, studies carried out at the Health Research and Toxicology Research Divisions in Ottawa, Canada discovered that rats bred to have high blood pressure and proneness to stroke had shortened life-spans when fed canola oil as the sole source of fat.17 The results of a later study suggested that the culprit was the sterol compounds in the oil, which "make the cell membrane more rigid" and contribute to the shortened life-span of the animals.18
These studies all point in the same direction--that canola oil is definitely not healthy for the cardiovascular system. Like rapeseed oil, its predecessor, canola oil is associated with fibrotic lesions of the heart. It also causes vitamin E deficiency, undesirable changes in the blood platelets and shortened life-span in stroke-prone rats when it was the only oil in the animals' diet. Furthermore, it seems to retard growth, which is why the FDA does not allow the use of canola oil in infant formula.19 When saturated fats are added to the diet, the undesirable effects of canola oil are mitigated. Most interesting of all is the fact that many studies show that the problems with canola oil are not related to the content of erucic acid, but more with the high levels of omega-3 fatty acids and low levels of saturated fats.
If you want to read the whole article go to
http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/conola.ht ... - brad016, on 11/26/2008, -2/+10***** the FDA I'm glad this went front page we need to get this info out to people who's lives it will improve.
- maxtangent, on 11/26/2008, -2/+10Is nol kidding? They put a limit on how much these managers could receive from big pharma - I think it was around $50 000 because they didn't want to deal with the conflict of interest and they seemed to think it was a good compromise from some of them getting over $200 000..
- mcsenget, on 11/26/2008, -0/+8People who love big government see it almost as God. They think it's the ultimate end protection, the final backup that will always make the right decision or do the right thing.
How silly. Government is just a group of people trying to wield power. They are no better than any other people. They are just humans. Stop giving them such great power. - tryangles, on 11/26/2008, -3/+11What? The FDA is corrupt? What is the world coming to?! Next thing you will tell me is that Big Pharm has no interest in finding cures, only in manufacturing drugs that make you keep coming back!
- StopTheLie, on 11/26/2008, -1/+9Aspartame is a perfect example of FDA failure. ...Donald Rumsfeld pulls some strings and a multi-billion dollar poison is born.
- maxtangent, on 11/26/2008, -0/+7That is fine - of course they have an agenda. The point this Troll seems to be making is that they have a sinister agenda and it didn't back up that claim with anything - that is why I call it a Troll. If it had a valid point and backed it up with some logical reasoning, it would prove itself to not be a Troll - since it refuses to do so, it clearly embraces being one.
Notice that it claims that is all 'these' people want to do - demonize those who want to regulate the vitamin industry. It doesn't mention that 'these people' point out the rampant conflict of interest corruption in the FDA, nor tthier Hypocrisy of disallowing scientifically demonstrated claims to be put on labels of natural products yet allowing cancer causing chemicals in products. It doesn't refute any of their claims on any topic they cover, it just gives the conclusion it wants people to have.
Notice this Troll didn't refute anything I said and didn't provide any evidence except for a cherry picked quote - it just used Personal Attacks and accusations instead.
So, of course questioning the government's claims puts me on a different level of perception from some of the apologists, but how does that prevent it from presenting an argument for everyone else reading these threads on THIS topic?
Interesting that it claims I have 'conspiracy theories' without presenting any I have made. And also note that in bringing 'truther' into the discussion, it is claiming that the official story somehow isn't a conspiracy theory.
How obvious does it wish to be in proving that it only commented to sow misinformation and disinformation instead of helping to uncover the truth? - slearwig, on 11/26/2008, -0/+7I wouldn't be surprised if many in the FDA are carefully placed by corporate food special interests.
The special interests would then be the monopoly, not the ideals of the FDA. How can anyone even dispute the idea of a government watchdog agency overseeing food safety when manufacturers frequently use artificial ingredients in our food and drink? Shall we dump the FDA and go back to 'let the buyer beware' and 'pick your poison'? Anyone who has ever suffered a reaction to artificial additives will likely say NO. - MrFunStuff, on 11/26/2008, -0/+7Well said maxtangent
Even if you don't like the people who present the information or think they have an agenda, it does not mean the information by association is wrong or inaccurate. As long as they present the info with valid sources, which they did in this article. - RobotBuddha, on 11/26/2008, -2/+9Sad that people saying this are getting dugg down. This isn't a video game with good guys and bad guys. Sometimes it comes down to two *****, one of which is a liar and the other who's a liar 'and' an idiot.
- danworden, on 11/26/2008, -0/+7Scientists working for the FDA are more intelligent than any of us Diggers. For them to come forward, putting all they have worked for on the line, to warn the general public of the dangers to our lives, is sobering to say the least. Do your duty and make your voice heard to your Congress person.
In the article, click the link and view the first paragraph of letter to Congress, "This misconduct reaches the highest levels of CDRH management including the Center Director and Director of the Office of DevIce Evaluation (ODE)."
And in other recent news, the FDA has found melamine in American produced infant formula, but they are not releasing the company name. - Ellipsys, on 11/26/2008, -0/+7Forget the source of the article and instead read the complaint it is linked to. There is a real accusation from FDA scientists against management. This isn't just a bunch of hippies upset over nothing.
- tryangles, on 11/26/2008, -1/+8Good luck in making this happen jgubbe. Thanks to the 'Patriot Act', anything that resembles anti-government is automatically labeled 'terrorist'. Don't pass go, don't collect, $200, say goodbye to due process and your constitutional rights and say hello to your one way ticket to gitmo. Thanks again Mr. Bush and family...
- zerobackup, on 11/26/2008, -1/+6The site is quite ridiculous. The letter from the FDA scientists, if authentic, is the real story.
- Branyers, on 11/26/2008, -0/+5In other words, they are in bed with Monsanto.
- madfrogurt, on 11/26/2008, -9/+14"The FDA, you see, is a criminal organization engaged in tactics of intimidation, censorship and oppression that can only be properly called "terrorism."
Well this site isn't an extremist site which probably has very skewed views right? Keep using herbs and crystals to treat your illnesses. I'm sure it will be much more effective than Western medicine. - SilverBlade2k, on 11/26/2008, -0/+5It's funny how these are coming to light *now*, when Bush and his criminal buddies are on their way out..
- Swivelstick, on 11/26/2008, -0/+5Oatlord this is true however Bush put in place a system that benefited the few and not the majority which is contrary to what government is meant to do no matter your ideology. The biggest issue is trying to get the populace to have some faith in government again and that can only happen by supporting whistle blowers which is frowned upon by society as a whole even though they benefit all.
Anyway I'm rambling statements such as yours only do one thing and that is to keep the status quo as people shrug it off thinking it's the norm when it doesn't have to be. - inactive, on 11/26/2008, -7/+11The FDA is corrupt because the Bush Administration packed it with lackeys.
So lets abolish it!
Probably not a great idea. - wissler, on 11/26/2008, -4/+8Inevitable consequence of a paternalistic government. We shouldn't have to get approval from anyone before using any substance or device we want on our own bodies. No one is a higher authority on what you do with your body than yourself.
- Heapbasket, on 11/26/2008, -4/+8The FDA does not have the best interest of the public in mind. They still believe marijuana has no medicinal value. Tell that to the users of medical marijuana who lives have been changed because of it for a positive.
- joshua5, on 11/26/2008, -4/+8"The FDA, you see, is a criminal organization engaged in tactics of intimidation, censorship and oppression that can only be properly called terrorism."
Ok Eco Geeks, I understand the significance but lets tone it down a smidge. - inactive, on 11/26/2008, -2/+6I KNEW IT, FDA is corrupt. Don't take vaccines, don't take pharmaceuticals.
- thegrantman, on 11/26/2008, -2/+6Moral right? This is an issue of practicality.
There is no way we can individually test all of the drugs.We rely on the FDA to do it for us.
If you believe that we should be allowed to use ourselves as Guinea pigs where death would be the outcome anyway then I'm all for it.
If you mean the right to do recreational drugs then I'm for that too.
This story isn't about those issues.
This story is about corruption in the pharmaceutical arena.Remove the corruption and put the FDA back to work insuring the food and drugs are safe. - Peko, on 11/26/2008, -0/+4@kemp,
your comment is pretty spot on, in so many ways. this is an important issue and I hope that some of the corruption comes to light.
However, the article itself teeters precipitously on the editorial edge of being thin on content, insight and depth and way too thick on that technique that substitutes RANDOM CAPS. Seriously, it's just fricken ANNOYING. - Oatlord, on 11/26/2008, -0/+4Your comment reads a little bit like a limerick.
A really stupid one. - 4eloBek, on 11/26/2008, -0/+4fu cia/fbi operative
- Oatlord, on 11/26/2008, -0/+3Amen. Or, for the atheists out there, good idea. For the agnositcs, I'm not sure what to say.
- wissler, on 11/27/2008, -1/+4It's incredible how inane you are. I'm obviously not opposed to testing, I'm opposed to forcing. Are you a moron who can't tell what the subject is, or are you dishonest and want to misdirect? By what right do you throw people in jail for ingesting various substances you don't approve of?
If you throw someone in jail even though they didn't violate anyone's rights, that's immoral on its face. And look what it leads to. One of the highest prison populations on the planet, and bankruptcy. Our drug laws have helped ruin this country.
We don't need the FDA, we need a consumer reports for drugs. Then let people make their own decisions. - skjalff, on 11/26/2008, -2/+5I couldn't agree more. I haven't even heard of the site before now, but the article itself reads as completely ridiculous and loopy
- thallium205, on 11/26/2008, -0/+3Why are you burying this guy??
- Ellipsys, on 11/26/2008, -1/+4See, you're against "frauds" then, not alternative medicine. That's okay, so am I. My definition of alternative medicine includes experimental practices, those that have anecdotal evidence but have not yet been proven on large scale studies, and practices that for financial reasons have been marginalized by insurance companies. There's a lot of ***** out there, and the signal to noise ratio isn't as high as it should be, but there are a lot of positive "alternative" practices out there. I just don't like seeing people discount everything because of a few frauds making the field look bad.
- Oatlord, on 11/26/2008, -4/+7The difference is, government employees are damn near impossible to fire. There's a whole formal process involved with canning a lazy, corrupt, incompetent government employee. So, once such a person gets in the system, it's difficult to get them out.
As far as "big government is inherently flawed", well, I don't know about you, but I know that people suck. They lie, cheat, and steal. Having a big government means you have such people more and more in charge of your life, telling you more and more often what you can or can not do. Putting that kind of power in anyone's hands or any agency's hands is dangerous, which is why I think most people who distrust the government want it to remain limited and small. Not to mention big governments are bloated, ineffiecient, and costly.
And my distrust from government comes from experience, not ideology. - atchon, on 11/26/2008, -1/+4Your off base with your marijuana analogy. The "alternative medicine" I am against is the ***** that says cancer is a fungus and baking soda will make it go away. In your sense natural medicine is all medicine that comes from nature, salicylic acid is no different than weed in this sense. THC works through an understood mechanism, a lot of this natural medicine ***** doesn't work and doesn't work through any sort of logical mechanism.
- setrajonas, on 11/26/2008, -3/+6This is what happens when you have a government with people in charge who believe that government is bad. Self-fulfilling prophecy!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is