Ah yes....Ayn Rand.....who never failed to cash her Social Security check....and suffered from severe bipolar disorder....a real deep thinker
Ah yes....Ayn Rand.....who never failed to cash her Social Security check....and suffered from severe bipolar disorder....a real deep thinker
Ayk wrote:
non random troll wrote:You assume people will spend money (they might not have) to make the best decisions.
So when you fly you'll get on unregulated airlines?
Allow unlicensed surgeons to operate on you?
Feed untested food products to your child?
This world is about as realistic as the one found in GTA5
I don't assume--I KNOW based on the facts of human nature and the historical fact that when men have been free, they have been rational. I would most certainly fly on an unregulated airline and allow and unlicensed surgeon to treat me. Regulation and licensure do not add any safety to those endeavors--there is no assurance that the government's requirements to operate aircraft and perform surgery are rational, no assurance that the bureaucrats enforcing the regulations have a clue how to build a plane or train a doctor, no assurance that they are even honest men and free from conflicts of interest. Regulation only creates a dangerous illusion of safety based on false assumptions about what government is. The big government types want the government to be a scientific oracle and incorruptible source of knowledge, truth, and justice. It is none of those things. Government is nothing more than a monopoly of the use of physical force, and nothing about having the means to shoot and incarcerate people means you know anything about how to evaluate medicines. As Ayn Rand said, "a gun is not an argument."
Complete nonsense.
I actually build aircraft.
Some lesser companies would definitely make them far less safe than what is required by the FAA.
The NTSB helps form those regulations which you think only paper pushers make for some idiotic reason. That is how we learn from accidents and avoid repeating them.
It seems that you have no idea of how many regulatory groups work.
So was child labor a rational result of men being free? Unsafe cars? Pollution? Lead paint? Leaded gasoline? This list could go on for a long time Ayk. And good luck with that unregulated airline.
"-I KNOW based on the facts of human nature and the historical fact that when men have been free, they have been rational."
Where does this come from? Fact? WTF are you on?
non random troll wrote:
"-I KNOW based on the facts of human nature and the historical fact that when men have been free, they have been rational."
Where does this come from? Fact? WTF are you on?
See Africa.
There is the argument that many Countries around the world banned DDT for mosquitoes because of leftists.
Now, it seems that people couldn't care less that millions, I mean Millions, over decades have died of Malaria.
They don't even have a chance to survive, even with a different health issue that could be improved upon by manipulating chemistry.
Don't even get "holier than commie".
Do you ever think about Malaria victims?
Big Fat, No!
You are too busy planning your Paleo Diet.
Been there before wrote:
non random troll wrote:"-I KNOW based on the facts of human nature and the historical fact that when men have been free, they have been rational."
Where does this come from? Fact? WTF are you on?
See Africa.
Somalia - where the absence of government and institutions has resulted in amazing advances in human progress.
Who wants their food and drugs tested for "safety"? People should have the freedom to be guinea pigs; let the market decide what medicine works and what food is safe to eat! Besides, it's not like there are corporations that would knowingly screw their customers over for profit. That would be mean!
non random troll wrote:
Ah yes....Ayn Rand.....who never failed to cash her Social Security check....and suffered from severe bipolar disorder....a real deep thinker
Another worthless ad hominem. That's as smart as anything that any liberal has ever said.
Zen bro wrote:
Right wing nut jobs, does it matter to you that science is hard, and you just can't understand it?
+1 someone in my family is an MD who has done extensive work on regulatory safety with the fda and what the OP and other right-wingers here are saying is complete bullshit
Congratulations on being so mixed up in the head!!!
10/10 not worth going any further
Note that the OP offered no support for the claims laid out.
Ideas_some_better_thanothers wrote:
There is the argument that many Countries around the world banned DDT for mosquitoes because of leftists.
Now, it seems that people couldn't care less that millions, I mean Millions, over decades have died of Malaria.
