HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz)
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] the FDA bans medical journals
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 03:49:53 GMT

gal2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

| Someone else wrote:
|
| >The fact that its own internal studies show that the FDA's regulations kill
| >more patients than they save has been well-known for 20 years.
| 
| Um, these accusations are slightly rediculous. The FDA can't be that
| criminal, can they? Can someone cite real sources instead of just
| frothing? (You too, Steve Dyer?)
| 
| Jake.

Yes, Jake, they can.  The classic example of the FDA killing people
involves a class of heart & blood pressure medication called "beta-
blockers".  They were in use for ten years in Europe, saving lives,
before the FDA permitted doctors in the US to save lives with them
here in this country.

Conservative estimates are that 25,000 people per year died who
wouldn't have; in the FDA decade of delay that totals a quarter
of a million dead people.

Other estimates range up to 80,000 per year, times 10 gets close
to a million dead people.

I'd frankly be surprised if FDA had conducted any "internal studies"
on this topic, tho.

And this is with just one class of drugs.  (You'll note that none of
this "protects" the income of a single physician.)

== Bob Yazz ==
-- 


The difference between the Bushes and the Clintons is that with the
Clintons, it's the wife who dyes her hair to look younger.
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6105 alt.politics.usa.constitution:465 alt.drugs:16489 talk.politics.drugs:6535 alt.psychoactives:1271
From: bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Date: 1 Oct 92 11:49:42 GMT
Organization: Ohio University School of Art. Athens

In article <1992Oct1.020620.29669@netcom.com> mesm@netcom.com (Mary E. S. Morris) writes:
>: 	increased regulation increases physicians income.
>: 	
>: So, no criminality, but we only lost about 500(?) people in the Thalidomide
>: disaster. We undoubtedly lose 1000s per year as a result of drugs being
>: released slower. Anybody want to guess how many AIDS patients have already
>: died as a result of the very-fast-for-the-FDA pace of drugs released?
>
>I personally  would like to look at the facts and decide
>for myself wether to take the risk. I am an adult. I don't need
>a parent babysitting me.

In the case of Thalidomide that's a particularly ironic view. The basic idea
behind the FDA is valid and important. This doesn't mean that they always 
do the job correctly but to go into a marketplace where we rely on the 
manufacturers is pretty scary. In fact, it's my opinion that if the FDA
has fallen down it's where its findings were watered down by the drug
manufacturers. How can the individual know what the long term or even
short term affects of a drug will be without some sort of organized help?
In countries where Thalidomide was marketed (because the manufacturer said
it was safe) the first signs of problems were deformed children.

 
-- 
*********************************************
*    bob church                             *
*    bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu           *
*    D-8195 NFS #27                         *
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] the FDA bans medical journals
Originator: jon@cyclone
Organization: The MITRE Corp. McLean Va.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:36:47 GMT


In article <1992Sep30.014309.16636@spdcc.com>, dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
> In article <h4+p+!a.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
> >The FDA's position on chemicals is that if the chemical is shown to
> >have a beneficial effect then its a drug and concumers can't have it
> >except by paying a doctor to write them a prescription for it.
> 
> Wrong.  Where do YOU get your information on the FDA and the Food, Drug
> and Cosmetic act?  Your local _General Nutrition Center_ or the rabid
> ramblings of a few submorons who can post but not think?  I thought so.
> 
> -- 
> Steve Dyer
> dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer

Mr. Fuestel's comment may be couched in biased language, but it is
essentially correct in that the FDA's policies and behavior lead to
the result he describes.  I suggest that Mr. Dyer take time for a
reality check rather than assuming that the FDA has the individual
comsumer's interest at heart.  
-- 
<jon@mitre.org>|--24HR Libertarian Party News (900)454-2378 [$1.95 a minute]--
----------------------------------| Libertarian Party 		 (800)272-1776 
  Andre Marrou    Nancy Lord for  | 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE  (202)543-1988
  for President   Vice-President  | Washington, DC 20003         (800)682-1776  
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Summary: Criminal is a legal concept. Real world is a system. 
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:35:18 GMT

The FDA can't be criminal, because it undoubtedly obeys all the relevant
laws and regulations. The problem is not criminality. The problem is that
the political system and the regulatory framework they operate in have
long-term and adverse consequences as the social-economic-political
system evolves.

