From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Might be a FAQ
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 08:24:11 GMT

In article <1hb1r8INN629@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}In article <1ha9gvINNrn@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
}>
}>I'm not sure where he gets his statistics, but, Andre Marou states that
}>in lifetime of the FDA they have saved 15,000 and killed 250,000
}>through their policies.
}
}In article <1992Dec23.053052.11058@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>I just posted an article to talk.politics.medicine on how the FDA murders
}>100,000 people annually from one policy alone.
}
}Looks like libertarians can't get their numbers within orders of magnitude of
}each other.

Non-sequitur.  It doesn't follow from an instance in which this hasn't happened
that it can't.

}>The FDA has the blood of every person who has died from delays or bans on
}>drugs all over them, and its enough for them to drown in.
}
}Oh, what lovely purple prose.  Not to mention a non-sequiteur, since the
}drug Tim is mentioning is asprin.  There is no delay or ban on asprin.
}There is a ban on advertising unreviewed medical claims.

If I rested this claim merely upon the evidence of the ad ban for aspirin, then
it would be a non-sequitur.  I don't, so it isn't.

}Of course Tim is ignoring the fact that people at risk are being counseled
}by their doctors to take asprin (my father does.)  Tim pretends this is a giant
}conspiracy, when it is merely standard procedure not to allow unreviewed
}claims to be advertised.  (Interesting constitutional issues here: conflict
}of freedom of speech with the power to regulate interstate commerce.
}It would be interesting if someone reported how this was settled: it must
}have been challenged at some point.)

How do you know I ignore this?  What about all those people who are at risk
who don't visit their doctors to receive such counseling?  I made no claims as
to the intent of those who made and enforced this policy.  I would have had to
do this in order to have "pretended" it was the result of conspiracy.  The
intent is irrelevant in the face of the hundred-thousands of deaths at
least that are caused by the FDA.

It is a violation of free speech, but a false dichotomy has taken hold in
US constitutional law: "commercial" speech is fair game for regulation, but
other kinds of speech receives more protection from judicial review.

They may have construed the commerce clause to support the rationalization of
this, but that completely misconstrues the clause, the purpose of which is
to prevent States of the Union from practicing protectionism against others.

}Let's talk about how many people are "murdered" annually by ONE "natural"
}drug which is not regulated by the FDA: tobacco.  Which used to be advertised
}for its health effects.  Isn't the "free market" wonderful?  (My grandmother
}died of this one.)

Lets learn how to draw analogies.

}Let's deregulate drugs and their advertising so that drug companies can
}appeal directly to the consumer for whatever fraudulent fad they can start.

Typical reactionary conservative knee-jerk!  Where, oh where, Mike, have you
ever seen me oppose strong fraud liabilty?

}Let's not forget the already high rate of prescription dosage of worthless,
}ineffective drugs (according to various Nader groups.)

Consider the source.  Naderites have a very poor reputation for truth.

}My sister works for Bristol Meyers.  She supervises drug testing for some
}new drugs, the same studies the FDA reviews to approve drugs.  These tests
}are EXPENSIVE and necessary: without them, side effects would not be noticed,
}and effectiveness of the drug would not be known.

Most of the tests are on animals and don't apply very well to humans.  A while
back on an e-mail list I subscribe to, a British pharmacologist strongly
attacked the scientific value of most of such testing.  At best, such testing
is of the order: if it kills a lab rat, it'll probably kill a human, according
to him.

Mary Ruwart is a libertarian scientist who works for Upjohn pharmeceuticals,
and she opposes mandatory testing.  She ran for the Libertarian Party vice-
presidential nomination for this last campaign.  Nancy Lord is an MD and a
medical injury lawyer who also works in the pharmeceutical industry, and she
opposes it, too.

There, now we've both cited authorities.  Now you can accuse me of argument
from authority, and I can deny it and accuse you of having merely cited an
authority, too.  If I'm a black kettle, you're the pot.

}It's much cheaper to
}sell an ineffective drug without testing.

Only if the liability law is weak.

>My sister tells me

What are her credentials, BTW?  Is she actually a scientist, or merely an
administrator?


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: alt.politics.libertarian