They don't even have a chance to survive, even with a different health issue that could be improved upon by manipulating chemistry.
Don't even get "holier than commie".
Do you ever think about Malaria victims?
Big Fat, No!
You are too busy planning your Paleo Diet.
Wrong! Right about DDT, but wrong that in the light of new scientific evidence "liberals" don't think about malaria victims. Where do you come up with such nonsense? Limbaugh?
I Rupp'ed up (in the butt) wrote:
+1 someone in my family is an MD who has done extensive work on regulatory safety with the fda and what the OP and other right-wingers here are saying is complete bullshit
What happens when two people who both have doctors in their families have a difference of opinion on the FDA? Whose opinion prevails?
Libertarian Billiance wrote:
Who wants their food and drugs tested for "safety"? People should have the freedom to be guinea pigs; let the market decide what medicine works and what food is safe to eat! Besides, it's not like there are corporations that would knowingly screw their customers over for profit. That would be mean!
People who want to live should have the freedom not to be guinea pigs assigned to the placebo group of an FDA clinical trial.
Health freedom wrote:
Many critical, life-saving drugs that would be able to get FDA approval based on their scientific merits are never even submitted for approval because the cost of regulatory compliance is so onerous that they could not be sold profitably after getting approved, as a result of which there is no investor interest in their development. People die every of this. Does this matter to you, or do you just evade reality and pretend that it isn't true?
OK, we're listening. Care to make an argument and provide some evidence to prove your point?
pullman wrote:
Libertarian Billiance wrote:Who wants their food and drugs tested for "safety"? People should have the freedom to be guinea pigs; let the market decide what medicine works and what food is safe to eat! Besides, it's not like there are corporations that would knowingly screw their customers over for profit. That would be mean!
People who want to live should have the freedom not to be guinea pigs assigned to the placebo group of an FDA clinical trial.
How do we know that this drug works unless there is a double blind trial?
And more to the point, people in cancer trials are not given placebos. You have zero understanding of the institutions and procedures on which you are railing.
Health freedom wrote:
Many critical, life-saving drugs that would be able to get FDA approval based on their scientific merits are never even submitted for approval because the cost of regulatory compliance is so onerous that they could not be sold profitably after getting approved, as a result of which there is no investor interest in their development. People die every of this. Does this matter to you, or do you just evade reality and pretend that it isn't true?
tell me about all those years you spent in a lab developing new drugs. oh right, you didn't.
you are here to blame the left, whatever that means in your twisted brain. there is more in this world than left and right. but ignorant folks like you can't see past it. IGNORANT.
cornh0lio wrote:
People who want to live should have the freedom not to be guinea pigs assigned to the placebo group of an FDA clinical trial.
How do we know that this drug works unless there is a double blind trial?
And more to the point, people in cancer trials are not given placebos. You have zero understanding of the institutions and procedures on which you are railing.[/quote]
One need not have certainty that a drug works to justify trying it. If the proprietors have a legitimate reason to believe that it may work and are honest about the unknowns, it is ethical for them to dispense it. There are types and degrees of evidence other than the double blind trial that can provide legitmate leads; the double blind trial is neither the gold standard nor even a rational choice of a study design in every case.
Epstein wrote:
cornh0lio wrote:People who want to live should have the freedom not to be guinea pigs assigned to the placebo group of an FDA clinical trial.
How do we know that this drug works unless there is a double blind trial?
And more to the point, people in cancer trials are not given placebos. You have zero understanding of the institutions and procedures on which you are railing.
One need not have certainty that a drug works to justify trying it. If the proprietors have a legitimate reason to believe that it may work and are honest about the unknowns, it is ethical for them to dispense it. There are types and degrees of evidence other than the double blind trial that can provide legitmate leads; the double blind trial is neither the gold standard nor even a rational choice of a study design in every case.[/quote]
You don't know what you are talking about
Microbiology Phd wrote:
You don't know what you are talking about
Yes, I do. I'm an expert. Go away.