The system state space dimensions are:

	#of new drugs/year
	political power of drug companies
	political power of regulatees
	death rate in segments of population
	political uproars affecting regulators
	profitability of drug companies
	income of physicians

The system dynamics are:

	thalidomide-type uproars decrease political power of regulatees
	increased regulation decreases political problems
	increased regulation increases power & perks of regulators
	increased regulation decreases profitability of drug companies
		(but fewer headaches -- guaranteed profits and no lawsuits)
	decreased profitability decreases # of new drugs per year
	decreased # of new drugs increases death rate
	increased regulation increases physicians income.
	
So, no criminality, but we only lost about 500(?) people in the Thalidomide
disaster. We undoubtedly lose 1000s per year as a result of drugs being
released slower. Anybody want to guess how many AIDS patients have already
died as a result of the very-fast-for-the-FDA pace of drugs released?
How about all the cancer drugs backed up in the bureaucracy?

So, regulators have political costs of political events. Thalidomide is a
political event. Slow release of new drugs, and higher death rate resulting
is not a political event.

All the politial power is on the side of the increased regulations. The
economic factors, and the self-correcting effects of lawsuits for Thalidomide-
type screwups, are ignored in a political environment.
-- 
Lew Glendenning		rlglende@netcom.com	408-245-7488

"Perspective is worth 80 IQ points."	Nils Bohr (or somebody like that).
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:33:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.020257.18834@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>It's different, but the conclusion isn't any different: The Constitution
>mentions nothing about such a monopoly. In practice, the Supreme Court
>_took_ this power, and the people generally go along with it. However,
>there is nothing legal about it.

Frank, you probably should do some reading about the origin and legitimacy
of judicial review.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: richwing@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rich Wingerter)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 01:20:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.211444.20796@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|> richwing@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rich Wingerter) writes:
|> >In this sense, I don't see any difference between a government and a
|> >corporation.  If a corporation can be a party to a contract, then it seems the
|> >government can be, too.
|> 
|> Just as a corporation is not a party to its own articles of
|> incorporation, the U.S. government is not a party to the Constitution.
|> Both can be parties to contracts, but only after their incorporation.

There are specific parts of the constitution that "create" the US government,
but that is not the bulk of the constitution.  Most of it deals with how
government is to operate and what the governmental powers and limitations are.

Clearly, the constitution lays out rights and obligations for governments in
the US.  It is the written form of an agreement between the government and the
people.  We made this agreement with our government and I would like for that
government to stick to the agreement.  I consider the government to be a party
to that agreement.  Not following the constitution is a violation of that
agreement.  Viewing the constitution as a contract, I think, emphasizes the
fact that it is an agreement.


--Rich Wingerter
From: John C. Mallery <jcma@ai.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:39:03 GMT

A MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches is
now available. If you would like a copy (800K / 1 disk), please send a
note to Michael (msagosta@cs.unlv.edu), who along with JBLIII authored
the Mac stack.

John Mallery
Join the Clinton/Gore '92
         Volunteer Email Campaign
Send To: CLINTON-WINS@Mail.Clinton-Gore.ORG
Subject: Volunteer Info
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives,misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:24:19 GMT

In article <BvMMqy.7uD@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct3.185621.18336@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>>
>>>>I wouldn't be that confident about them getting caught with that,
>>>>however.  Lawyers apparently are taught that Supreme Court has a
>>>>monopoly on interpreting the Constitution - though the Constituion
>>>>mentions nothing about such a monopoly.
>
>That is not what we are taught.  We are taught that since Marbury v.
>Madison, the other two branches have grudgingly accepted the role
>of the judiciary as reviewer of constitutionalily.  

I think though that this concedes too much.  The Supreme Court
invoked judicial review numerous times before Marbury, and the 
Federalist Papers (and records of the debates of the Constitutional
Convention) clearly envision a judiciary with such a power.  

