HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: More Evidence Against the FDA
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 08:56:50 GMT

In article <schumach.725156285@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
}[whining about impending reduction of laissez-faire in alternative
}"medicine" deleted]
}
}How quickly they forget. Do you want repetitions of the L-tryptophan
}fiasco of 4 years back? Scores of people were killed or left permamently
}paralyzed to various degrees by a large, faulty batch of the stuff. 

Let's talk about this a little more.  My understanding is that this was one
batch of it from one firm, and that the current state of affairs is that you
can't buy L-tryptophan over the counter in the USA.  This means that much of
a whole industry and its customers has been sacrificed by the FDA to make it
look good.  How has this "protected" consumers of other batches from baseless
or fraudulent claims about L-tryptophan?

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Why The FDA is a Mass Murderer
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:22:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.043016.9825@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>But the Life Extension Foundation ([advertising deleted]), a
>pesky smaller outfit, will send you a bottle of aspirin with beta-carotene
>(a combination that in the PHS reduced the risk for those with pre-existing
>cardiovascular disease by 100% - another result the FDA won't let any company
>tell you about) for a $25 contribution to its First Amendment litigation
>fund.  The label contains the PHS claims about aspirin that the FDA has
>declared verboten.

Wow!  Reduces risk 100%!  Or, in other words, prevents it completely, right?
(After all, that's what "reduces risk 100%" means.)  Gee, with such accuracy
in advertising, I wonder why the FDA still insists on approving advertising
of health claims?

Why don't you tell us how many people died from quack medicines that FDA
policy has kept off the shelves?

Ted "goes to the same law school that Dave Kessler did, but probably won't go
     to Harvard Med like he did" Frank
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: AIDS risk/Duesberg
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:26:08 GMT

In article <C01H9y.3GH@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, gletty@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu 
(Bruce Gletty) writes:

>pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:
>
>>    "Other people do have that virus but AIDS patients have it more often...,"
>>says D. (_Full Context_, Feb. 1992)
>
>Ah, but has anyone wiht AIDS ben HIV negative?? That would shoot all the
>theories full of holes.
>-- 
>This post is mine, and does not necessarily reflect the views of C.C.S.O.

    Non-HIV AIDS cases since *1872*. Cases since 1986 reported: Root-Bernstein,
1990, _Pers. Biol. Med._, 33:480. As of 1989, CDC says 5% AIDSs cases are non-
HIV. All this in _Rethinking AIDS_, an occasional newsletter from Group for 
Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis (2040 Polk St.-321, S.F., 
CA 94109).
    Check a library's journal computer for "Duesberg."
    The problem is not with one fact but with a pattern of facts. Govt. money,
egalitarianism, and homosexuals who won't accept self-responsibiility for 
effects of drug lifestyle (not all homosexuals) are mutually supporting. CDC
said, in mid-80s, that homo. druggies were problem but politics said HIV. It
is not probable that a homo., who uses drugs to maintain his "lifestyle,"
will admit it and few journalists will challenge political correctness. 
Instead, _NYT_ has sentimental slop about Greenwich Village homosexual lovers
(Dec.23). Why not Hitler-Eva Braun if love is all you need?! See a hilarious
Marty Feldman movie (skit?) about man-sheep love. Gosh. I feel all soft inside.
================================================================================
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
================================================================================
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASS.EDU>
================================================================================
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: AIDS risk/Duesberg
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:04:11 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)

In article <C01tBL.JA4@umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD (Stephen Grossman) writes:
>>Ah, but has anyone wiht AIDS ben HIV negative?? That would shoot all the
>>theories full of holes.

At this year's international AIDS conference, there were reports of a few
cases of AIDS-like disease but not apparently with HIV.  This has happened
before, and led to the discovery of HIV-2, a different and less pathogenic
strain.

This isn't too surprising, by the way.  The virus mutates quickly, and the
testing is based on known strains' cross-reactivity.  Enough of certain
mutations and the patient will appear HIV-.

>    Non-HIV AIDS cases since *1872*.

This is _obviously_ ignorant.  Nobody had heard of viruses or immune
deficiencies in 1872.  I assume you're cluelessly referring to the
initial diagnoses of Kaposi's Sarcoma.

