800,000 non-essential Federal government workers laid-off

[jimmyz]

If those workers are "non essential", why are they employed in the first place?

File this under things that make you go hmm.

[nathanbforrest45]

All government agencies with a few exceptions are "non essential" agencies and were created as a sop to special interest groups. What service do they perform for the average citizen that either does not need to be performed or could be better served by commercial organizations?

The only Departments I can think of that are essential are
The Department of the Treasury
The Department of Defense

[Chris]

If those workers are "non essential", why are they employed in the first place?

File this under things that make you hmm.


In government, budgets are determined by how much you can spend not how much you actually do or save.

[donttread]

All government agencies with a few exceptions are "non essential" agencies and were created as a sop to special interest groups. What service do they perform for the average citizen that either does not need to be performed or could be better served by commercial organizations?

The only Departments I can think of that are essential are
The Department of the Treasury
The Department of Defense


Well the DOD could be trimmed 25% without any increased risk of ivasion

[nathanbforrest45]

Well the DOD could be trimmed 25% without any increased risk of ivasion


I won't argue with you there. Furthermore, if they ended the Income Tax you could also eliminate 100,000 IRS workers. The IRS was originally created in 1862 by Lincoln as a means to fund the War Between The States when Lincoln installed the first income tax. The IRS is of course part of the Treasury Department as is the Coast Guard. I would also cut down on the number of military bases on foreign soil. We currently have military facilities in 80 different countries. We could take a number of those men and instead of protecting the borders between France and Germany we could station those men on our Southern Borders and protect this country

Oh, and I think I would keep The State Department but take it out of the spying business.

[Safety]

If those workers are "non essential", why are they employed in the first place?

File this under things that make you go hmm.

I can only speak for what I know to be true in the FAA, and for the most part they are support staff, ie engineers, administration assistances, etc. The day to day operations have been running, but parts are not being ordered, construction projects for runways and facilities are not being completed, and preventive maintenance for all equipment have not been done since the shutdown. When systems such as radios, navaid equipment, and RADARs start to fail, air traffic will grind to a halt.

I'm sure the other departments that are affected by the shutdown will have a similar experience.

[nathanbforrest45]

Why do the airlines get tax payer support. The railways don't and they seem to do just fine without it. Why couldn't the airlines start a consortium that would take the place of the FAA in providing for the safety of the passengers and efficiency of the member airlines.

[jimmyz]

I can only speak for what I know to be true in the FAA, and for the most part they are support staff, ie engineers, administration assistances, etc. The day to day operations have been running, but parts are not being ordered, construction projects for runways and facilities are not being completed, and preventive maintenance for all equipment have not been done since the shutdown. When systems such as radios, navaid equipment, and RADARs start to fail, air traffic will grind to a halt. I'm sure the other departments that are affected by the shutdown will have a similar experience.

Informative.

My FAA DAR was available for an 8130-3 issuance last week. And a buyer out of DLA Richmond was buying parts from me for F-18s. Spending taxpayers money for our fighters must be considered essential. Thankfully.

[Trish]

All government agencies with a few exceptions are "non essential" agencies and were created as a sop to special interest groups. What service do they perform for the average citizen that either does not need to be performed or could be better served by commercial organizations?

The only Departments I can think of that are essential are
The Department of the Treasury
The Department of Defense

How about FDA?
How about Agriculture?
How about NIH?

[Safety]

Why do the airlines get tax payer support. The railways don't and they seem to do just fine without it. Why couldn't the airlines start a consortium that would take the place of the FAA in providing for the safety of the passengers and efficiency of the member airlines.

Um...both the FAA and FRA are under the DOT.

[gamewell45]

Why do the airlines get tax payer support. The railways don't and they seem to do just fine without it. Why couldn't the airlines start a consortium that would take the place of the FAA in providing for the safety of the passengers and efficiency of the member airlines.

The railroads infrastructure, for the most part, are crumbling relics of their former past with exception of perhaps some rail commuter lines, but freight and Amtrak are an embarrassment compared to their European and Japanese counterparts IMO.

[Captdon]

I can only speak for what I know to be true in the FAA, and for the most part they are support staff, ie engineers, administration assistances, etc. The day to day operations have been running, but parts are not being ordered, construction projects for runways and facilities are not being completed, and preventive maintenance for all equipment have not been done since the shutdown. When systems such as radios, navaid equipment, and RADARs start to fail, air traffic will grind to a halt.

I'm sure the other departments that are affected by the shutdown will have a similar experience.

Get rid of them. They can be done by private companies.

[Captdon]

How about FDA?
How about Agriculture?
How about NIH?

They can be done without the government.

[Trish]

They can be done without the government.

The FDA can be done without the government? hahahahahahaha

Do you know what the FDA does? They ensure that ALL PRODUCTS are safe and effective. If you've ever been to the doctor and received a prescription....thank the FDA. If you've had surgery.....thank the FDA. If someone you know has had a mammography......thank the FDA. If your lady wears make up.....thank the FDA. If you have children......thank the FDA. If you have pets......thank the FDA.

It cannot be done by contractors or industry because they are driven by profit NOT safety or effectiveness.

[Chris]

The FDA can be done without the government? hahahahahahaha

Do you know what the FDA does? They ensure that ALL PRODUCTS are safe and effective. If you've ever been to the doctor and received a prescription....thank the FDA. If you've had surgery.....thank the FDA. If someone you know has had a mammography......thank the FDA. If your lady wears make up.....thank the FDA. If you have children......thank the FDA. If you have pets......thank the FDA.

It cannot be done by contractors or industry because they are driven by profit NOT safety or effectiveness.


Private makes profit only if they do a good job.

[Trish]

Private makes profit only if they do a good job.

Yeah, right. They've done such a great job that the country is in the folds of an opioids crisis because they LIED. You think it's wasn't driven by profits? How about tobacco, they've done a great job in that arena too.

[Chris]

Yeah, right. They've done such a great job that the country is in the folds of an opioids crisis because they LIED. You think it's wasn't driven by profits? How about tobacco, they've done a great job in that arena too.

And the FDA stopped it?

[Chris]

The purpose of the FDA is not to weed out potentially addictive drugs but do quality assurance drugs do no harm through years of testing. The opioid crisis is more because of doctors over-prescribing pain addictive pain meds.

[MisterVeritis]

Well the DOD could be trimmed 25% without any increased risk of ivasion
We are being invaded.

[Trish]

And the FDA stopped it?

The FDA only received authority over tobacco in 2009 and even that authority is limited thanks to crooked congress and senate. As far as the opioids issue, the problem isn't with the product but with prescribing the product and again back to the kick back that congress and senate gets from big pharma. You know big pharma that will kill people for profit.

[MisterVeritis]

I won't argue with you there. Furthermore, if they ended the Income Tax you could also eliminate 100,000 IRS workers. The IRS was originally created in 1862 by Lincoln as a means to fund the War Between The States when Lincoln installed the first income tax. The IRS is of course part of the Treasury Department as is the Coast Guard. I would also cut down on the number of military bases on foreign soil. We currently have military facilities in 80 different countries. We could take a number of those men and instead of protecting the borders between France and Germany we could station those men on our Southern Borders and protect this country

Oh, and I think I would keep The State Department but take it out of the spying business.
We don't protect the borders between France and Germany. Every major department has an intelligence branch.

[MisterVeritis]

The FDA can be done without the government? hahahahahahaha

Do you know what the FDA does? They ensure that ALL PRODUCTS are safe and effective. If you've ever been to the doctor and received a prescription....thank the FDA. If you've had surgery.....thank the FDA. If someone you know has had a mammography......thank the FDA. If your lady wears make up.....thank the FDA. If you have children......thank the FDA. If you have pets......thank the FDA.

It cannot be done by contractors or industry because they are driven by profit NOT safety or effectiveness.
Anything the government does outside of defense and foreign policy can be done better by the private sector.

[Chris]

The FDA only received authority over tobacco in 2009 and even that authority is limited thanks to crooked congress and senate. As far as the opioids issue, the problem isn't with the product but with prescribing the product and again back to the kick back that congress and senate gets from big pharma. You know big pharma that will kill people for profit.


Well, there's the government right in the middle of it all. Yet you want to government to have even more power.

[MisterVeritis]

Yeah, right. They've done such a great job that the country is in the folds of an opioids crisis because they LIED. You think it's wasn't driven by profits? How about tobacco, they've done a great job in that arena too.
Trish, didn't every bad thing, real or imagined, happen with the government in control?

[Trish]

I'm starting to understand how Trump got elected.

[MisterVeritis]

I'm starting to understand how Trump got elected.
Do you understand why President Trump will be re-elected?

A very dangerous Federal government is in the hands of radical hard leftists.

[Chris]

I'm starting to understand how Trump got elected.


Yet I don't like him and didn't vote for him.

[Peter1469]

The FDA only received authority over tobacco in 2009 and even that authority is limited thanks to crooked congress and senate. As far as the opioids issue, the problem isn't with the product but with prescribing the product and again back to the kick back that congress and senate gets from big pharma. You know big pharma that will kill people for profit.
What Big Pharma really likes are drugs that keep patients alive even if they are not well, the treatment causes more problems that it solves, if anything at all is solved, and where the drug is a life time commitment. That is where they make the most money. Statins for example.

[Trish]

What Big Pharma really likes are drugs that keep patients alive even if they are not well, the treatment causes more problems that it solves, if anything at all is solved, and where the drug is a life time commitment. That is where they make the most money. Statins for example.

Sure, they treat rather than cure but in the process of developing that magic pill they perform clinical trials. Without RIHSC many people would have been used without regard to human life. That costs money and they'd prefer not to waste money on safety.

[nathanbforrest45]

How about FDA?
How about Agriculture?
How about NIH?


No
No
and
Nope

Don't need them.

[nathanbforrest45]

Um...both the FAA and FRA are under the DOT.

So?

[nathanbforrest45]

The railroads infrastructure, for the most part, are crumbling relics of their former past with exception of perhaps some rail commuter lines, but freight and Amtrak are an embarrassment compared to their European and Japanese counterparts IMO.
You are living in the past. The railways in this country do a tremendous job in keeping up their infrastructure and its far from a crumbling relic of its past. You are aware aren't you that Amtrak runs on the same rails as the freight lines. There was a time 40 years ago that the railroads practiced "deferred maintenance" but now that the railroads are basically deregulated they were allowed to cut non profitable lines and merge railroads saving cost. No, the railroads are taking care of themselves very nicely thank you very much

[nathanbforrest45]

The FDA can be done without the government? hahahahahahaha

Do you know what the FDA does? They ensure that ALL PRODUCTS are safe and effective. If you've ever been to the doctor and received a prescription....thank the FDA. If you've had surgery.....thank the FDA. If someone you know has had a mammography......thank the FDA. If your lady wears make up.....thank the FDA. If you have children......thank the FDA. If you have pets......thank the FDA.

It cannot be done by contractors or industry because they are driven by profit NOT safety or effectiveness.

Yes, the FDA does a marvelously job in protecting all of us. This is why there are celery recalls, chicken recalls, salmonella outbreaks and the hundreds of other incidents. Because the FDA is doing such a good job for us no one thinks of watching out for themselves.

The industries can monitor themselves in the interest of not poisoning their own customers.

[Chris]

The purpose of the FDA is not to weed out potentially addictive drugs but do quality assurance drugs do no harm through years of testing. The opioid crisis is more because of doctors over-prescribing pain addictive pain meds.


I should note as well the FDA does not do any testing. Each company must do that to the FDA's approval.

[Trish]

Yes, the FDA does a marvelously job in protecting all of us. This is why there are celery recalls, chicken recalls, salmonella outbreaks and the hundreds of other incidents. Because the FDA is doing such a good job for us no one thinks of watching out for themselves.

The industries can monitor themselves in the interest of not poisoning their own customers.

This is probably the dumbest response I've read today. So what if there are outbreaks. Go and look up the amount of products FDA oversees and then come back and cry over several outbreaks. It could be a lot worse.

Sometimes the only way people understand how things impact them is if they are a victim. Let's hope you and your loved ones never become one of those citizens caught up in one of the adverse reports.

[nathanbforrest45]

The FDA only received authority over tobacco in 2009 and even that authority is limited thanks to crooked congress and senate. As far as the opioids issue, the problem isn't with the product but with prescribing the product and again back to the kick back that congress and senate gets from big pharma. You know big pharma that will kill people for profit.
I can see this will be a pointless thread for you. You are a government worker, ergo you must believe that we will all die if we don't have Big Daddy Government watching over us every second of the day and night. We understand your very existence depends on getting control of more and more people. The private sector has never had the power to enslave even 10% of the people while the GOVERNMENT can and does enslave us all.

[Lummy]

You are living in the past. The railways in this country do a tremendous job in keeping up their infrastructure and its far from a crumbling relic of its past. You are aware aren't you that Amtrak runs on the same rails as the freight lines. There was a time 40 years ago that the railroads practiced "deferred maintenance" but now that the railroads are basically deregulated they were allowed to cut non profitable lines and merge railroads saving cost. No, the railroads are taking care of themselves very nicely thank you very much

I don't follow you. The federal government helps maintain the tracks, and RR's most certainly are federally regulated.

[nathanbforrest45]

We don't protect the borders between France and Germany. Every major department has an intelligence branch.


Actually, we were originally staying in Germany to protect the French from being invaded by the Germans and the Germans from being invaded by the Russians.

[Safety]

So?

Um, that means that the railroads are regulated by DOT just like the FAA and other transportation agencies. That means that you implying that the FAA should undertake some sort of different regulation structure because you think the railroad is operating differently, is a non-starter.

[MisterVeritis]

Actually, we were originally staying in Germany to protect the French from being invaded by the Germans and the Germans from being invaded by the Russians.
No.

[Trish]

I should note as well the FDA does not do any testing. Each company must do that to the FDA's approval.

That's not true. FDA absolutely does testing and independent research as well as collaborations with other Agencies like NIH and CMS. Yes, each application must include test data but FDA will also run analysis on that data to determine whether what the company is claiming is feasible. Many times they have pre existing biomarkers and other forms of measurement to refer to.

[Safety]

Yes, the FDA does a marvelously job in protecting all of us. This is why there are celery recalls, chicken recalls, salmonella outbreaks and the hundreds of other incidents. Because the FDA is doing such a good job for us no one thinks of watching out for themselves.

The industries can monitor themselves in the interest of not poisoning their own customers.

Yea, there are recalls "because" the FDA regulates the industry. If that was not the case, there would be no consumer warning when a product has been tainted, so instead of a couple of hundred cases of sickness, there would be tens of thousands to millions.

[MisterVeritis]

Yea, there are recalls "because" the FDA regulates the industry. If that was not the case, there would be no consumer warning when a product has been tainted, so instead of a couple of hundred cases of sickness, there would be tens of thousands to millions.
This could be done with a private organization.

[Trish]

Yea, there are recalls "because" the FDA regulates the industry. If that was not the case, there would be no consumer warning when a product has been tainted, so instead of a couple of hundred cases of sickness, there would be tens of thousands to millions.

They are looking at recalls as a failure rather than a proactive approach to avoid full on outbreaks. They don't understand the mission.

[Safety]

This could be done with a private organization.

Sure, just like Enron and BP looked out for America's best interest.

[alexa]

This could be done with a private organization.

Because corporations would voluntarily submit their products to testing and pay a private entity to do so.

Also, I know that they'd gladly issue recalls voluntarily because they're only in it for the humanitarian aspect.

[jimmyz]

The consumer protection side of the US Federal government does an outstanding job IMO. I would not want to see it cut. If I get Ebola I want to see CDC and/or NIH folks in bio-hazard suits helping me out.

[Safety]

They are looking at recalls as a failure rather than a proactive approach to avoid full on outbreaks. They don't understand the mission.

I know, I just try to respond as plainly as possible to topics like this because there are some that think private industry would care one bit about anyone's health over profit. On an anonymous message board, in depth arguments about it are meaningless because they will just deny everything, whereas in real life I'm sure if a loved one became sick due to a company's negligence, they would want to sue them so hard that they would end up owning the company.

Just like I know for a fact that if there were not regulatory oversight on air travel, nobody would risk flying. Simply saying "if it's my time to go, it's' my time to go" may work for some things, but what if you're flying and it's your pilot's time to go?

[MisterVeritis]

Sure, just like Enron and BP looked out for America's best interest.
I am making no claim any company will look out for America's interest. Who was regulating those companies? Who forced BP to drill in deep water instead of in shallow water? The government.

[Safety]

I am making no claim any company will look out for America's interest. Who was regulating those companies? Who forced BP to drill in deep water instead of in shallow water? The government.

Who told the government that they had the ability to drill in deep water and would do so safely? BP.

[alexa]

I am making no claim any company will look out for America's interest. Who was regulating those companies? Who forced BP to drill in deep water instead of in shallow water? The government.
Nobody forced BP to drill anywhere, just like no one forced them to use defective equipment to do it.

[Cletus]

FDA has been an obstacle in the way of advanced medical procedures for a long time. There are procedures performed in Europe for decades before the FDA will allow them to be performed in the US.

How many thousands of patients end up suffering needlessly because the FDA won't approve a procedure that has been performed successfully tens of thousands of times in other places?

I am sure they do a lot of good, but they also do a lot of bad with their bureaucratic bullshit.

[MisterVeritis]

Because corporations would voluntarily submit their products to testing and pay a private entity to do so.

Also, I know that they'd gladly issue recalls voluntarily because they're only in it for the humanitarian aspect.
There are many private standards organizations that do a good job of ensuring companies meet the standards.

I submit that it is unnecessary for a private entity to provide their products to the government for testing. The government has no constitutional authority to do this evil thing.

[jimmyz]

I could support cuts to HUD, DOEnergy, DOEducation, DEA and some others.

[MisterVeritis]

Nobody forced BP to drill anywhere, just like no one forced them to use defective equipment to do it.
Don't be stupid. Companies will drill where there is oil. The government forced companies into deep water. We both know it. The government is culpable.

[Safety]

There are many private standards organizations that do a good job of ensuring companies meet the standards.

I submit that it is unnecessary for a private entity to provide their products to the government for testing. The government has no constitutional authority to do this evil thing.

I'll make sure to look for the "Approved by Misterverits" on the next product I buy, cause his internet credentials ensured me that it will not cause me harm.

[alexa]

I could support cuts in a lot of places.

I don't support shopworn libertarian fantasies.

[MisterVeritis]

Who told the government that they had the ability to drill in deep water and would do so safely? BP.
Who forced BP and other oil companies out of the shallow water and into deep water? The government.

[Safety]

Don't be stupid. Companies will drill where there is oil. The government forced companies into deep water. We both know it. The government is culpable.

Maybe there's oil in the core, which company has the government forced to drill there?

[Safety]

Who forced BP and other oil companies out of the shallow water and into deep water? The government.

Polly want a cracker?

[MisterVeritis]

I'll make sure to look for the "Approved by Misterverits" on the next product I buy, cause his internet credentials ensured me that it will not cause me harm.
If I started a company you would be better off having me assure a product than having a government drone do it. You are a government drone, aren't you?

[alexa]

Who forced BP and other oil companies out of the shallow water and into deep water? The government.
Saying it again doesn't make it true.

Oh, you're a Trump supporter.

Nevermind

[MisterVeritis]

Polly want a cracker?
You cannot accept government culpability.

[MisterVeritis]

Saying it again doesn't make it true.

Oh, you're a Trump supporter.

Nevermind
It is true. You know it is true. Leftists have difficulty with the truth.

[alexa]

If I started a company you would be better off having me assure a product than having a government drone do it. You are a government drone, aren't you?
Yes, we'd all be better off if we just put our faith in you.

[MisterVeritis]

The consumer protection side of the US Federal government does an outstanding job IMO. I would not want to see it cut. If I get Ebola I want to see CDC and/or NIH folks in bio-hazard suits helping me out.
You have nothing to compare it to.

[MisterVeritis]

Yes, we'd all be better off if we just put our faith in you.
Yes. I can be held accountable. The government cannot be. How many people die while waiting for the government to act?

[alexa]

Yes. I can be held accountable. The government cannot be. How many people die while waiting for the government to act?
Good question.

Here's another one

How many pancakes can you fit in a doghouse?

[MisterVeritis]

Good question.

Here's another one

How many pancakes can you fit in a doghouse?
We are done troll.

[gamewell45]

This is probably the dumbest response I've read today. So what if there are outbreaks. Go and look up the amount of products FDA oversees and then come back and cry over several outbreaks. It could be a lot worse.

Sometimes the only way people understand how things impact them is if they are a victim. Let's hope you and your loved ones never become one of those citizens caught up in one of the adverse reports.

I think many people fail to realize why the FDA was created in the first place and don't care until they are affected by--for example--unregulated or sample drugs. Some people old enough may recall the drug thalidomide which caused babies to be born deformed as US doctors handed out samples to pregnant women of the unregulated drug.

The FDA has been around for quite a while and has quite the history and was not created by the government just to give people jobs contrary to what some people may opine. It's an agency which IMO is needed by the American people to act as a watchdog for us.

I've provided a link below for those who may be interested in the history of the agency; it makes for good reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Food_and_Drug_Administration

[alexa]

We are done troll.

Thank God.

[Peter1469]

Sure, they treat rather than cure but in the process of developing that magic pill they perform clinical trials. Without RIHSC many people would have been used without regard to human life. That costs money and they'd prefer not to waste money on safety.My post was not an anti-FDA post.

[Trish]

My post was not an anti-FDA post.

I didn't take it as anti FDA. Sorry if it seemed I did. Sometimes I post a comment that isn't necessarily to the person but for all readers. Other times I don't realize my comment comes off snotty.

Plus, I guess I'm a little edgy lately. hahahahahaha

Anyway - sorry Peter.

[Chris]

I think many people fail to realize why the FDA was created in the first place and don't care until they are affected by--for example--unregulated or sample drugs. Some people old enough may recall the drug thalidomide which caused babies to be born deformed as US doctors handed out samples to pregnant women of the unregulated drug.

The FDA has been around for quite a while and has quite the history and was not created by the government just to give people jobs contrary to what some people may opine. It's an agency which IMO is needed by the American people to act as a watchdog for us.

I've provided a link below for those who may be interested in the history of the agency; it makes for good reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Food_and_Drug_Administration

I think most appreciate the purpose of the FDA. No one's arguing about that. The argument is who would do a better job?

[Chris]

That's not true. FDA absolutely does testing and independent research as well as collaborations with other Agencies like NIH and CMS. Yes, each application must include test data but FDA will also run analysis on that data to determine whether what the company is claiming is feasible. Many times they have pre existing biomarkers and other forms of measurement to refer to.

Would you not trusty the FDA to answer that?

https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/SpecialFeatures/ucm279676.htm#2


Q: Does FDA test drugs?

A: No. It is the responsibility of the company seeking approval to market a drug to conduct laboratory and animal tests on the safety and effectiveness of a proposed new drug and then to submit that information to FDA for review by CDER physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, and other scientist.

[Trish]

Would you not trusty the FDA to answer that?

https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/SpecialFeatures/ucm279676.htm#2

I think we are talking about two different things. When an NDA is received the data is reviewed. Sometimes if the data doesn't have an established standard the reviewer will have the results analyzed and tested. That is not the end product.

[Chris]

I think we are talking about two different things. When an NDA is received the data is reviewed. Sometimes if the data doesn't have an established standard the reviewer will have the results analyzed and tested. That is not the end product.

Right, you're talking review, not testing. The FDA reviews, it does not test. A review may decide to fail tests and require more, so the company must retest, not the FDA.

[Trish]

Right, you're talking review, not testing. The FDA reviews, it does not test. A review may decide to fail tests and require more, so the company must retest, not the FDA.

Yes, and FDA also conducts research.

[nathanbforrest45]

If the FDA assures that all of us are taking drugs that are safe and effective why are there so many lawyers becoming billionaires over suing drug companies for defective drugs?

[Chris]

Yes, and FDA also conducts research.

As described here https://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/AboutScienceResearchatFDA/ucm319910.htm


Since its enactment in 1938, FDA has seen an enormous increase in the magnitude and complexity of its regulatory responsibilities. New areas of science, evolving technologies, and globalization have profoundly altered the Agency's regulatory landscape.

Today FDA's regulatory activities range from developing new models to assess the safety of gene therapy to building a new prevention-based food safety system for a globalized economy and creating a national electronic system that will track the safety of FDA-regulated medical products once they reach the market.

However, the success of these efforts depends on an FDA that is positioned to incorporate emerging technologies into the tools and approaches it uses to monitor and evaluate the safety and efficacy of new and licensed products.

[nathanbforrest45]

Yes, and FDA also conducts research.

Not very much research. Their main function is to stare over the shoulders of real medical specialist and may sure they are researching the drugs the way the FDA would research the drugs if they actually did research, which they don't.

[Trish]

If the FDA assures that all of us are taking drugs that are safe and effective why are there so many lawyers becoming billionaires over suing drug companies for defective drugs?

I imagine the simplest answer is we are all different. The standards set are based on the majority not minority. The decision to approve is based on the majority not minority as long as adverse reports are below the threshold.

Keep in mind that the company designs the clinical trial, not the FDA. Companies try to enroll people who will most likely have a positive reaction to the product. Many times they don't have the right population or demographic enrolled in the trial. For instance, sickle cell shows up in african americans but only 9% enrolled in the CT are african american. The data, imo, is worthless because the population that will be taking the drug is not represented well in the CT.

This happens far more than people realize. Also, the companies like to complain that it takes so long to get their drugs on the market. One of the main reasons is because they do not provide the correct data when they submit their applications. Or they have to do another CT. It's easier to just say they sent in their application to FDA 2 years ago and they are still waiting for an approval. They are good at misrepresenting the facts.

[alexa]

If the FDA assures that all of us are taking drugs that are safe and effective why are there so many lawyers becoming billionaires over suing drug companies for defective drugs?
Um, because the FDA doesn't assure you that your doctor knows what he's doing or that you're not allergic to a particular drug or that you're taking the medication correctly.


Pretty complicated, huh?

[Ethereal]

Um, because the FDA doesn't assure you that your doctor knows what he's doing or that you're not allergic to a particular drug or that you're taking the medication correctly.


Pretty complicated, huh?

The FDA is a corrupt and useless agency that has caused massive amounts of damage with its lies and misinformation.

[alexa]

The FDA is a corrupt and useless agency that has caused massive amounts of damage with its lies and misinformation.

Mmmm Hmmm

[nathanbforrest45]

I imagine the simplest answer is we are all different. The standards set are based on the majority not minority. The decision to approve is based on the majority not minority as long as adverse reports are below the threshold.

Keep in mind that the company designs the clinical trial, not the FDA. Companies try to enroll people who will most likely have a positive reaction to the product. Many times they don't have the right population or demographic enrolled in the trial. For instance, sickle cell shows up in african americans but only 9% enrolled in the CT are african american. The data, imo, is worthless because the population that will be taking the drug is not represented well in the CT.

This happens far more than people realize. Also, the companies like to complain that it takes so long to get their drugs on the market. One of the main reasons is because they do not provide the correct data when they submit their applications. Or they have to do another CT. It's easier to just say they sent in their application to FDA 2 years ago and they are still waiting for an approval. They are good at misrepresenting the facts.

I am currently involved in clinical trials for a heart failure drug. I went through extensive testing to see if I were even a viable candidate for the testing. Then its a double blind test where neither I nor the testing facility at the VA knows if I am receiving the drug or a placebo. I do not believe for an instant that drug companies only test the drug on those they know in advance will benefit from the drug.

Truthfully, the main reason there are so many medical malpractice lawsuits against the drug companies should be quite clear. millions of people take the drugs, maybe 1 percent have an adverse affect, that is 10,000 people. That is 10,000 potential lawsuit candidates.

Drug companies, food companies, auto manufacturers etc do not have a vested interest in making products that harm their customers but they do know that a small percentage will for a variety of reasons. Those failures cannot be stopped by spending billions of dollars on government agencies to try and change reality.

[Ethereal]

The FDA can be done without the government? hahahahahahaha

Do you know what the FDA does? They ensure that ALL PRODUCTS are safe and effective. If you've ever been to the doctor and received a prescription....thank the FDA. If you've had surgery.....thank the FDA. If someone you know has had a mammography......thank the FDA. If your lady wears make up.....thank the FDA. If you have children......thank the FDA. If you have pets......thank the FDA.

It cannot be done by contractors or industry because they are driven by profit NOT safety or effectiveness.
It's a mystery how America managed to exist without the FDA for most of its history...

By the way, profit and safety are not mutually exclusive. Generally speaking, people won't purchase products that aren't safe to consume.

[Ethereal]

Mmmm Hmmm
It is, demonstrably so.

Just as the most obvious example, scientists at the FDA took bribes from the sugar industry.

[Ethereal]

The FDA only received authority over tobacco in 2009 and even that authority is limited thanks to crooked congress and senate. As far as the opioids issue, the problem isn't with the product but with prescribing the product and again back to the kick back that congress and senate gets from big pharma. You know big pharma that will kill people for profit.
So you admit that congress and the senate are crooked, yet you don't extend the same logic to the bureaucratic agencies that the congress created?

[Ethereal]

I imagine the simplest answer is we are all different. The standards set are based on the majority not minority. The decision to approve is based on the majority not minority as long as adverse reports are below the threshold.

Keep in mind that the company designs the clinical trial, not the FDA. Companies try to enroll people who will most likely have a positive reaction to the product. Many times they don't have the right population or demographic enrolled in the trial. For instance, sickle cell shows up in african americans but only 9% enrolled in the CT are african american. The data, imo, is worthless because the population that will be taking the drug is not represented well in the CT.

This happens far more than people realize. Also, the companies like to complain that it takes so long to get their drugs on the market. One of the main reasons is because they do not provide the correct data when they submit their applications. Or they have to do another CT. It's easier to just say they sent in their application to FDA 2 years ago and they are still waiting for an approval. They are good at misrepresenting the facts.

The simplest answer is that the FDA is crooked. And they are.

[Trish]

I am currently involved in clinical trials for a heart failure drug. I went through extensive testing to see if I were even a viable candidate for the testing. Then its a double blind test where neither I nor the testing facility at the VA knows if I am receiving the drug or a placebo. I do not believe for an instant that drug companies only test the drug on those they know in advance will benefit from the drug.

Truthfully, the main reason there are so many medical malpractice lawsuits against the drug companies should be quite clear. millions of people take the drugs, maybe 1 percent have an adverse affect, that is 10,000 people. That is 10,000 potential lawsuit candidates.

Drug companies, food companies, auto manufacturers etc do not have a vested interest in making products that harm their customers but they do know that a small percentage will for a variety of reasons. Those failures cannot be stopped by spending billions of dollars on government agencies to try and change reality.
Not all CT are designed with the objective to only enroll people that are great candidates. I shouldn't have given that impression. You are absolutely right that these products are for millions of people and those people it doesn't help is a small percentage in the overall scale. But it still doesn't make it easy on the person or family that have the adverse affect. I disagree that there is no place for an agency to ensure all companies are playing by the same rules and are meeting the standards set. If you ask these companies you'll be surprised to learn that they want FDA to have this responsibility. They moan and groan but in the end they know their products will sell better domestically and overseas with the US Gov't stamp of approval. I will keep my fingers crossed for you and the CT you're participating in.

[Trish]

The simplest answer is that the FDA is crooked. And they are.

Okay, I'll bite. How is the FDA crooked? I'm really interested in hearing what your experience has been. You seemed pretty adamant about it.

[nathanbforrest45]

Okay, I'll bite. How is the FDA crooked? I'm really interested in hearing what your experience has been. You seemed pretty adamant about it.
All government agencies exist solely for the benefit of some special interest group so are "crooked" in looking out for that special interest group.

The FDA is a government agency, ergo, the FDA is crooked.

[Ethereal]

If you ask these companies you'll be surprised to learn that they want FDA to have this responsibility.
It's actually not that surprising when you understand how protectionism works.

You see, large pharmaceutical corporations want to keep the FDA in place because it keep potential competitors from entering the market.

The only ones who can afford the gigantic costs of FDA regulations and processes are the richest, most powerful corporations. New entrants into the market have zero chance of success under such conditions. Naturally, then, these large corporations are willing to pay those high regulatory costs in exchange for minimizing their competition. And that's how most government bureaucracies throughout history have been employed. Of course, they always CLAIM that it's about safety and health. But that is nothing more than an obvious pretext that serves to conceal their true agenda.

[Ethereal]

Okay, I'll bite. How is the FDA crooked? I'm really interested in hearing what your experience has been. You seemed pretty adamant about it.

For starters, the FDA's low-fat diet initiative was based entirely on junk science bought and paid for by the sugar industry (https://reason.com/blog/2016/09/13/sugar).

[Trish]

It's actually not that surprising when you understand how protectionism works.

You see, large pharmaceutical corporations want to keep the FDA in place because it keep potential competitors from entering the market.

The only ones who can afford the gigantic costs of FDA regulations and processes are the richest, most powerful corporations. New entrants into the market have zero chance of success under such conditions. Naturally, then, these large corporations are willing to pay those high regulatory costs in exchange for minimizing their competition. And that's how most government bureaucracies throughout history have been employed. Of course, they always CLAIM that it's about safety and health. But that is nothing more than an obvious pretext that serves to conceal their true agenda.

I agree and was also going to mention how smaller companies cannot compete with big pharma.

I disagree that FDA has no role or that what they do has no value.

[Ethereal]

I agree and was also going to mention how smaller companies cannot compete with big pharma.

I disagree that FDA has no role or that what they do has no value.

I just don't see why the FDA is needed at all. I've been to countries where there are almost no real regulations on their food supply and I had no problems. For most of America's history, there was no FDA. Most people don't need a government nanny to protect them. I feel perfectly fine making my own decisions and taking my own risks. If you cook food, it's usually safe to eat. If you live a healthy lifestyle, you probably won't need drugs or surgeries until you get very old. What happened to using common sense?

[Ethereal]

I'd also add that most of what big pharma sells is pure crap that is no better than basic things like eating healthy and exercising.

If Americans would only make simple changes to their diets and lifestyles, we could prevent millions of people from getting sick and/or dying every year.

[Chris]

I agree and was also going to mention how smaller companies cannot compete with big pharma.

I disagree that FDA has no role or that what they do has no value.



I agree and was also going to mention how smaller companies cannot compete with big pharma.

Government collusion is what creates these near monopolies. The regulatory cost of starting a new pharma is prohibitive.


I disagree that FDA has no role or that what they do has no value.

I'll repeat no one as far as I can see is arguing what they do has no value. Some, like me, argue it could be done better privately.

[nathanbforrest45]

The reason small companies cannot compete with large companies is because the regulations put in place by the protective federal agencies insure they cannot afford to complete. The cost of bringing a new drug on line is highly prohibitive but those cost are mandated by government fiat. Monopolies can only be created with government collusion and assistance.

[donttread]

I won't argue with you there. Furthermore, if they ended the Income Tax you could also eliminate 100,000 IRS workers. The IRS was originally created in 1862 by Lincoln as a means to fund the War Between The States when Lincoln installed the first income tax. The IRS is of course part of the Treasury Department as is the Coast Guard. I would also cut down on the number of military bases on foreign soil. We currently have military facilities in 80 different countries. We could take a number of those men and instead of protecting the borders between France and Germany we could station those men on our Southern Borders and protect this country

Oh, and I think I would keep The State Department but take it out of the spying business.


Some good ideas although I admit to being nervous about militarizing the boarder. The other thing is we have become so dependent upon government we would have to change in stages . An economic detox off the government if you will. Even IRS workers need to feed their families as do tax preparers. It's not just the jobs that are directly government , it's the jobs that exist , at least in part, because of government , that we have to factor in. There has to be some place for these people in the private sector when we down size government.

[nathanbforrest45]

Some good ideas although I admit to being nervous about militarizing the boarder. The other thing is we have become so dependent upon government we would have to change in stages . An economic detox off the government if you will. Even IRS workers need to feed their families as do tax preparers. It's not just the jobs that are directly government , it's the jobs that exist , at least in part, because of government , that we have to factor in. There has to be some place for these people in the private sector when we down size government.

You are correct. You can't very well dump 1 million plus workers into the work force. A RIF over a period of time would be necessary. And it won't be a year or two either. More like up to 10. It has taken 100 years for the government to grow into the beast it is. It won't end quickly or quietly

[Captdon]

The FDA can be done without the government? hahahahahahaha

Do you know what the FDA does? They ensure that ALL PRODUCTS are safe and effective. If you've ever been to the doctor and received a prescription....thank the FDA. If you've had surgery.....thank the FDA. If someone you know has had a mammography......thank the FDA. If your lady wears make up.....thank the FDA. If you have children......thank the FDA. If you have pets......thank the FDA.

It cannot be done by contractors or industry because they are driven by profit NOT safety or effectiveness.

We did fine before them and we can do fine with outsourcing them. All we need is a few people to fact check them. We outsource all of our military weapon production and do just fine.

That you'd have to find another job makes it personal but that's not my problem

[Captdon]

Yeah, right. They've done such a great job that the country is in the folds of an opioids crisis because they LIED. You think it's wasn't driven by profits? How about tobacco, they've done a great job in that arena too.

Where was the government then?

[Captdon]

The FDA only received authority over tobacco in 2009 and even that authority is limited thanks to crooked congress and senate. As far as the opioids issue, the problem isn't with the product but with prescribing the product and again back to the kick back that congress and senate gets from big pharma. You know big pharma that will kill people for profit.

So, more government would have prevented that?

[Captdon]

I'm starting to understand how Trump got elected.

To stop people with your ideas. You're welcome.

[Captdon]

This is probably the dumbest response I've read today. So what if there are outbreaks. Go and look up the amount of products FDA oversees and then come back and cry over several outbreaks. It could be a lot worse.

Sometimes the only way people understand how things impact them is if they are a victim. Let's hope you and your loved ones never become one of those citizens caught up in one of the adverse reports.

The FDA doesn't have the power to order a recall. So, what good are they?

[Captdon]

I don't follow you. The federal government helps maintain the tracks, and RR's most certainly are federally regulated.

No, they do not. They regulate but repair nothing. AMTRAK is like the post office. it is semi-independent.

[Captdon]

Actually, we were originally staying in Germany to protect the French from being invaded by the Germans and the Germans from being invaded by the Russians.

No. We were never protecting France from Germany.

[Captdon]

Yea, there are recalls "because" the FDA regulates the industry. If that was not the case, there would be no consumer warning when a product has been tainted, so instead of a couple of hundred cases of sickness, there would be tens of thousands to millions.

The FDA cannot order a recall.

[Captdon]

I know, I just try to respond as plainly as possible to topics like this because there are some that think private industry would care one bit about anyone's health over profit. On an anonymous message board, in depth arguments about it are meaningless because they will just deny everything, whereas in real life I'm sure if a loved one became sick due to a company's negligence, they would want to sue them so hard that they would end up owning the company.

Just like I know for a fact that if there were not regulatory oversight on air travel, nobody would risk flying. Simply saying "if it's my time to go, it's' my time to go" may work for some things, but what if you're flying and it's your pilot's time to go?

Government workers all protect their asses. They are overrated and mostly useless.

[Captdon]

Who told the government that they had the ability to drill in deep water and would do so safely? BP.

And the government allowed them. Yea, government did its job.

[Lummy]

I don't see the FDA as anything but federal goverment either.

[Captdon]

If I started a company you would be better off having me assure a product than having a government drone do it. You are a government drone, aren't you?

Protecting his interests.

[Captdon]

Saying it again doesn't make it true.

Oh, you're a Trump supporter.

Nevermind

Never mind is what you say when you don't grasp what is said. Safety is bad enough here but you too?

[Captdon]

Some good ideas although I admit to being nervous about militarizing the boarder. The other thing is we have become so dependent upon government we would have to change in stages . An economic detox off the government if you will. Even IRS workers need to feed their families as do tax preparers. It's not just the jobs that are directly government , it's the jobs that exist , at least in part, because of government , that we have to factor in. There has to be some place for these people in the private sector when we down size government.

Why are "we" responsible for finding jobs for laid off government workers. They can do what I did- find one.

[Captdon]

You are correct. You can't very well dump 1 million plus workers into the work force. A RIF over a period of time would be necessary. And it won't be a year or two either. More like up to 10. It has taken 100 years for the government to grow into the beast it is. It won't end quickly or quietly

Why should I pay people we don't need? Let them find jobs on their own like anyone else.

[nathanbforrest45]

Some good ideas although I admit to being nervous about militarizing the boarder. The other thing is we have become so dependent upon government we would have to change in stages . An economic detox off the government if you will. Even IRS workers need to feed their families as do tax preparers. It's not just the jobs that are directly government , it's the jobs that exist , at least in part, because of government , that we have to factor in. There has to be some place for these people in the private sector when we down size government.
Who better to protect our borders than the military? Either the regular Army or the National Guard (State Militia)

[alexa]

The FDA cannot order a recall.

Tell us more.



The Food and Drug Administration ordered the mandatory recall Tuesday of kratom products distributed by one company that may be contaminated with salmonella.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-forces-mandatory-recall-kratom-says-it-s-first-n862481

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDA_Food_Safety_Modernization_Act#Provisions

[nathanbforrest45]

Why should I pay people we don't need? Let them find jobs on their own like anyone else.


Because they are too big a piece of the economy. If you dumped a million people into the job market you would drive wages down to half of what they are now, which in turn would create other problems. No, while we don't need them it would be better to get rid of them by attrition over a period of time, allowing the economy and job market to adjust.

[nathanbforrest45]

Government employees worry about three basic things

When is their next break
When is it time to go home
How many people can I harass for absolutely no good reason today

Every agency, every department, every branch is over staffed by a factor of at least 3. When I worked for the ICC there were 70 "tariff examiners". In looking at the actual work load that could have been reduced to 20 "examiners" if they were actually required to work the 8 hours they were being paid for. There was one "examiner" with a cart loaded with tariffs to be "examined" but he was "overwhelmed" by the work load to the point he had a heart attack or something similar. I was given his cart to handle while he was out. I had it completely cleaned out within two days. Career government workers are incompetent and could not last a month in the private sector.

[alexa]

Government employees worry about three basic things

When is their next break
When is it time to go home
How many people can I harass for absolutely no good reason today

Every agency, every department, every branch is over staffed by a factor of at least 3. When I worked for the ICC there were 70 "tariff examiners". In looking at the actual work load that could have been reduced to 20 "examiners" if they were actually required to work the 8 hours they were being paid for. There was one "examiner" with a cart loaded with tariffs to be "examined" but he was "overwhelmed" by the work load to the point he had a heart attack or something similar. I was given his cart to handle while he was out. I had it completely cleaned out within two days. Career government workers are incompetent and could not last a month in the private sector.
lol

[Trish]

lol

I noticed that also and was a little shocked. It's funny how those who have left gov't suddenly have no issue trashing gov't..........but only after they get their benefits.

[Dr. Who]

Anything the government does outside of defense and foreign policy can be done better by the private sector.
Who is going to pay the private sector to assess products and where would the private sector derive the power to prevent bad products from entering the marketplace?

[MisterVeritis]

Who is going to pay the private sector to assess products and where would the private sector derive the power to prevent bad products from entering the marketplace?
There are many standards organizations that do well.

[Tahuyaman]

800,000 non-essential Federal government workers laid-off
If they are non essential, why are they employed at taxpayer expense?

[Safety]

I noticed that also and was a little shocked. It's funny how those who have left gov't suddenly have no issue trashing gov't..........but only after they get their benefits.

Like I said, most of the time people who trash government workers, do so because they cannot pass a background screening and are upset.

[Safety]

800,000 non-essential Federal government workers laid-off
If they are non essential, why are they employed at taxpayer expense?

Because you don't understand English terms.

[Lummy]

Because you don't understand English terms.

Perfectly intelligible to everyone but you, and a good question he raises too. If they are "nonessential", why do we have them in the first place? You never see that anywhere but government.

[Lummy]

What is "work", Safety? Do they "work"?

[Safety]

Perfectly intelligible to everyone but you, and a good question he raises too. If they are "nonessential", why do we have them in the first place? You never see that anywhere but government.

Well, first the correct terms are excepted and non-excepted. Excepted employees are those who are delegated to continue to work during an emergency or shutdown. The government is not the only entity that uses these two types of delinations for employees. The military, universities, and other corporations use the same criteria to determine who will work during an emergency. Non-excepted employees are usually the mission support staff that handle the day to day operations of the department, ranging from handling shipments, ordering replacement parts, engineers who plan, design, and oversee projects, administrative assistants who handle paperwork, filing, HR issues, accounting, logistics, training, wage grade employees that take care of the environmental issues at facilities which include upkeep of the grounds, repair of essential components such as HVAC, chiller, and electrical systems, aviation inspection technicians, aviation oversight that reviews communications between air traffic and pilots for deviations, etc. etc. So while the excepted employees are working and you see departments like TSA and air traffic still operating, that is only what a person not involved in the process sees, and not the support that goes on behind the scene.

Walmart can operate without people that stock the shelves for a while, but eventually there will be a point where there is nothing left to sell. You can operate a car without doing maintenance, but eventually you will pay dearly for not doing it.

[Lummy]

I don't care, I'm not hiring. Perhaps you should try personnel? Please?

It's all very interesting, "safety", but layoffs in the private sector never reach the level of bureaucratic faux rocket science. Do you know why?

[Safety]

I don't care, I'm not hiring. Perhaps you should try personnel? Please?

It's all very interesting, "safety", but layoffs in the private sector never reach the level of bureaucratic faux rocket science. Do you know why?

I am done with you.

[Peter1469]

Who is going to pay the private sector to assess products and where would the private sector derive the power to prevent bad products from entering the marketplace?

There is a private company that tests vitamins, supplements, etc. They rank them. Consumers can use that company's rankings to make informed decisions.

Labdoor (https://labdoor.com/). With a free account you get detailed info. As a guest you get summaries.

[nathanbforrest45]

Various industries could set up outside reviewers of their products. The individual companies would then all contribute to the cost of the inspectors and testing. While there may be opportunities for bribery that is no more likely than currently possible. The companies would strive to keep each other honest because it would affect everyone's standing. Consumer Union, Good Housekeeping, various industry wide groups (lawyers, doctors, etc) and even unions could take up the slack of getting rid of a wasteful government program that doesn't really do anything.

[Peter1469]

Well, first the correct terms are excepted and non-excepted. Excepted employees are those who are delegated to continue to work during an emergency or shutdown. The government is not the only entity that uses these two types of delinations for employees. The military, universities, and other corporations use the same criteria to determine who will work during an emergency. Non-excepted employees are usually the mission support staff that handle the day to day operations of the department, ranging from handling shipments, ordering replacement parts, engineers who plan, design, and oversee projects, administrative assistants who handle paperwork, filing, HR issues, accounting, logistics, training, wage grade employees that take care of the environmental issues at facilities which include upkeep of the grounds, repair of essential components such as HVAC, chiller, and electrical systems, aviation inspection technicians, aviation oversight that reviews communications between air traffic and pilots for deviations, etc. etc. So while the excepted employees are working and you see departments like TSA and air traffic still operating, that is only what a person not involved in the process sees, and not the support that goes on behind the scene.

Walmart can operate without people that stock the shelves for a while, but eventually there will be a point where there is nothing left to sell. You can operate a car without doing maintenance, but eventually you will pay dearly for not doing it.
For the government exempted / non-exempted refers to the Anti Deficiency Act. Technically no government worker can work for free. In order to get around a complete shut down (nobody working) congress passed legislation that created the exempted category to get around the illegality of government employees working for free.

I am not sure why the media uses essential and non-essential. Ignorance or agenda.

[Chris]

There is a private company that tests vitamins, supplements, etc. They rank them. Consumers can use that company's rankings to make informed decisions.

Labdoor (https://labdoor.com/). With a free account you get detailed info. As a guest you get summaries.


Various industries could set up outside reviewers of their products. The individual companies would then all contribute to the cost of the inspectors and testing. While there may be opportunities for bribery that is no more likely than currently possible. The companies would strive to keep each other honest because it would affect everyone's standing. Consumer Union, Good Housekeeping, various industry wide groups (lawyers, doctors, etc) and even unions could take up the slack of getting rid of a wasteful government program that doesn't really do anything.


Exactly, the same function could be done privately. If they want to ear a profit why then they have to produce a service of value.

[alexa]

I'd totally trust the ratings provided by an entity that depends on payments from the companies it rates for its survival.

Because why wouldn't they be totally honest?

/s

[Captdon]

Like I said, most of the time people who trash government workers, do so because they cannot pass a background screening and are upset.

No, some of us don't need to eat at the public trough.

[Chris]

Perfectly intelligible to everyone but you, and a good question he raises too. If they are "nonessential", why do we have them in the first place? You never see that anywhere but government.

Because that's the way the government works. You don't gain a bigger budget by producing things of value in more efficient ways as the private sector does, you do so by producing things that are nonessential in wasteful ways.

[Captdon]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Lummy http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2516208#post2516208)
I don't care, I'm not hiring. Perhaps you should try personnel? Please?

It's all very interesting, "safety", but layoffs in the private sector never reach the level of bureaucratic faux rocket science. Do you know why?



I am done with you.

^^^^^^

Ran out of intelligence.

[Docthehun]

Would those folks be tired of winning do you suppose? Personally, I wouldn't want to pose the question. I don't go looking for opportunities to have my arse handed to me on a plate.

[Dr. Who]

There are many standards organizations that do well.
They don't restrict the sale of bad products, unless the government mandates their seal of approval However, they are paid by industry for that stamp, so they are not without a conflict of interest. Take Underwriters Laboratories for instance: https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/suing-underwriters-laboratories-in-a-products-liability-case.html

[Dr. Who]

There is a private company that tests vitamins, supplements, etc. They rank them. Consumers can use that company's rankings to make informed decisions.

Labdoor (https://labdoor.com/). With a free account you get detailed info. As a guest you get summaries.
https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/03/in-labdoor-floodgate-sees-an-e-commerce-giant-in-disguise/

Hmmm. I see the potential for confict of interest here.

[Peter1469]

https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/03/in-labdoor-floodgate-sees-an-e-commerce-giant-in-disguise/

Hmmm. I see the potential for confict of interest here.
You can buy the products they test through their website, or from anywhere else they are sold- like Amazon.

[Dr. Who]

You can buy the products they test through their website, or from anywhere else they are sold- like Amazon.
However, it appears that they are also going to be marketing products.

[Peter1469]

However, it appears that they are also going to be marketing products.
I would imagine if their testing is not accurate, the companies whose products are harmed have a solid lawsuit against them.

[MisterVeritis]

They don't restrict the sale of bad products, unless the government mandates their seal of approval However, they are paid by industry for that stamp, so they are not without a conflict of interest. Take Underwriters Laboratories for instance: https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/suing-underwriters-laboratories-in-a-products-liability-case.html
Nor do they need to. Interested people can read reviews or watch review videos. There are plenty of organizations capable of filling this role without an all-powerful Federal government with its armies of bureaucrats.

[MisterVeritis]

Who is going to pay the private sector to assess products and where would the private sector derive the power to prevent bad products from entering the marketplace?
Already, today we have many independent people who evaluate products and write reviews. Have you seen Amazon? No one pays people. They do it because they want to.

I write reviews of the books I read on two of my websites. I get paid indirectly through website advertising.

[Dr. Who]

I would imagine if their testing is not accurate, the companies whose products are harmed have a solid lawsuit against them.
Companies will not be harmed because they were vouched for by a company that has a conflict of interest, but by the fact that they make a product that they knowingly marketed deceptively. Labdoor would simply also be sued for making false statements.

[Dr. Who]

Already, today we have many independent people who evaluate products and write reviews. Have you seen Amazon? No one pays people. They do it because they want to.

I write reviews of the books I read on two of my websites. I get paid indirectly through website advertising.
I don't believe most of the reviews I read because they are being paid to write them by the product manufacturers. Furthermore, when it comes to safety issues, I don't trust anyone other than an expert and totally disinterested party.

[MisterVeritis]

I don't believe most of the reviews I read because they are being paid to write them by the product manufacturers. Furthermore, when it comes to safety issues, I don't trust anyone other than an expert and totally disinterested party.
That is your right. You may believe or disbelieve as you chose. Someone who gains a reputation for poor product reviews will not attract and keep a following. Isn't liberty wonderful? Don't you ever consider it?

[Dr. Who]

Nor do they need to. Interested people can read reviews or watch review videos. There are plenty of organizations capable of filling this role without an all-powerful Federal government with its armies of bureaucrats.
Yes, there are so many engineers or biologists willing to spend their own money to buy all of the products that want to enter the marketplace and do all of the testing to ensure that they are safe, on their own dime. Or perhaps the even sadder approach - wait until all manner of people have sustained harm and read the negative reviews noting injured or dead loved ones as a cautionary tale.

[Chris]

I don't believe most of the reviews I read because they are being paid to write them by the product manufacturers. Furthermore, when it comes to safety issues, I don't trust anyone other than an expert and totally disinterested party.

IOW, the government bureaucrats. :icon_king:

[Dr. Who]

IOW, the government bureaucrats. :icon_king:
Yes, because they have no personal interest in the success or failure of the product.

[MisterVeritis]

Yes, there are so many engineers or biologists willing to spend their own money to buy all of the products that want to enter the marketplace and do all of the testing to ensure that they are safe, on their own dime. Or perhaps the even sadder approach - wait until all manner of people have sustained harm and read the negative reviews noting injured or dead loved ones as a cautionary tale.

Are you familiar with Amazon? You can be as goofy as you want to be. I do not believe you have ever been exposed to liberty.

[Dr. Who]

Are you familiar with Amazon? You can be as goofy as you want to be. I do not believe you have ever been exposed to liberty.
Yes, I have been exposed to Amazon. All products sold on Amazon have to comply with CPSC requirements. Furthermore, I only buy products from established manufacturers that are also sold in reputable stores.

[Safety]

Yes, there are so many engineers or biologists willing to spend their own money to buy all of the products that want to enter the marketplace and do all of the testing to ensure that they are safe, on their own dime. Or perhaps the even sadder approach - wait until all manner of people have sustained harm and read the negative reviews noting injured or dead loved ones as a cautionary tale.

Or the capitalist approach...purchase the reviews.

[MisterVeritis]

Yes, I have been exposed to Amazon. All products sold on Amazon have to comply with CPSC requirements. Furthermore, I only buy products from established manufacturers that are also sold in reputable stores.
Are you able to make up your mind on anything without the help of a government minder?

[Cthulhu]

If those workers are "non essential", why are they employed in the first place?

File this under things that make you go hmm.If true, wonderful.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Chris]

Yes, because they have no personal interest in the success or failure of the product.

Only self-interest in keeping their jobs and their power.

[Chris]

Yes, there are so many engineers or biologists willing to spend their own money to buy all of the products that want to enter the marketplace and do all of the testing to ensure that they are safe, on their own dime. Or perhaps the even sadder approach - wait until all manner of people have sustained harm and read the negative reviews noting injured or dead loved ones as a cautionary tale.

That's silly. They do it for profit. There are many such companies who do.

[Dr. Who]

Are you able to make up your mind on anything without the help of a government minder?

Noting the CPSC requirements was intended to remind you that even Amazon is not a free (market) for all. Unless you are purchasing from foreign online product distributors, your risk is being mitigated by the government. If you want to live dangerously, by all means, purchase medical products directly from China. Assuming they get through customs, be the guinea pig and post your reviews, assuming you don't end up in the hospital.

[Dr. Who]

That's silly. They do it for profit. There are many such companies who do.
Yes, they are paid by the manufacturers of those products. No conflict of interest there. :rollseyes:

[MisterVeritis]

Noting the CPSC requirements was intended to remind you that even Amazon is not a free (market) for all. Unless you are purchasing from foreign online product distributors, your risk is being mitigated by the government. If you want to live dangerously, by all means, purchase medical products directly from China. Assuming they get through customs, be the guinea pig and post your reviews, assuming you don't end up in the hospital.
We have no need for a government to hold our hands. We can rely on the private sector to meet the demand for information on products.

[MisterVeritis]

Yes, they are paid by the manufacturers of those products. No conflict of interest there. :rollseyes:
I just shake my head. You are imperious to liberty.

[Dr. Who]

We have no need for a government to hold our hands. We can rely on the private sector to meet the demand for information on products.
Yes, they are so honest. Volkswagon anyone?

[alexa]

Better to be "imperious" to liberty, whatever that might mean, than impervious to reality.

[Dr. Who]

I just shake my head. You are imperious to liberty.
And you are either impervious to common sense or simply don't care if toddlers go up like roman candles because their clothing is flammable or if people's homes burn down because an appliance they purchased doesn't comply with any electrical safety standards.

[Chris]

Yes, they are paid by the manufacturers of those products. No conflict of interest there. :rollseyes:

No, testing companies are independent of producers. Testing companies produce tests and profit if those test provide value. I used to work in that field for a small upstart. We formed testing out to other labs. I think you're too quick on the Draw there, not thinking out your responses.

[Trish]

No, testing companies are independent of producers. Testing companies produce tests and profit if those test provide value. I used to work in that field for a small upstart. We formed testing out to other labs. I think you're too quick on the Draw there, not thinking out your responses.

Testing companies can be compromised. Just like those that develop and conduct clinical trials for manufacturers. Tests can be skewed. People are motivated by money.

I'm not saying that's what the company you worked for did so please don't take my comment that way.

[Dr. Who]

No, testing companies are independent of producers. Testing companies produce tests and profit if those test provide value. I used to work in that field for a small upstart. We formed testing out to other labs. I think you're too quick on the Draw there, not thinking out your responses.
I posted a link. Even UL is untainted in that respect. Any lab making a significant portion of their income from any given manufacturer is going to be sensitive to biting the hand that feeds it. Here's a protip for real estate (for example) - never use a home inspector recommended by the real estate agent. Finding problems in a house the agent is trying to sell is not going to bring return business.

[Chris]

I posted a link. Even UL is untainted in that respect. Any lab making a significant portion of their income from any given manufacturer is going to be sensitive to biting the hand that feeds it. Here's a protip for real estate (for example) - never use a home inspector recommended by the real estate agent. Finding problems in a house the agent is trying to sell is not going to bring return business.

And as soon as they're caught doing that they lose credibility and reputation and lose customers.

Again, you weave a narrative of possibilities with no facts to show reality.

[Chris]

Testing companies can be compromised. Just like those that develop and conduct clinical trials for manufacturers. Tests can be skewed. People are motivated by money.

I'm not saying that's what the company you worked for did so please don't take my comment that way.

You profit by providing value to others.

That is not the case with the government.

You need to think bigger that just a product developer and a quality tester. Stores like Walmart and Walgreens would also need to trust testing results. Insurance companies would as well. Anyone who has stake in the game and something to lose being sued.

You can't sue the government.


We produced pharmaceutical products, we farmed out testing to meet FDA requirements.

[Peter1469]

Companies will not be harmed because they were vouched for by a company that has a conflict of interest, but by the fact that they make a product that they knowingly marketed deceptively. Labdoor would simply also be sued for making false statements.
If they get caught rigging the system their business model will fail.

[alexa]

If they get caught rigging the system their business model will fail.

Doesn't do you much good if you use them before they get caught, does it?

[Dr. Who]

And as soon as they're caught doing that they lose credibility and reputation and lose customers.

Again, you weave a narrative of possibilities with no facts to show reality.
LOL. That real estate info came from a long-term real estate agent. You'd be surprised at what actually happens vs what you might expect.

When it comes to products, no one sues when products simply fail without causing a fire or injury unless it's something really expensive. People also don't sue when products simply don't work. How many items in the vitamin and supplements industry are nothing more than dextrose with marginal amount of the element that they are selling? Yes, on higher ticket items you are going to have far more safety issues addressed (not all - look at the Samsung battery issue), but on low ticket items it's the wild west. Every year thousands of products are blocked from sale in America because they are deemed unsafe because they contain ingredients that are banned for safety reasons. Some imports simply don't get through customs. Domestically produced products also fail to pass muster. People are generally unaware of just how often they are being protected from unsafe goods.

[Safety]

LOL. That real estate info came from a long-term real estate agent. You'd be surprised at what actually happens vs what you might expect.

When it comes to products, no one sues when products simply fail without causing a fire or injury unless it's something really expensive. People also don't sue when products simply don't work. How many items in the vitamin and supplements industry are nothing more than dextrose with marginal amount of the element that they are selling? Yes, on higher ticket items you are going to have far more safety issues addressed (not all - look at the Samsung battery issue), but on low ticket items it's the wild west. Every year thousands of products are blocked from sale in America because they are deemed unsafe because they contain ingredients that are banned for safety reasons. Some imports simply don't get through customs. Domestically produced products also fail to pass muster. People are generally unaware of just how often they are being protected from unsafe goods.

You're speaking greek to people that want to live how the wild west used to be.

[MisterVeritis]

Yes, they are so honest. Volkswagon anyone?
Did that occur under the current risky scheme?

Did it harm you?

[Dr. Who]

If they get caught rigging the system their business model will fail.
It happens. There is a lot of hubris in the world. Look at Volkswagon and Audi. Often lying means sales vs increasing the price of your product or being unable to produce it anymore. Big business is often very short-sighted, predicated on making big numbers for the investors and big bonuses for those running the companies. The bigger the business, the closer the CEO to retirement - ever notice that? If that CEO can declare huge returns for 3-5 years, he/she will earn massive bonuses. If it all turns to garbage after that, they don't care. They made their millions.

[MisterVeritis]

And you are either impervious to common sense or simply don't care if toddlers go up like roman candles because their clothing is flammable or if people's homes burn down because an appliance they purchased doesn't comply with any electrical safety standards.
Have toddlers ever been burned under the government's watchful eye?

[MisterVeritis]

And you are either impervious to common sense or simply don't care if toddlers go up like roman candles because their clothing is flammable or if people's homes burn down because an appliance they purchased doesn't comply with any electrical safety standards.
Have homes burned down under the government's watchful eye?

[Safety]

Have toddlers ever been burned under the government's watchful eye?

Why do you think there's something called a "recall"? So others don't make the same mistake.

[Dr. Who]

Did that occur under the current risky scheme?

Did it harm you?
What risky scheme is that?

I have never owned diesel vehicles, so it didn't harm me, but it has harmed millions whose vehicles are no longer legal.

[Safety]

Did that occur under the current risky scheme?

Did it harm you?

They cheated. You root for the cheaters now?

[MisterVeritis]

Why do you think there's something called a "recall"? So others don't make the same mistake.
So toddlers have been burned under the government's watchful eye.

[MisterVeritis]

They cheated. You root for the cheaters now?
Did it harm you?

[alexa]

So toddlers have been burned under the government's watchful eye.
You're going to need way more straw.

[Dr. Who]

You profit by providing value to others.

That is not the case with the government.

You need to think bigger that just a product developer and a quality tester. Stores like Walmart and Walgreens would also need to trust testing results. Insurance companies would as well. Anyone who has stake in the game and something to lose being sued.

You can't sue the government.


We produced pharmaceutical products, we farmed out testing to meet FDA requirements.
Actually, you can sue the government. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act there is a limited right to sue in federal court against a federal government agency for negligence or personal injury claims.

[MisterVeritis]

What risky scheme is that?

I have never owned diesel vehicles, so it didn't harm me, but it has harmed millions whose vehicles are no longer legal.
Has any harm occurred under the government's risky schemes?

If the government hadn't made up nonsense rules would anyone care?

[Safety]

So toddlers have been burned under the government's watchful eye.

Was there a clause somewhere that stated no one would be hurt, even under the government's watchful eye? Do you understand the difference in a 1in100 vs 1in100000? I bet you don't even wear your seatbelt to stick it to da man, eh?

#winningnotwinning

[MisterVeritis]

You're going to need way more straw.
Fools believe they need the government to hold their hand through every one of life's decision. Has government ever disappointed? What do you think? You are eligible to answer the question.

[Dr. Who]

Have homes burned down under the government's watchful eye?
In the past, far more than today.

[alexa]

Fools believe they need the government to hold their hand through every one of life's decision. Has government ever disappointed? What do you think? You are eligible to answer the question.

way, way more straw.

[MisterVeritis]

Was there a clause somewhere that stated no one would be hurt, even under the government's watchful eye? Do you understand the difference in a 1in100 vs 1in100000? I bet you don't even wear your seatbelt to stick it to da man, eh?

#winningnotwinning
Other than having two million federal bureaucrats paid by taxpayers there is no real reason to have all of them, is there? People are still harmed.

[MisterVeritis]

In the past, far more than today.
I see. So we are paying two million bureaucrats because fewer people are harmed today? How would that be any different if private, for-profit companies and individuals did the testing and reporting?

[MisterVeritis]

way, way more straw.
As you never have worthwhile points you are dismissed.

[alexa]

Other than having two million federal bureaucrats paid by taxpayers there is no real reason to have all of them, is there? People are still harmed.
Here, have this

Gratis

https://www.belmontfeedandseed.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/t/straw.jpg

[Dr. Who]

Fools believe they need the government to hold their hand through every one of life's decision. Has government ever disappointed? What do you think? You are eligible to answer the question.
Do you disassemble every product you buy and determine whether each individual component is safe? I know that the answer is no. You don't think to do so because you assume that the product is safe. Why do you assume that it's safe?

[Chris]

Actually, you can sue the government. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act there is a limited right to sue in federal court against a federal government agency for negligence or personal injury claims.

Those limitations are rather meager: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act

[Dr. Who]

I see. So we are paying two million bureaucrats because fewer people are harmed today? How would that be any different if private, for-profit companies and individuals did the testing and reporting?
Because there would be conflict of interest and because for low-cost items it would increase the price which would lead marginal market entries to skip that step. Secondarily, if you had thousands of labs doing safeties on products, people would be unable to keep track of those entities. A hit and run operator could put any name on a product as warrantying safety and people wouldn't know the difference.

[Safety]

Other than having two million federal bureaucrats paid by taxpayers there is no real reason to have all of them, is there? People are still harmed.

There's no reason to have a missile defense or body armor, ships still get hit and soldiers still die from bullets, amirite?

We can play these silly games all night.

[Chris]

LOL. That real estate info came from a long-term real estate agent. You'd be surprised at what actually happens vs what you might expect.

When it comes to products, no one sues when products simply fail without causing a fire or injury unless it's something really expensive. People also don't sue when products simply don't work. How many items in the vitamin and supplements industry are nothing more than dextrose with marginal amount of the element that they are selling? Yes, on higher ticket items you are going to have far more safety issues addressed (not all - look at the Samsung battery issue), but on low ticket items it's the wild west. Every year thousands of products are blocked from sale in America because they are deemed unsafe because they contain ingredients that are banned for safety reasons. Some imports simply don't get through customs. Domestically produced products also fail to pass muster. People are generally unaware of just how often they are being protected from unsafe goods.


A single real estate agent? I wasn't talking testing for products not working but doing harm.

What's ironic here is that in the case of pharmaceuticals the very testing companies you distrust are used by companies approved by the FDA whom you do trust.

[Chris]

You're speaking greek to people that want to live how the wild west used to be.

I would suggest you educate yourself and read Terry L. Anderson's The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier.

[Safety]

Those limitations are rather meager: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act

Changing the goalposts, eh?


You profit by providing value to others.

That is not the case with the government.

You need to think bigger that just a product developer and a quality tester. Stores like Walmart and Walgreens would also need to trust testing results. Insurance companies would as well. Anyone who has stake in the game and something to lose being sued.

You can't sue the government.


We produced pharmaceutical products, we farmed out testing to meet FDA requirements.


Actually, you can sue the government. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act there is a limited right to sue in federal court against a federal government agency for negligence or personal injury claims.

[Safety]

I would suggest you educate yourself and read Terry L. Anderson's The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier.

No thanks, I'll stick to my current educational status, if I want to dumb down to your level, I'm sure there's a PragerU video I can watch.

[Chris]

Changing the goalposts, eh?

Those limitations are rather meager: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act

I suggest you educate yourself on those limitations.

[Mister D]

I would suggest you educate yourself and read Terry L. Anderson's The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier.

History is almost an esoteric pursuit these days.

[Dr. Who]

Have toddlers ever been burned under the government's watchful eye?
Yes, before the government clamped down on clothing imported from China. Now the flammable stuff is banned. The government is reactive, but at least once they identify a problem, they prevent future incidents.

[alexa]

I'll add metaphors to the list.

[Chris]

History is almost an esoteric pursuit these days.

I doubt he'll take up the suggestion. His thing is winning superficial points in an argument, like whether you can sue the government.

[alexa]

Those grapes are probably sour.

[Safety]

Those limitations are rather meager: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act

I suggest you educate yourself on those limitations.

Do you understand the difference between not being able to do something, and being able to do something but it may not be the payday you want? Find a PragerU video if you can't follow along.

[Chris]

Do you understand the difference between not being able to do something, and being able to do something but it may not be the payday you want? Find a PragerU video if you can't follow along.

Go get infracted for trolling again or something productive like that. You have nothing to contribute here but cat calls from the upper decks.

[Safety]

I doubt he'll take up the suggestion. His thing is winning superficial points in an argument, like whether you can sue the government.

And you are passive-aggressively trying to save face, like you had a leg to stand on from the start. You made a claim without so much as the first modicum of knowledge on the subject, like you always do.

[Safety]

Go get infracted for trolling again or something productive like that. You have nothing to contribute here but cat calls from the upper decks.

I take my infraction with pride, because anyone looking back on that thread will see that I was not doing anything different than those who were trolling me. It is more of the same, but unlike some, I don't let partisanship affect my behavior.

[Chris]

And you are passive-aggressively trying to save face, like you had a leg to stand on from the start. You made a claim without so much as the first modicum of knowledge on the subject, like you always do.

My response admitted my slight mistake.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/72324-Member-Infractions?p=2517024#post2517024

[Chris]

I take my infraction with pride, because anyone looking back on that thread will see that I was not doing anything different than those who were trolling me. It is more of the same, but unlike some, I don't let partisanship affect my behavior.

Pride? http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/72324-Member-Infractions?p=2517024#post2517024

[alexa]

My response admitted my slight mistake.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/72324-Member-Infractions?p=2517024#post2517024

No, your response was a pathetic attempt to move the goalposts.

[Mister D]

And you are passive-aggressively trying to save face, like you had a leg to stand on from the start. You made a claim without so much as the first modicum of knowledge on the subject, like you always do.

Spent the last 24 hours trying to save face after taking an edited video at face value. Lol

[Chris]

No, your response was a pathetic attempt to move the goalposts.

I said you couldn't sue the government. Who said you could. I accepted that but pointed out it's very limited. Try to keep up instead of just finding stupid remarks to troll with.

[alexa]

I said you couldn't sue the government. Who said you could. I accepted that but pointed out it's very limited. Try to keep up instead of just finding stupid remarks to troll with.
If you said that you couldn't sue and you can, that's not a slight error, that's being flat out wrong.

Can't help yourself with the ad homs still, huh?

Sad,

[Dr. Who]

A single real estate agent? I wasn't talking testing for products not working but doing harm.

What's ironic here is that in the case of pharmaceuticals the very testing companies you distrust are used by companies approved by the FDA whom you do trust.
Those agencies receive government oversight as well as partial funding, the rest of the funding is paid for by industry user fees. It's not perfect, but better than industry only oversight.

[Safety]

My response admitted my slight mistake.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/72324-Member-Infractions?p=2517024#post2517024

LoL @ "slight" mistake, and your sad attempt to malign me for getting an infraction. Do you have to take a shower after being so petty?

[Chris]

LoL @ "slight" mistake.

Good night, you who is proud of trolling.

[Dr. Who]

I said you couldn't sue the government. Who said you could. I accepted that but pointed out it's very limited. Try to keep up instead of just finding stupid remarks to troll with.
You can't sue the Federal Government for policy decisions, you can sue for the negligence of individuals.

[Chris]

Those agencies receive government oversight as well as partial funding, the rest of the funding is paid for by industry user fees. It's not perfect, but better than industry only oversight.

According to the FDA the pharma companies pay for testing.

Sorry, but you have not demonstrated government oversight works better.

[Chris]

You can't sue the Federal Government for policy decisions, you can sue for the negligence of individuals.

Limited: "Under the FTCA, "[t]he United States [is] liable . . . in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but [is not] liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages." 28 U.S.C. § 2674. Federal courts have jurisdiction over such claims, but apply the law of the State "where the act or omission occurred." 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). Thus, both federal and State law may impose limitations on liability. The FTCA exempts, among other things, claims based upon the performance, or failure to perform a "discretionary function or duty."[1] The FTCA also exempts a number of intentional torts.[2]"

See also, since I was responding to Trish specifically about the FDA, Can I Sue the FDA for Approving Defective Drugs (https://www.lawyerlocator.com/mass-tort/suing-the-fda-for-approving-defective-drugs)


Under a legal concept known as "sovereign immunity" you cannot sue the FDA for approving a drug that is later proven to be defective and dangerous.

Sovereign immunity says:


Federal, state and tribal governments, as well as foreign governments, are immune from lawsuits.
However, a government may be sued if it has waived its immunity or agreed to the lawsuit.


The federal government-which would include the FDA-has waived its immunity in two limited circumstances:


Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the government can be sued if a person acting on behalf of the U.S. government commits a tort, or a civil wrong, and
Under the Tucker Act, the U.S. government can be sued if it is party to a contract and the lawsuit relates to the contract


You might be thinking to yourself, "An FDA employee did something wrong by approving Yaz or pelvic mesh or Pradaxa or another defective drug," so I should be allowed to sue the agency under the Federal Torts Claims Act." However, there are a number of exceptions written into the Act, and one of them bars lawsuits against the FDA in conjunction with its responsibilities for licensing and approving drugs and vaccines. As a result, you cannot sue the FDA for approving a defective drug.

[Safety]

Spent the last 24 hours trying to save face after taking an edited video at face value. Lol

Wait, what changed after the long video was released? It just proves that the mocking kid blocked the path to the Lincoln memorial like it was originally said. Were you expecting something different?

[alexa]

Limited: "Under the FTCA, "[t]he United States [is] liable . . . in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but [is not] liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages." 28 U.S.C. § 2674. Federal courts have jurisdiction over such claims, but apply the law of the State "where the act or omission occurred." 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). Thus, both federal and State law may impose limitations on liability. The FTCA exempts, among other things, claims based upon the performance, or failure to perform a "discretionary function or duty."[1] The FTCA also exempts a number of intentional torts.[2]"

See also, since I was responding to Trish specifically about the FDA, Can I Sue the FDA for Approving Defective Drugs (https://www.lawyerlocator.com/mass-tort/suing-the-fda-for-approving-defective-drugs)

Sad

[Safety]

Good night, you who is proud of trolling.

Bye, maybe you can sleep off the virtue signaling you have been doing here. Probably not. Seriously doubt it.

[Dr. Who]

Has any harm occurred under the government's risky schemes?

If the government hadn't made up nonsense rules would anyone care?
As far as I'm concerned the government's most risky schemes have involved riding shotgun for all manner of private US industry and involving themselves in manipulating governments around the world for their benefit. Those chickens are all coming home to roost. It has certainly harmed other nations, but America has not escaped unscathed - all of those security agencies monitoring people's privacy and the semi-rape that occurs at airports are the early signs of harm in America. Even thinking that a $70B wall is necessary is part of that karma.

You have the wrong end of the stick - it wasn't the government that made up the need, it was the people who demanded protection from unsafe and toxic products and prevailed upon their representatives for change.

[Dr. Who]

According to the FDA the pharma companies pay for testing.

Sorry, but you have not demonstrated government oversight works better.
The FDA also pays for the testing - the cost is shared.

[Dr. Who]

I see. So we are paying two million bureaucrats because fewer people are harmed today? How would that be any different if private, for-profit companies and individuals did the testing and reporting?
As I have stated repeatedly - conflict of interest.

[Dr. Who]

Limited: "Under the FTCA, "[t]he United States [is] liable . . . in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but [is not] liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages." 28 U.S.C. § 2674. Federal courts have jurisdiction over such claims, but apply the law of the State "where the act or omission occurred." 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). Thus, both federal and State law may impose limitations on liability. The FTCA exempts, among other things, claims based upon the performance, or failure to perform a "discretionary function or duty."[1] The FTCA also exempts a number of intentional torts.[2]"

See also, since I was responding to Trish specifically about the FDA, Can I Sue the FDA for Approving Defective Drugs (https://www.lawyerlocator.com/mass-tort/suing-the-fda-for-approving-defective-drugs)
You could sue a federal employee (and thus the government) if said employee took money from a Pharmaceutical company in order to approve a drug that shouldn't have been approved. FDA testing agencies do not do 20 years of testing, so they cannot uncover issues that stem from long-term use. You could sue a federal employee for negligently overlooking an obvious and well-known side-effect of some ingredient in the medication like birth defects or heart failure in certain demographics and thus approve the drug without restrictions.


"Under the FTCA, intentional torts include assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, and interference with contractual rights. If a person has been injured by any of the intentional torts listed above, he cannot file a personal injury action against the federal government under the FTCA." http://www.bassilaw.com/news/personal-injury/federal-tort-claims-act-intentional-torts-exception/

[MisterVeritis]

Do you disassemble every product you buy and determine whether each individual component is safe? I know that the answer is no. You don't think to do so because you assume that the product is safe. Why do you assume that it's safe?
Why would I? I do read product reviews and technical papers.

If I started a company to evaluate some narrow range of products I would do as good a job as some nameless GS5 government bureaucrat. Why? Because unlike the government toadies I would operate with a profit motive.

[MisterVeritis]

As I have stated repeatedly - conflict of interest.
You err. I do not believe your error can be fixed.

[MisterVeritis]

As far as I'm concerned the government's most risky schemes have involved riding shotgun for all manner of private US industry and involving themselves in manipulating governments around the world for their benefit. Those chickens are all coming home to roost. It has certainly harmed other nations, but America has not escaped unscathed - all of those security agencies monitoring people's privacy and the semi-rape that occurs at airports are the early signs of harm in America. Even thinking that a $70B wall is necessary is part of that karma.

You have the wrong end of the stick - it wasn't the government that made up the need, it was the people who demanded protection from unsafe and toxic products and prevailed upon their representatives for change.
It is almost always the government that causes the problems.

[Peter1469]

Doesn't do you much good if you use them before they get caught, does it?

Under our current system there is little to no government over site of supplements. These private companies are filling a useful purpose.

[Chris]

You could sue a federal employee (and thus the government) if said employee took money from a Pharmaceutical company in order to approve a drug that shouldn't have been approved. FDA testing agencies do not do 20 years of testing, so they cannot uncover issues that stem from long-term use. You could sue a federal employee for negligently overlooking an obvious and well-known side-effect of some ingredient in the medication like birth defects or heart failure in certain demographics and thus approve the drug without restrictions.


"Under the FTCA, intentional torts include assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, and interference with contractual rights. If a person has been injured by any of the intentional torts listed above, he cannot file a personal injury action against the federal government under the FTCA." http://www.bassilaw.com/news/personal-injury/federal-tort-claims-act-intentional-torts-exception/


Yes, but that is extremely limited, limited to intentional acts, not negligence.


Also, one aspect of this you don't consider is who hears the case when the government is sued in these limited cases: Why non other than the government itself. Speak of conflict of interest!

[Chris]

The FDA also pays for the testing - the cost is shared.

From the FDA @ https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/SpecialFeatures/ucm279676.htm#2


Q: Does FDA test drugs?

A: No. It is the responsibility of the company seeking approval to market a drug to conduct laboratory and animal tests on the safety and effectiveness of a proposed new drug and then to submit that information to FDA for review by CDER physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, and other scientist.

[Peter1469]

Yes, but that is extremely limited, limited to intentional acts, not negligence.


Also, one aspect of this you don't consider is who hears the case when the government is sued in these limited cases: Why non other than the government itself. Speak of conflict of interest!
The government is sovereign- they have no legal obligation to waive their immunity at all. Yet, they have decided to do so in limited areas.

Federal judges have no problem ruling against the government if the facts and law support it.

[Chris]

The government is sovereign- they have no legal obligation to waive their immunity at all. Yet, they have decided to do so in limited areas.

Federal judges have no problem ruling against the government if the facts and law support it.

Ideally but I question that it's any more trustworthy than the private sector. Just arguing possibilities against Who's possibilities.

[alexa]

Under our current system there is little to no government over site of supplements. These private companies are filling a useful purpose.
I was speaking of the concept in general, not specifically about supplements.

[Captdon]

Wait, what changed after the long video was released? It just proves that the mocking kid blocked the path to the Lincoln memorial like it was originally said. Were you expecting something different?

It showed a dumbass coming over and taunting these kids. You blind as well as incoherent?

[Captdon]

It still comes down to these people looking for other jobs. That would be the smart thing to do. Why, putting government employee ought to get hired right away.