ObExtraDisclaimer: The University of Chicago didn't teach me this
opinion, though Professor Currie discusses this argument in his
history of the Constitution in the Supreme Court.  On request, I'll
update this opinion in a couple of weeks if I decide to take Con
Law this quarter instead of spring.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6138 alt.politics.usa.constitution:502 alt.drugs:16617 talk.politics.drugs:6575 alt.psychoactives:1302
From: v129nlgw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (PAUL HOWARD)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:06:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct3.023725.15896@spdcc.com>, dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes...
>In article <BvIv9A.5n0@acsu.buffalo.edu> v129nlgw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (PAUL HOWARD) writes:
> 
>>By the way, it's illegal to practice herbalism in nearly all the states.
> 
>Thank God for that, if it's true.
> 
>-- 

What's wrong with herbalism?  At least 40% of all "orthodox" medicines are
plant extractions or synthetic versions of what used to be plant extractions.
In many cases, herbal treatments are better.  Take poison ivy treatment, for
instance.  The conventional method for treating it is by rubbing 
corticosteroids on it.  This works by lowering the immune response, and 
takes around a week to work.  In addition, the medicine is very expensive.
One common herbal method, a poultice of the common herb, jewelweed, works 
in 2-3 days, and is much safer.  I would much rather go to an herbalist
for treatment than to a doctor.

-Paul
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: richwing@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rich Wingerter)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 06:33:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep21.053129.13090@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> I didn't mean to imply otherwise. However, what it "says" is not always
|> clear (for example, do wire taps constitute a "search" or a "siezure"?
|> If not, is a warrant required for such taps under the Fourth Amendment?) 

Yes, in some cases what it says is not clear, or can't be clearly applied to
all cases.  In this case, the proper thing to do is to amend it so that it is
clear.  For example, people should be guaranteed the right to be secure in
their communications, as well as their persons and papers.

Furthermore, you could easily decide this question based on the common meaning
of the terms involved.  For example, a wire tap does constitute a search
because it gives information to the authorities that they didn't previously
have.  This is exactly equivalent to going to someone's house and searching
through their papers.

|> I consider original intent to be a way to better understand the text
|> and what it says. But in cases where the original intent disagrees
|> with the text, the text certainly takes precedence.

Yes, the original intent would be fine if our world would stand still for it. 
However, for the document to be meaningful in today's society, it has to be
judged on its current meaning, not the meaning it had up to two hundred years
ago when the words were first written.


--Rich Wingerter
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: bruceg@Cadence.COM (Bruce Gustifson)
Subject: Re: [misc.legal] Drug dogs used in public schools
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:20:28 GMT

In article <79760@ut-emx.uucp> llama@pooh.cc.utexas.edu (sine nomine) writes:
>in corpus christi in 1979-81 (when i was in high school there), drug
>dogs were pretty common. they'd run a few of them through the school
>sniffing lockers and they'd drop in some some classes unannounced and
>let the dogs sniff students. i never heard of anyone being caught.
>
>some teenage friends of mine have told me that the austin schools use
>them on occasion, too. has anyone heard of any court cases involving
>the possible illegality of these kinds of searches?
>
>--
>sine nomine
>debbie martinson
>after all, you can't make toast in a blender.
 What do you expect from a town whose name translates to Body of 
Christ? How about a little seperation of church and state?

************************************************************************
"Would you believe it if you     |             MY KARMA
saw it with your own eyes?"      |           JUST RAN OVER
   Asked the woman               |            YOUR DOGMA
"That depends"                   |               -Dolly Llama-
    Replied I                    |	
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives,misc.legal
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:56:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.042338.13488@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu (Frank Crary) writes:
>They might very well be: The Constitution is one of the relevant laws.
>The the laws passed by Congress (which the FDA follows) violate the
>Constitution, the they are "null, void and unenforcable" and the FDA
>_is_ criminal.

I wouldn't be that confident about them getting caught with that,
however.  Lawyers apparently are taught that Supreme Court has a
monopoly on interpreting the Constitution - though the Constituion
mentions nothing about such a monopoly.  Further, people who know
about jury nullification are apparently often excluded from the jury.

It seems the ways to win the game are getting fewer and fewer all the
time.

Lawyers probably will correct me on this if I'm wrong (added
misc.legal to the groups)

//Jyrki

>The laws establishing the FDA are fairly questionable
>and probably wouldn't hold up to close examination. Congress can
>delegate regulatory powers _only_ under very limited circumstances
>(e.g. when the regulations don't establish new laws but simply fill
>in the details in a law _Congress_ passed.)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: richwing@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rich Wingerter)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 01:38:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.015736.24315@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> But, all details asside, we agree on one key point: The proper thing to 
|> do is amend the Constitution to protect the right. We should _not_
|> (which was the source of my objections) have a Supreme Court making
|> arbitraty decisions about what extra provisions _should_ be in the
|> Constitution and acting as if they were.

Yes, all details aside, the proper thing is to amend the constitution when
the situation changes.

|> It isn't exactly equivilent, since they do not have to search through
|> and private property to get this information (would you include, for
|> example, searching through police files, for records of previous arrests
|> and a "search" under the Fourth Amendment?) 

I say it is a "search", but not all searches are unconstitutional.  Only
"unreasonable" ones are.  And you have to do things according to "due process".
So, a wire tap would be unconstitutional unless you had a reason to search and
went through due process (obtained a warrant, for example).  I suppose this
would apply to police records, too.  This is not at variance with current
procedure.  You have to have an active case to access police records.

|> How do you impartially and objectively define "current meaning"? If you
|> can not, then you are rejecting the rule of law (and going back to
|> court ruling by the personal whim of the judge). Since I can't
|> see how "current meaning" can be so defined, I prefer to stick to the
|> original, intended meaning of the text. If this is acrhaic and inappropriate,
|> the it should be amendmend and corrected, not altered based on a 
|> judge's political biases (which have nothing to do with the consent of
|> the people.)

There are a number of ways to define "current meaning".  A good starting place
would be a current, widely circulated dictionary.  Beyond that, juries should
determine "current meaning".  I think you could define a procedure that would
get the current meaning.  I'm just opposed to judges guessing what the
"original intent" was.  This doesn't seem any safer than having them conjure up
meanings based on what they think should be in the constitution.


--Rich Wingerter
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: richwing@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rich Wingerter)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 06:25:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep21.025455.6915@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|> How can the government be a party to the Constitution, its own
|> charter?

Why not?  How does its being a charter prevent the govenment from being a
party?

|> I think it is more correct to say that the Constitution is the
|> contract among The People that charters the government.

The constitution clearly puts restrictions on the government.  This indicates
that it views the government as an organization, one that requires constraint.

It's true that all of the actions taken "by the government" are actually
carried out by people.  However, it certainly seems more convenient to view the
government as a party, because these people are acting with governmental
authority when they carry out actions for the government.

In this sense, I don't see any difference between a government and a
corporation.  If a corporation can be a party to a contract, then it seems the
government can be, too.


--Rich Wingerter
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:08:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.013826.19903@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
richwing@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rich Wingerter) writes:

> In article <1992Sep29.015736.24315@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>,
> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> |> But, all details asside, we agree on one key point: The proper thing to 
> |> do is amend the Constitution to protect the right. We should _not_
> |> (which was the source of my objections) have a Supreme Court making
> |> arbitraty decisions about what extra provisions _should_ be in the
> |> Constitution and acting as if they were.
> 
> Yes, all details aside, the proper thing is to amend the constitution when
> the situation changes.

This was the way the Constitution was designed...  Now if we could get
the monster that was created by the Constitution, to follow the required
procedure...  Of course, if the Feds restricted themselves to the powers
allocated them by the Constitution, we wouldn't have so many problems to
deal with.

Q:  Who's more likely to tap your phone, the Feds, or the Local police?
Q:  Who's more likely to bust down your door, and shoot you, the Feds, or
    your local police?....

> |> It isn't exactly equivilent, since they do not have to search through
> |> and private property to get this information (would you include, for
> |> example, searching through police files, for records of previous arrests
> |> and a "search" under the Fourth Amendment?) 
> 
> I say it is a "search", but not all searches are unconstitutional.  Only
> "unreasonable" ones are.  And you have to do things according to "due process".

Except in the name of the "War on Drugs".  Then the Feds do perform unreasonable
search and siezure... (And in excess of their Constitutional powers).

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution