Slashdot Mirror

This picticular problem might have something to do with other factors. It might even be totally unrealted with cellphones. It might even prove that slashdot needs to find something to post other a load of BS for publicity. At any rate I didn't want to copy and paste a serveral pages of info so I posted a few links on RF control and SAR mesurement. This is all FDA and FCC stuff. Cellphones do techniclly ability to cause cancer but put out MUCH less RF than say your pc monitor that your glued to. Its soo small in fact I can't in remeber the RF emmited per KG.

RF Safe limits and effects: http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html#3/
FDC Cnotrol act on devices: http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdcact5c.htm /

This picticular problem might have something to do with other factors. It might even be totally unrealted with cellphones. It might even prove that slashdot needs to find something to post other a load of BS for publicity. At any rate I didn't want to copy and paste a serveral pages of info so I posted a few links on RF control and SAR mesurement. This is all FDA and FCC stuff. Cellphones do techniclly ability to cause cancer but put out MUCH less RF than say your pc monitor that your glued to. Its soo small in fact I can't in remeber the RF emmited per KG.

RF Safe limits and effects: http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html#3/
FDC Cnotrol act on devices: http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdcact5c.htm /

Breast implants

The FDA pulled silicone implants to study them in detail. The claims of killing people were thoroughly debunked. Silicone breast implants that leak need to be removed, but about the worst thing that happens after a leak is having little lumps of silicone under the skin that move around.

This is psychologically disturbing in the extreme. Naturally, women who had this happen and then got sick for other reasons blamed the leak.

Saline breast implants are a genuine health risk if something grows in them because they aren't properly sterilized, but this is true of any surgical implant. Surgery isn't a walk in the park.

Silicone is essentially a neutral substance for biological processes. It just doesn't do anything. Silicon, like the casing on an RFID chip, is *completely* neutral. We've been putting things made out of glass in people for decades.

In an unusual circumstance, like a shattering blow to the area where the chip is implanted, the chip might break or be forced through the deep fascia, causing injury. Any such blow would cause far more serious damage anyway. The chip wouldn't be a major factor.

The radiation involved is lower than environmental levels were before humans evolved. No problem there.

The point I'm making here is that for both breast implants and these chips, the risks of the implants are no greater than the risks of surgery in general. You could have your arm cut open and stitched closed, with nothing else done, and you'd have about the same rate of dangerous complications. That's the best you can hope for with any surgical procedure.

Fuel efficiency is actually calculated by a formula set forth by the EPA. Read this for a bit of enlightenment. It's not the car companies doing much deceiving there. Horsepower, that's often stated as engine horsepower (bhp), rather than whp, or the horsepower after losses of going through the rest of the drivetrain after the engine. And not reading serving sizes... there's something being done about misleading serving sizes.
What a lot of it boils down to is that the consumer doesn't do the work required to actually compare things (you know, capitalism), and then bitches when it doesn't do what s/he expects.

That'll be illegal soon:

http://www.fda.gov/loseweight/
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/speeches/califo besity.htm

The last one sticks a terrorism angle into the obesity debate.

Anything argument can be "strengthened" by a "connection" to terrorism.

Now if I could only make a case that problems with my cell service causing dropped calls helps terrorism, maybe I can get that problem fixed once and for all. :)

They're illegal because they can interfere with pacemakers
Like microwave ovens.
or car ignitions
or lots of other equipment that have the potential.

Don't be such a jerk. How does one learn without asking questions? Did it dawn on you that the poster might not even live on the same continent as you?

http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/510khome.html

Unfortunately, there are people in any field that will tell you whatever it takes to get your money. It is true that a small percent suffer permanent eye damage or blindness. Lasik is still a skill-based procedure. Finding the right doctor is crucial.

If you are concerned about this, I recommend this site:
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/lasik/

As with everything, a healthy bit of skepticism should be employed with any "too good to be true" offer.

"If you don't settle your statistical methods before starting to analyze the data, then it ain't science."

You misunderstand the nature of Bayesian statistics. The data and the initial prior determine the analysis, the analysis generates a prediction, which becomes the new prior. It not only tests hypotheses but generates new hypotheses. You can construct an accurate Bayesian model from nearly any initial prior given sufficient data.

Actually, I don't know anything about Bayesian statistics. However, from TFA:

Dr Griffiths and Dr Tenenbaum conducted their experiment by giving individual nuggets of information to each of the participants in their study (of which they had, in an ironically frequentist way of doing things, a total of 350), and asking them to draw a general conclusion.

The Scientific Method requires that the hypothesis makes the predictions before they are tested. This is an essential requirement regardless the actual statistical methods used. For example, consider that an arbitrary amount of completely random data of just 6 variables is likely to yield at least one "statistically significant" correlation for the determined data-miner to write his paper about.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with what the authors did (except maybe being in the popular press before publication) it's just not the kind of thing that the FDA would let you go to market with.

In most situations communications would improve the estimates.

I dunno, I'd guess any kind of "consensusing" would destroy this magic distribution-detecting ability. Anecdotally, the one time I was on a jury this one young male juror worked hard to score the phone number of a young female juror, who's ex was a cop, etc..

Funny, I have known several people that simply washed out of the military because no matter how hard they were on them, they simply could not drop to the required weight.

I feel sorry for all the poor saps that think "nothing worth achieving is ever easy". I have found that there a many things in life that are both worth while, AND easy. Your comment is pure dogma.

"Participants were asked questions about how they achieved their weight loss, and the researchers who maintain the NWCR found that: 89 percent changed their diets and increased physical activity (10 percent used diet modification only and one percent used activity only)."

And what percent of those people attempted to loose weight in by what methods. If only 2 percent of the people interviewed tried to use diet modification alone, then it would show that exercise had very little to do with weight loss. Then add on top of that the fact that high sugar diets are what have been in vogue for the last few decades, it is amazing that the numbers are even as high as they are.

http://www.fda.gov/diabetes/food.html Shows the food pyramid that recommends a diet of primarily sugar. Don't think the base of the pyramid isn't sugar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate

Let's take a quick look at thimerosal.

Thimerosal is in contact lens solution. How much thimerosal goes down the drain compared to how much goes into your arm when you get stuck with a needle? I know that the link is desired to go to the pharmacutical companies - after all, if there was a link, then they could get sued for billions.

If thimerosal causes autism, then the source would more likely be waste water contaminated with contact lens solution - not vaccines. The mercury would get into the food chain via fish, and from there into chicken, cows, or directly into kids. If the assholes growing food don't give a shit about BSE, then do you think they give a shit about mercury contamination? The FDA lets them put rat shit into canned chili. Seriously. Think about what you're putting in your body.

The "Amish don't get vaccines so they don't get Autism" link is flawed. A correlation is not a cause e.g. 98% of cancer patients wear shoes. The amish also churn their own butter. Maybe margarine causes autism. Maybe it's sitting too close to a CPU power supply. Maybe it's watching too much TV or letting your brain get bombarded with em radiation. Maybe it's that they kill all the kids who are "touched" and say they died in a barn-raising accident.

Check out this study based on Denmark outlawing thimerosal from vaccines. There was no repeat NO decrease in the rate of Autism.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cach e:jal0zB4l-8MJ:www.pkids.org/PEDSarticle.pdf+

That doesn't mean that thimerosal isn't a link - just that the link with vaccines is weak and is probably discountable. The FDA has concluded that the amount of mercury consumed in an average diet is about the same as the mercury exposure from vaccines:
http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimfaq.htm

I'm a vegetarian. I don't eat any meats nor any products containing meat. They use sheep blood to make vaccines. I still get all my shots and so do (will) my kids. I'd be devastated if they developed autism, but I'd try to find the real reason, not just jump on the "it must be the vaccines!" bandwagon in the hopes that I could cash in on a lawsuit against a rich defendant.

The FDA seems to think otherwise.

It seems odd that investigators would be so lacadaisical about clinical data. I guess it is because they are independant from the big pharma companies. If a pharma outfit handled their manufacturing and QA testing data in this manner they'd be shut down in a hurry. These operations are heavily regulated in the US, Europe, and Japan - typically any time a number is copied from one place to another (by paper or by typing) somebody has to sign off that they double-checked the entry. I've heard the figure for transcription errors is on the order of 1 in 25 without careful checking.

There are numerous IT systems designed to automate this process - one person enters data, another person checks it and marks it as having been reviewed. An alternative system is double-data-entry - one person types the data, another person types the data again (without seeing what the first entry was), and the comptuter flags for review any entries which differ. Sure, it cuts down productivity, but we're talking about human life here.

Drug development costs a fortune. My feeling is that a BIG part of this cost is the payments to investigators to bring in test subjects - these guys are MDs, and they command hefty fees for their work. I'm not convinced they always give good value for their work in return. If you look at the FDA debarment list you'll find that many of the people listed are in fact investigators. (This is a list of people forbidden to work in any way with data that will be eventually submitted to the FDA or with pharmaceuticals in general.)

In 2004 according to the CDER there were 36 NDAs. Of course looking at the CDER calendar of approvals it looks like acutally there were 74 approvals for last year. Call me skeptical; but this article seems the like a poorly researched regurgitaged press release. Probably written by whoever is backing Prof. Poko's research.

In 2004 according to the CDER there were 36 NDAs. Of course looking at the CDER calendar of approvals it looks like acutally there were 74 approvals for last year. Call me skeptical; but this article seems the like a poorly researched regurgitaged press release. Probably written by whoever is backing Prof. Poko's research.

Sorry to be picky, but E. Histolytica is not a bacteria. It's a little critter (protozoa / animal). But you're right - washing hands after using the bathroom is a good idea because of this bug and several others you mention. Person with bug uses bathroom, touches stuff, you touch what they touched, you don't wash hands, you eat something, you get what they have. Interestingly, it has been shown though that overzealous handwashing can actually contribute to the spread of bugs. Presumably, it is due to damage to your skin and giving bugs little crevices where they can hide.

Starting with 20/20 vision as a teenager and seeing my vision degrade slowly to nearsightedness through my 20's I bought into a theory that staring at a fixed focal distance for extended periods somehow effects the muscles in the eyes. So when it came down to being unable to read street signs while driving unless I slowed to 15 MPH (at 37), I finally went to the optometrist.

There I was told a few things. First, my eye muscles were doing what they were supposed to do. Second, she told me people's eyes change over time. Various factors including diet, tear production and UV light (to name a few) contribute to macular degeneration. UV light is a especially a factor for me since I've lived in L.A. and the Southwest most of my life. I also have inadequate tear production so I have to use artificial tears once or twice a day. I also found out one of my lenses has a slight stigmatism which has become more pronounced as I have been aging.

My only advice: do not listen to a bunch of wannabe Optometrists/Opthamologists on /. Go spend the $50 on an eye exam. Consult a professional and follow their advice. Get a second or third opinion if you feel you need it. If you have glaucoma or cataracts, the exam will be absolutely priceless.

You can get some decent glasses at Costco for around $100 (depending on your prescription and options). Personally I go to the "good" optometrist with the modern gear and sidestep their sales pitch to sell me expensive glasses.

Here's some more info (which I did find by googling):

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2002/202_eyes.htm l

Perhaps you should look at the categories on the left. Unless maybe you have a good recipe for Roast Cell Phone with a side of Pacemaker?

The drug is absolutely fine for folks who aren't pregnant

Thalidomide is far from "absolutely fine". It can cause nerve damage and a whole other load of side effects. And it is definitely not fine for children. You're obviously not a doctor, so quit posting your (incorrect) medical opinions.

Yeah, like explain to us what all those wonderful chemicals in it are, tell us how awesome high fructose corn syrup is, and finally to remind us that when they say "0g TRANS FAT!!!" on the front, it ;) REALLY, truly, honestly ;) means ;) 0g ;).

Actualy there are drugs out ther that cost $1,400.00 a day! These are typically orphan drugs and are for the treatment of rare diseases. Imagine going to bed and asking yourself "was this a $1400.00 day?" every night for the rest of your life.

There are actually trade secret protections offered by the FDA*. Trade secrets are an IP protection. Trade secrets simply are the only IP protection that are granted not through government action but instead government inaction (trade secrets are recognized as some sort of right that cannot be infringed through law--hence my bringing up the FDA).

My comparison of copyright and trade secret was silly. So long as there's forced disclosure laws, those under said disclosure laws need some sort of legal exemption to prevent being forced to reveal their trade secrets. Coca-Cola's monopoly status (at least in other countries) and inflated price (relative to production cost) must not be due to trade secrets. It seemed a good example mostly because of the above listed properties, but clearly Coca-Cola must use another mechanism to retain its position.

*From the link: 'The law allows a manufacturer to ask FDA to grant "trade secret" status for a particular ingredient. FDA grants this status under vary limited circumstances and after careful review of the manufacturer's data. The manufacturer must prove that the ingredient imparts some unique property to a product and that the ingredient is not well-known in the industry. If trade secret status is granted, the ingredient does not have to be listed on the label, but the list must end with the phrase "and other ingredients."'

Here's a better link to amino-acid-deficient bacteria used for reversion mutation testing, as the standard test for safety of food additives. Again, this is an industry standard test, done thousands of times each day, and it relies on evolution being functional. Not theory, not proposed, but observable, repeatable, and proveable.

The most interesting thing about HIV tests is that they actually check for AIDS instead! The most common test, the one claimed to be false-positive proof, works by counting your white blood cells. If you have HIV but not AIDS (Yet?) it will read negative. If you are feeling under the weather due to job stress and the flu, it will read positive. If you have lukemia, positive. If you have been exposed to radiation, positive. If you are taking certain herbal anti-fungal agents that supress the immune system, positive. In other words, it is all but useless.

It does sound all but useless, which makes me wonder whether you got the facts right. I did a quick google, and found this link, showing effectiveness of different tests. None of these look like simple white cell counts. Doesn't say anything about which is the most common, but this page from the FDA would seem to have all the common ones - note the one that was withdrawn because it was unreliable. So where did you see this information about using white blood cells?

Biotech companies get special compensation by the U.S. government to develop treatments for so called "orphan" diseases. They get tax breaks and exclusive market rights if they develop drugs for these conditions, and as a result there are really quite a few advancements in the treatment of rare diseases when it normally wouldn't be monetarily feasible... but of course there are tons of different wierd conditions that people have. Here is a link for the FDA website discussing this: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/603_orphan.h tml

Actually, Tamiflu has also been found to reduce your chance of contracting the flu. This is why it is in such high demand right now.

as per the fda website

-----
Tamiflu is for treating adults, adolescents, and pediatric patients 1year of age and older with the flu whose flu symptoms started within the last day or two. Tamiflu is also used to reduce the chance of getting the flu in people age 13 and older who have a higher chance of getting the flu because they spend time with someone who has the flu. Tamiflu can also reduce the chance of getting the flu if there is a flu outbreak in the community.
-----

The ODA has been very successful - more than 200 drugs and biological products for rare diseases have been brought to market since 1983. In contrast, the decade prior to 1983 saw fewer than ten such products come to market. In addition, the OOPD administers the Orphan Products Grants Program which provides funding for clinical research in rare diseases.

The ODA has been very successful - more than 200 drugs and biological products for rare diseases have been brought to market since 1983. In contrast, the decade prior to 1983 saw fewer than ten such products come to market. In addition, the OOPD administers the Orphan Products Grants Program which provides funding for clinical research in rare diseases.

A cheap gadget like this will quickly be tested in every conceivable way by hungry graduate students at every University in existence like TLDs were.

An AC, unsatisfied or ignorant of TLD development and use, brays back:

Can you cite a case where this has actually happened before, or are just speaking out of your ass?

I work at a cancer treatment research center and get to see clinical trials of new machines every day. Those machines cost much more than this gadget and their availability is limited. I'm sure that people will be all over the cheap gadget to find out how good it is. Doctors and physicits will think of new uses, try them out and write papers about the results. The process does not have to cost tens of millions of dollars.

For example, when rogaine first aired commercials in the US, it advertised itself as 'rogaine with monoxodil' as some product to turn your life around, but instead of people asking where to sign up, everyone called to ask 'what the fuck is it?'

That's called a reminder ad. The Food and Drug Administration puts strict limits on what can be said in a commercial for a prescription medication. If you name a condition and a medication in an advertisement within the United States, you also have to name the medication's side effects, and until August 1997 when FDA regulations were clarified to suggest that the drug maker say for example "See our ad in Fitness magazine", you had to name so many that you couldn't fit them all in even a 60 second TV spot. Even now, you can't fit the required "major statement" of the most important risks of a drug into the 15-second format. Thus, 15-second drug commercials on TV are either of the "reminder" format or the "help-seeking" format, which involves naming a condition and specifying that you can learn more at a given web site, by calling a given telephone number to have a brochure mailed to your home, or by talking to your physician.

Breast implants aren't damaging. Their PRESENCE isn't damaging. Look it up, and you'll see that this claim

"Since they are unsafe"

ia a lie.

So, since you can't even get your facts straight, tell me again why anyone should take you seriously?

Product:
Silicone gel filled breast implants, for use in breast
augmentation, breast reconstruction, and correction
of congenital malformation:

(a) Optimam (polyurethane foam covered);
(b) Meme (polyurethane foam covered);
(c) Vogue (polyurethane foam covered);
(d) Replicon (polyurethane foam covered);
(e) Meme Moderate Profile (polyurethane foam covered);
(f) Natural Y (polyurethane foam covered);
(g) Custom Polyurethane Covered Implants;
(h) Standard Bilumen;
(i) Standard Gel;
(j) Standard Gel/Saline;
(k) Standard Adjustable Reconstructive;
(l) Standard Teardrop Gel (GB Snyder);
(m) Georgaide;
(n) Perras-Papillon;
(o) Special Fills SCL or Standard;
(p) Products larger than 600 cubic centimeters.

Recall #Z-1109/1124-1.

Code:
All lot numbers/control numbers and catalog numbers of
the above 14 models.

Manufacturer:
Surgitek Mec, Paso Robles, California and Surgitek
Mec, Racine, Wisconsin.

Recalled by:
Surgitek Mec, Paso Robles, California, by letter
dated July 9, 1991. Firm-initiated recall ongoing.

Distribution:
Nationwide and international.

Quantity:
Unknown.

Reason:
These silicone gel-filled breast prostheses (SGFBP) were
on the market after July 9, 1991, without a premarket
approval application (PMA), as required by the final rule
of April 10, 1991, pursuant to Section 515(b) of the FD&C
Act.

Dr. Lester Crawford, our FDA commissioner, is a veterinarian.

Check this out.

There are several major flaws in your analysis.

1) You confuse the intent of the program with the actual success and outcome of the program. Aggressive abstinence-based anti-AIDS campaigns may also increase AIDS awareness, causing couples to get tested, use condoms, etc.
2) You miss the fact that correlation does not imply causation: countries pushing condoms may be doing so *precisely because* their AIDS rates are high.
3) The 8% failure rate you quote (uncited??) sounds like a "per year per couple" statistic, and sounds suspiciously close to the failure to prevent PREGNANCY, not AIDS transmission. (It's generally harder to transmit AIDS than get pregnant) not a "per sexual encounter". And, at least against pregnancy, failure rates for condoms are highly dependent on education, proper handling, quality, and consistency of use. (Much like successful abstinence.)

The CDC claims "Epidemiologic studies that are conducted in real-life settings, where one partner is infected with HIV and the other partner is not, demonstrate conclusively that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection." (my emphasis). (This probably refers to a Western context.)

The FDA claims "A 1994 European study published in the New England Journal of Medicine looked at HIV transmission rates of heterosexual couples with one HIV-infected partner. The study compared the transmission rates for couples who used condoms consistently to those who didn't. Of the 123 couples who consistently used condoms, none of the HIV-free partners became infected during the study, whereas 12 of the 122 partners who didn't consistently use condoms became infected."

Condoms do not cause people to have more sex. The ability of an African woman to insist that her husband/male provider use a condom and have him concede to do so, however, greatly reduces the chance that he will transmit the AIDS virus he got from a prosititute to her and her newborn children.

Availability of condoms does not mean that condoms will be used.
People are careless with *and* without condoms. They are just protected more with condoms.
Encouraging abstinence does not mean that sex will cease.
People do not always behave as the government wants them to.
People sometimes do respond to education and information by changing their behavior.

I don't consider myself well-informed on this issue, but take a look at this FDA report.

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/bse-ra.html

"Because scientific evidence suggests that the presence and infectivity of abnormal prion proteins in vCJD share characteristics with abnormal prion proteins found in cattle with BSE, scientists have concluded that exposure to the BSE agent is the most plausible explanation for the occurrence of vCJD (Refs. 5 - 8). Monkeys (genetically the closest animal model to humans) inoculated with samples of brain from BSE-infected cattle have been found to develop a TSE that is histopathologically similar to vCJD (Ref. 9), as have mice inoculated or fed with BSE-infected tissue (Ref. 10)."

If putting Hg in the vaccines saves the manufacturers money, don't expect to see them stop the practice any time soon.

The FDA is trying to phase-out of Thimerosal. It is removed or reduced to trace amojunts for vaccines meant for kids under 6. Merck's MMR contains 0 Thimeosal

Research ahead of time.

Spammers are already promoting a product called "The Antidote" supposedly produced from crocodile blood. With these news I think it will get worse.

Here is the FDA's warning.

The worst thing about it is to realize that some desperate people are actually falling for this scam.

About the only thing it has going for it is that it's free (or at least a one-time cost for their beads, a calendar, whatever).

It's similarly effective to a lot of methods that you hear advocated widely, such as condoms and is allowed to devout Catholics. Also, women with certain health risks are advised against hormonal contraception.

If effectiveness, convenience and long-term costs are your only criteria, then sterilization might prove to be the best option. What? There are other considerations? OK, then...

In any case, I didn't want to get into a contraception debate, the link I provided called it 'effective' and I said it was 'very effective', you are free to quibble over what 'very' means here. I just wanted to point out the inaccuracy of the poster who said that the Catholic Church disallowed all contraception.

The FDA measures the radiation as a "Specific Absorption Rate", SAR = W/kg of body weight, averaged over the mass of a typical head. So if you have a large enough head, you can talk all you want.

When the corporate takeover of the government ends. The USPTO is acting in the interest of the technology industry, not the public. Same with the FDA. The FDA sees pharmaceutical companies as clients -- it doesn't even know it's supposed to be a regulatory agency. OSHA is basically asleep. Until public campaigns are financed by public dollars, the situation will only get worse.

I'm doing my cardiology clerkship for medical school right now, and I can say that although it does suck that this is being rejected, and yes - the US's FDA is notoriously stricter than other countries (certain great chemotherapy drugs are only available to europeans), sometimes this is a good thing. Famously, some years ago the FDA was a little reluctant about this miracle drug sweeping across europe. Turns out that this miracle drug ("Thalidomide")caused babies to be born without limbs. Yeah - sorta bad. So, it's like an innocent-until-proven-guilty system. Sure, we miss nabbing a lot of criminals, but, the tradeoff is that this system is ultimately made with the idea that it's very hard for an innocent person to be convicted.

I'm sorry to hear that your son's development has been set back by something. However, I doubt it has anything to do with thimerosal, seeing that the MMR vaccine used in the US, MMR II from Merck, has never contained thimerosal. Thimerosal was used in DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis), hepatitis B, and influenza vaccines.

Now let's see what happens when we secretly replace the word nanotechnology with eating fruit.

"The problem with eating fruit is that we don't really understand why much of it works, and we don't have any idea how the special properties it has will affect our bodies."

Um, yeah, except we've got, um, several years of observational data about what happens when people eat fruit. Not some much with the tiny synthetic molecules.

Nanotech is the "new" science. New does not immediately equal bad. It needs further research, yes, but most nanotech is just redefining what we already know. Take X and make it smaller. Observe.

Exactly. I don't think it's so crazy to request "good science first, mass-market consumer product after". This applies to gimmicky "supplements", to morning sickness drugs, to growth hormones for cows, and sure, to nanotech pants.

you're right, it's a scam; one that even works on animals, though. I'm so glad that there's nothing physics couldn't explain - and every inexplicable thing therefore cannot exist at all.

I read the Wired article and became hopeful. I wasn't as turned off by the market-ish site as other Slashdotters.

I followed up with an "oculus site:.gov" search and found that the FDA has classified Microcyn as a disinfectant.

And, the California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation lists the evaluation of Microcyn as follows,

209086 - (NO NUMBER ASSIGNED)
OCULUS INNOVATIVE SCIENCES, INC.
OCULUS MICROCYN DISINFECTANT (OMD)
USE: DISINFECTANT - FOR THE CONTROL OF VARIOUS ORGANISMS SUCH AS SALMONELLA TYPHI, ESCHERICHIA COLI, AND PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA ON TUBS, DESKS, AND APPLIANCES
TYPE: SECTION 3 REGISTRATION -
ACTIVE INGREDIENT(S):
HYPOCHLOROUS ACID
SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE
CAS NUMBER(S): 7790-92-3, 7681-52-9

Maybe some /. chemists can explain the good of those ingredients.

ghostlibrary writes "Even while NIH is getting new ethics regs, patientINFORM is being evangelized as a way for ordinary citizens to look up experimental treatment online, in essence circumventing their doctor, and the FDA long ago the tacitly approved this. /. debated Wikis in hospital. RSI fans track risky or untested procedures from the Typing Injury FAQ and Health-Hack covers IT-related self-help medicine. Laser-eye stuff is now mainstream and doesn't need a check beyond google. Any other sites out there for those willing to dictate their own medical course? Does this mean Internet users will become test subjects moreso than the usual college students and elderly?"

ghostlibrary writes "People who are interested in obtaining information about experimental treatments for health conditions can turn to a new web site called patientINFORM, which is being evangelized by a collective of publishers and medical groups. This site is controversial because it in effect allows patients to circumvent their doctors in the search for unconventional and unapproved therapies. While the FDA has tacitly approved this kind of information service in the past, the NIH is about to issue new regs covering the conflicts of interest this kind of service raises. This site joins other sites that disseminate information about risky or untested procedures, such as the Typing Injury FAQ, which covers RSI (repetitive strain injuries) or Health-Hack, which covers IT-related self-help medicine. Laser-eye stuff is now mainstream and doesn't need a check beyond google, and past Slashdot articles have even discussed the advisability of using wikis in hospitals.

Are there other sites out there for those willing to dictate their own medical course? Does this mean Internet users are joining the usual college students and elderly as experimental subjects for untested therapies?"

Not exactly "research."

--MarkusQ

Fish may have unsaturated fats, but the FDA recommends you eliminate a lot of commercially available fish from from your diet entirely because of toxic levels of mercury. This includes some of the most popular fish like tuna, swordfish, and grouper. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/admehg.html http://www.local10.com/health/4431814/detail.html

We still ARE using leeches in medical practice. http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/answers/2004/ANS0129 4.html/

Remember the Vioxx vote to keep it on the market? Affiliations between 10 of the scientists that served on the committee and the three manufacturers of Cox-2 inhibitors were discovered -- a violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which prohibits scientists with direct conflicts of interest from serving on panels offering advise to federal regulatory agencies. What does that mean? Pharmaceutical shills are all aboard the FDA panels and they vote with Big Pharam dollars. Another 17 scientists had other ties to drug manufacturers, though not the three with products under consideration at the meeting. According to a New York Times analysis of the votes, the advisory committee would have voted for taking Bextra and Vioxx off the market beacuse of its risks had the shill-scientists been excluded from the vote. Here is the CSPI analysis of the FDA Advisory Panel: CSPI found ten (10) physician-researchers a/k/a Big Pharma Shills with direct ties to Pfizer, Merck or Novartis (including G.D. Searle and Pharmacia, which are now part of Pfizer). They were: * Steven Abramson, M.D., Professor and Chairman, Division of Rheumatology, NYU School of Medicine, New York. Has an interest in Merck. (FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Congressional Hearing Transcripts, 7/20/99) Received speaker's honoraria or consulting fees from Pfizer, Amgen, Novartis, and Pharmacia. (http://www.freecme.com/gcourse_view.php?course_id =1824; accessed 2/22/05) Consultant for Searle, and a member of the Speakers Bureau for Pfizer. Received an unrestricted educational grant from Pharmacia. (http://www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf/news/2A3 45DDE45B8C851852569AE004B52DC; accessed 2/23/05) * Joan M. Bathon, M.D. Professor of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University. Received consultancies and/or honoraria from Centocor, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, totaling less than $10,000 per year. ( Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50:3432-43.) Received ad hoc consultant fees and support for this research from Immunex. (Arthritis Rheum. 2002 Jun;46(6):1443-50.) Received support for research on etanercept and methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis from Immunex, Inc. (N Engl J Med. 2000 Nov 30;343(22):1586-93.) Consultant for: National Advisory Board CTLA4-IG Project, Bristol Myers Squibb, 2000; International Advisory Board, Anti-TNF Project, Centocor, 2000; National Advisory Board, Anti-TNF Project, Knoll Pharmaceuticals, 2000; National Advisory Board, Anti-TNF Project, Immunex and Wyeth, 1998-99; National Advisory Board, Cox-2 Project, Searle, 1998-2000; Consultant, Bradykinin receptor antagonist project, Fournier Pharmaceuticals, 1996; Consultant, Anti-inflammatory initiative, Procter & Gamble. (http://www.fda.gov/cder/audiences/acspage/CVs/Bat hon,%20Joan%20M..pdf; accessed 2/23/05) * John J. Cush, M.D., Article on concomitant leflunomide therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite stable doses of methotrexate listed potential conflicts of interest due to consultancies, honoraria and grants received. (Ann Intern Med. 2002 Nov 5;137(9):726-33.) Consultant: Abbott, Amgen, Wyeth, Centocor, Pfizer, Regeneron; Disclosure: Current Investigator: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, Pfizer. (J Rheumatol. 2005 Feb;32(2):203-7.) ) Received grants from Abbott, Amgen/Weiss, Aventis, Centocor, IDEC/Genentech, Isis Pharmaceuticals. (http://www.fbhc.org/cme/abt04202/index.cfm; accessed 2/23/05) Dr. Cush is a member of The Cadeuceus Group, LLC. (http://www.fbhc.org/cme/abt04202/index.cfm; accessed 2/23/05) * Robert H. Dworkin, Ph.D., Professor of Mathematics/Statistics and Pu

After an exhaustive, 3-year study, a 16-member panel said there is 'no conclusive and consistent evidence' that ordinary exposure to EMF's causes cancer, neurobehavioral problems, or reproductive and developmental disorders."

And many sites allege a justified concern:

Some believe the electro-magnetic fields emitted by CRT monitors constitute a health danger to the functioning of living cells. Exposure to these fields is far lower at distances of 85cm or farther.

If there are many peer-reviewed studies of the health dangers of CRT usage, they are not easy to find.