>				      Cases since 1986 reported: Root-Bernstein,
>1990, _Pers. Biol. Med._, 33:480. As of 1989, CDC says 5% AIDSs cases are non-
>HIV. All this in _Rethinking AIDS_, an occasional newsletter from Group for 
>Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis (2040 Polk St.-321, S.F., 
>CA 94109).

If you want to tell me what the CDC says, give me a genuine CDC reference,
not some fringe group.  This past year MMWR had a 10-year summary, and the
closest to your ridiculous 5% HIV- claim was 6% unknown risk category.

>    Check a library's journal computer for "Duesberg."

Why?  I've read his basic papers on HIV and AIDS, and his avoidance of a
few basic facts was enough to show that he had no argument.

>    The problem is not with one fact but with a pattern of facts.

Basic fact: transfusions and infants get it too.

>								   Govt. money,
>egalitarianism, and homosexuals who won't accept self-responsibiility for 
>effects of drug lifestyle (not all homosexuals) are mutually supporting.

And how many of those pediatric cases--say the children of women who
received HIV+ transfusions--were living the heroin drug lifestyle?

>									  CDC
>said, in mid-80s, that homo. druggies were problem but politics said HIV.

Of course the CDC said the homosexual drug addicts were a problem.  They
were spreading HIV.

>									   It
>is not probable that a homo., who uses drugs to maintain his "lifestyle,"
>will admit it and few journalists will challenge political correctness. 

A lot of them admit it.  Where do you think the estimates about HIV risk
categories come from?  Secret cameras??

>Instead, _NYT_ has sentimental slop about Greenwich Village homosexual lovers
>(Dec.23). Why not Hitler-Eva Braun if love is all you need?! See a hilarious
>Marty Feldman movie (skit?) about man-sheep love. Gosh. I feel all soft inside.

Especially between the ears, right?  RANDS it is.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.medicine:426 sci.econ:9508
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine,sci.econ
Subject: Caveat Emptor and Medicines
Date: 23 Dec 92 16:41:38 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Dec23.065018.12174@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.052232.9268@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>}Wow!  Reduces risk 100%!  Or, in other words, prevents it completely, right?
>}(After all, that's what "reduces risk 100%" means.)  Gee, with such accuracy
>}in advertising, I wonder why the FDA still insists on approving advertising
>}of health claims?
>
>You've gotten your attributions wrong.  I
>didn't write that, Alan Bock of the Orange County Register did.  I posted the
>article.

Unquestioningly, I see.

>}Why don't you tell us how many people died from quack medicines that FDA
>}policy has kept off the shelves?
>
>Why don't you explain why it's such a good thing that medicines that have been
>approved in other industrialized countries haven't been here (e.g., piracetam,
>thalidomide)?  Why don't you try justifying this breach of caveat emptor?

Because caveat emptor is hardly a good way to run a society when there isn't
perfect information.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine,sci.econ
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Caveat Emptor and Medicines
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 16:57:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.164138.6036@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.065018.12174@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec23.052232.9268@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>}Wow!  Reduces risk 100%!  Or, in other words, prevents it completely, right?
>>}(After all, that's what "reduces risk 100%" means.)  Gee, with such accuracy
>>}in advertising, I wonder why the FDA still insists on approving advertising
>>}of health claims?

>>You've gotten your attributions wrong.  I
>>didn't write that, Alan Bock of the Orange County Register did.  I posted the
>>article.

>Unquestioningly, I see.

>>}Why don't you tell us how many people died from quack medicines that FDA
>>}policy has kept off the shelves?

>>Why don't you explain why it's such a good thing that medicines that have been
>>approved in other industrialized countries haven't been here (e.g., piracetam,
>>thalidomide)?  Why don't you try justifying this breach of caveat emptor?

>Because caveat emptor is hardly a good way to run a society when there isn't
>perfect information.

So make the withholding of information the crime.  Require the FDA to 
supply the information on which they now act, and let people decide.

We will never have perfect information.  Everything has risks and benefits,
and each individual has, quite properly, a different assessment of these.
Require those advertising to produce the information on demand; require
physicians to discuss the known information with the patients, and above
all stop acting in a totalitarian manner.

Government agencies rarely do anything sensibly.  Medicine is no exception.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: More Evidence Against the FDA
Date: 23 Dec 92 16:49:41 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <schumach.725156285@convex.convex.com>,
   	schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

   [On the suggestion to repeal FDA and drug licensing laws]

> Christ on a minibike, why not repeal all traffic laws while you're at it?

   Apples and Oranges.
   Traffic laws protect people against the actions of other people.
   Drug laws `protect' people from themselves.
   Can you not see the difference?

Tony Cox, Stanford, CA
	"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a 
	 little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
	    -- Benjamin Franklin, in "Historical Review of Pennsylvania" (1759)
From: ldh@svl.cdc.com (Lawrence D. Hare)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Artificial Fur Manufacturers List - Request for Info.
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:35:09 GMT
Organization: Control Data Systems
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
X-XXMessage-ID: <A75B5BF18E020456@ethelred.svl.cdc.com>
X-XXDate: Mon, 21 Dec 92 11:33:05 GMT

I would like to get a list of companies that manufacture artificial furs.
Does anyone know how I can compile such a list, locate such
manufacturers, contact an association of such manufacturers?

Thanks  - Lawrence
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.abortion
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:31:14 GMT

In article <BzJ4pF.F9w@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>
>rl> Would you mind posting a reference to this article?
>
>ry> Sure.  As soon as you supply Martin, et. al., with references to
>ry> cat shooting and beagle drowning as they've asked repeatedly.
>
>rl> You have forfeited your right to timely responses to such requests
>rl> by virtue of your consistent refusal to comply with similar requests
>rl> from others.
I love your way with words Russell.
>As I explained previously, it was my intention to post, not only
>the references, but entire articles... some of which were published
>in the Times-Picayune, New Orleans CitiBusiness, and Gambit, sources
>that are unlikely to be available in your local library.
>Unfortunately, I just haven't had enough time.  Do you think your
>interests would be better served by the references alone... given
>the fact that your limited resources would prevent you from testing
>the veracity of my interpretations?
>
>Be that as it may, I'm under no obligation to be an "Answer Man"
>of sorts for every question that pops into the heads of my opponents.
>I've already discussed the "cat shooting" topic at length on several
>occasions and each time I provided citations to the evidence.   I'll
>be happy to discuss it again, in response to Greg Popken's most
>recent request, but perhaps I won't bother supplying full text
>articles.
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


Russell, I have a 1985 Honda which seems to have "cupping"
on one of the rear tires....oh sorry, you're right, that's the
Shell Answer Man...

We have the _Times-Picayune_, including back issues and microfilm
at our library.  I can imagine numerous circumstances where I would
object to an experiment in which cats, or any other animal, would be
shot.  Give me the references and I'll see if I have time to type in the
articles for you, or, at least provide a couple a sentences on the gist of
what this cat-shooting research was all about.  I respect the demands
on your time Russell, I recognized long ago that you are not the answer
man, but in a free exchange of ideas among interested parties how would
you justify your new role as "withholder of truth."



:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.environment,sci.environment
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Thesis on Species/Individuals+
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 01:56:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.165433.11609@super.org>, wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:
> 
> 01248034  ORDER NO: AADMM-65692
> THE MEANING OF EXTINCTION FOR JUSTICE BETWEEN SPECIES: AN EXAMINATION OF
> SOME PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS CONCERNING NATURE PRESERVATION
>   Author:  HORSLEY, JANE SARAH
>   Degree:  M.E.S.
>   Year:    1990
>   Corporate Source/Institution:  YORK UNIVERSITY (CANADA) (0267)
>   Supervisor: N. EVERNDEN
>   Source:  VOLUME 30/04 of MASTERS ABSTRACTS.
>            PAGE 1053.  286 PAGES
>   Descriptors:  PHILOSOPHY; ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
>   Descriptor Codes:  0422; 0768
>   ISBN:         0-315-65692-1
> 
>      Chapter One sets out several conceptual puzzles that arise within
> scientific discourse concerning extinction and preservation. I examine the
> commonplace that extinction is a natural phenomenon. I draw an analogy
> between extinction as the death of species and the death of individuals.
>      Chapter Two surveys the various proposals to articulate the values
> involved in species preservation. I develop an axiological typology to
> characterize and compare positions on species preservation in the
> environmental philosophy literature. I explore the different connotations
> suggested by notions of humans in nature, and humans apart from nature. I
> examine the prospects for conflict between animal liberation and nature
> preservation policies. I address the problems of extinction and
> preservation from the perspective of an agent centered moral theory.
>      Chapter Three elaborates on several aspects of the approach that I
> recommend, the principle of respect for ecological and evolutionary
> wildness. I argue that the distinction between preservationists and
> conservationists turns on the meaning of the word 'natural' as a normative
> ideal. I propose a criterion for 'naturalness' in the context of the
> preservationist project.
>      Chapter Four focuses on the implications of species preservation for
> moral and political theory. I provide illustrations of the practical
> dilemmas raised by the efforts of preservationists concerning habitat
> conservation in the context of the existing legal and regulatory framework.
> I introduce the question of rights in the context of species preservation.
> I raise the question of justice between species. I discuss the advantages
> of legal rights over moral rights, and the merits of pluralism rather than
> monism. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
> 
> 

Maybe the extinction of some species by humans is more a case of humans 
wanting to replace those species with products of own own loins..
After all how much do we understand about our own needs and wants of 
our genetic code?  Of course many animals are doomed for extinction.
So, one day humans as we known them will be extinct or have changed to a 
point where we would not know them, unless they told us so.


Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Hunter Kills Jogger
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 31 Dec 92 13:30:44 CST
In-reply-to: wheeler@super.org's message of Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:29:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.162919.4026@super.org> wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:

   Hunter Kills Jogger

   [Details deleted]

   ...   A Norwich hunter who fatally shot a man he mistook for a deer
   in 1988 was sentenced this summer to six years in prison after
   being convicted of second-degree manslaughter.

This is what should happen to all "hunters" who make such a stupid error! 

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: The Power of Your Plate (was Re: animals in research)
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:24:58 GMT

In article <mhulsey-211292125302@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>The reviews that I have seen (I forget where, perhaps Animal's Agenda)
>indicate that it consists, in part, of interviews between Barnard and
>nutrition researchers such as Ornish and Campbell.  Is this correct?
>
Yes, it's primarily interviews, and not only with people who advocate
veganism.  The researchers include Michael DeBakey, William Castelli, Earl
Benditt, Oliver Alabaster, John Bailar, Peter Greenwald, Denis Burkitt, C.
Wayne Callaway, William Connor, Mitchell Cohen, Carol Tucker Foreman, John
McDougall, Monroe Rosenthal, Richard Wurtman, C. Keith Conner, Jane Goodall,
and Richard E. Leakey.


>I suspect that when I read it, I will have objections to some points.  I
>base this conjecture on the contents of PCRM press releases, to which I
>object greatly.  The title suggests ethical decisions regarding diet that
>may or may not be in concert with present knowledge about nutrition.

There is no mention of ethics in the book as far as I can recall; the "power"
referred to in the title is the power to prevent some health problems.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:00:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.174817.26943@clpd.kodak.com>,
black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> 
> This is talk.politics.animals.  Let's talk about ANIMAL issues here.
> 
> Why don't you all go start a new newsgroup called
> Alt.what.we.think.about.russell.lawrence and put all this blather in
> there?  The more you attack him, the more it looks like you can't refute
> his positions. 

Bob, I'm sure that any of us could refute Russell's positions if we could
get him to tell us what they are.  He seems to concentrate on disproving
everyone else's ideas, and has few new ideas to contribute.

He has introduced new information about the "cat-shooting" and
"beagle-drowning" experiments, but refuses to provide any evidence to
support his claims.

I agree that we should all get back to the "real" issues, but Russell keeps
dragging us away.  If I even attempt to delay responses to his irrelevant
arguments, he demands answers "without delay."

Do you not consider ANY of Russell's posts to contain ANY "blathering?"

Do you regard the questions that I have posed, and that Russell has avoided
to be "blathering?"  If so, please tell me why.

They are sincere questions, and relevant to the "animal issues" that you
hold dear.  I believe that they deserve answers.  Don't you?

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals