To clarify, I mean that as soon as someone spends a million to prove efficacy of an herb, it falls under the FDA's DRUG category with much more onerous requirements. If sales are good now, why would they want to spend a few million for the 'privilege' of tripling their paperwork and quadrupling their production costs?
Given the recent deadly approved drugs, we can say that the FDA's regulation hasn't been effective. That doesn't mean it wasn't expensive enough.
I never claimed it was the FDA's job to prove efficacy of herbs.
I had to wonder about that as well. It's like they wanted to make sure the worst case played out. Even if they couldn't get the robot to remove the bomb, surely disrupting it would have been a better choice.
You left out the multi-million dollar study following FDA guidelines that the first seller would have to pay for knowing that the subsequent sellers will get to skip. They might well all want to sell it but nobody wants to go first.
If you want to believe that chemicals are somehow weaker in effect if they happen to be produced by plant biology, it's no skin off my nose.
No, I am arguing that people have their beliefs and regardless of whether I share them or not, they have a legal expectation of getting what they have paid for. If they want to pay someone to do a rain dance (that is, a dance that was traditionally believed to bring rain), they should expect a rain dance, not some guy randomly wiggling his ass.
If it works or not is another matter that could easily verge close to asking the courts to decide whose religious belief is correct. I'm sure you can see the pitfalls in that path.
The herbals are regulated too. That's what TFA is about. The bottles didn't contain what they said they do.
To look at the most famous case of a problem with herbal drugs, ephedra, the bottles did have instructions and they were ignored. Had those same people ignored the instructions on Tylenol to the same degree they would have been dead in a week (two at most) from liver failure. The few ephedra deaths were after months of extreme abuse.
I use ephedra when I get the flu. The difference is that I use a small fraction of that dose and only for a week. In combination with comfrey and dandelion, it alleviates the joint pain and the generally 'sick' feeling.
In general, it's a bad idea to ignore the directions on any medication.
No. It is a homeopathic preparation. Made in the standard way. If you look closely, the bottle makes no claims to do anything at all. If you happen to believe it will do something, fine. If not, then I can't imagine why you would buy it. Either way, works or not, it's on the buyer.
OTOH, the fake herbal supplements do not contain what they claim to. Even if the herb works (and yes, some do), that particular one won't because it contains someone's old houseplants instead. It moves the blame for failure to the fraudulent manufacturer.
Some people don't believe vaccines do anything. One of them might claim "what's the harm if that mmr vial only contains sterile water, it makes no practical difference. But I'll bet you would be plenty pissed off to discover you didn't get what you paid for, because you believe that if you had, you would have been immunized.
The pharmaceutical companies want nothing to do with it because they can't patent it and if they overcharge, people will grow it in their garden for next to nothing.
Funny you should mention milk thistle. Purified extracts of milk thistle are about the only thing that can save you from a liver transplant after some mushroom poisonings.
As for benefits in healthy non-poisoned people, that is more questionable.
Perversely, if they manage to prove effectiveness they then fall under the FDA. Given that the FDA manages to simultaneously drive up costs and fails to provide safety, they want nothing to do with that.
So until the FDA is reformed to stay on-mission and avoid extreme costs for no benefit, they will continue to stay far away from spending money to prove effectiveness.
Even with the regulations, several major brands that are considered (perhaps undeservedly) reputable were selling fakes. Imagine if there were no regulations.
Which is why your argument that bonuses would make a hiring manager do the right thing falls apart. That would be an internal process and so it won't happen.
OTOH, you vaccinating your kid leaves him vulnerable to chicken pox right about the age where serious complications become more likely and where a followup vaccine is much more risky. You also increase the chances of older adults getting shingles.
It's unfortunate that the government mandate can't be depended upon to stay within the bounds of science. I can agree that polio and mmr are important. But then they started pushing chicken pox.
Now we hear constant screeching about the flu shot even after it proves ineffective. I wonder how long until it becomes a demand.
Get up to date. Recent actual studies have shown that the link between saturated fat intake and blood levels is tenuous at best. Doubling saturated fat intake caused no change, for example.
In addition, fat triggers satiety. If you have adequate fat in your meal you will eat less and feel fully satisfied.
You are thinking of the studies that showed that the blood levels were correlated with those health problems. But we now know that blood level is not directly related to intake.
When it comes to nutrition, I'd say Grandma. Grandma's advice actually seems to work. People from her generation didn't blow up like a balloon or get diabetes at nearly the rate people do today.
Normally, I would say science but I see no evidence of Science being practiced in the area of health and nutrition. If it's not there, it's not an option.
Slashdot Mirror
To clarify, I mean that as soon as someone spends a million to prove efficacy of an herb, it falls under the FDA's DRUG category with much more onerous requirements. If sales are good now, why would they want to spend a few million for the 'privilege' of tripling their paperwork and quadrupling their production costs?
Given the recent deadly approved drugs, we can say that the FDA's regulation hasn't been effective. That doesn't mean it wasn't expensive enough.
I never claimed it was the FDA's job to prove efficacy of herbs.
I believe the current penalty is to pummel the CEO with stacks of circulated $100s.
I had to wonder about that as well. It's like they wanted to make sure the worst case played out. Even if they couldn't get the robot to remove the bomb, surely disrupting it would have been a better choice.
You left out the multi-million dollar study following FDA guidelines that the first seller would have to pay for knowing that the subsequent sellers will get to skip. They might well all want to sell it but nobody wants to go first.
If you want to believe that chemicals are somehow weaker in effect if they happen to be produced by plant biology, it's no skin off my nose.
No, I am arguing that people have their beliefs and regardless of whether I share them or not, they have a legal expectation of getting what they have paid for. If they want to pay someone to do a rain dance (that is, a dance that was traditionally believed to bring rain), they should expect a rain dance, not some guy randomly wiggling his ass.
If it works or not is another matter that could easily verge close to asking the courts to decide whose religious belief is correct. I'm sure you can see the pitfalls in that path.
The herbals are regulated too. That's what TFA is about. The bottles didn't contain what they said they do.
To look at the most famous case of a problem with herbal drugs, ephedra, the bottles did have instructions and they were ignored. Had those same people ignored the instructions on Tylenol to the same degree they would have been dead in a week (two at most) from liver failure. The few ephedra deaths were after months of extreme abuse.
I use ephedra when I get the flu. The difference is that I use a small fraction of that dose and only for a week. In combination with comfrey and dandelion, it alleviates the joint pain and the generally 'sick' feeling.
In general, it's a bad idea to ignore the directions on any medication.
No. It is a homeopathic preparation. Made in the standard way. If you look closely, the bottle makes no claims to do anything at all. If you happen to believe it will do something, fine. If not, then I can't imagine why you would buy it. Either way, works or not, it's on the buyer.
OTOH, the fake herbal supplements do not contain what they claim to. Even if the herb works (and yes, some do), that particular one won't because it contains someone's old houseplants instead. It moves the blame for failure to the fraudulent manufacturer.
Some people don't believe vaccines do anything. One of them might claim "what's the harm if that mmr vial only contains sterile water, it makes no practical difference. But I'll bet you would be plenty pissed off to discover you didn't get what you paid for, because you believe that if you had, you would have been immunized.
A real terrorist would hide the bomb in any of the billions and billions of McDonald's bags littering the streets.
I notice those never get picked up or blown up for safety.
The pharmaceutical companies want nothing to do with it because they can't patent it and if they overcharge, people will grow it in their garden for next to nothing.
One is what it claims to be and the other is not.
That has been called into question.
The DEA considers powerful stimulants to be narcotics, so I would take anything they say with a pound of salt.
Most of them disclaim any effect somewhere on the bottle, so they're OK by point 2 as well.
There is no 3 regarding honest belief on the part of buyer or seller.
Funny you should mention milk thistle. Purified extracts of milk thistle are about the only thing that can save you from a liver transplant after some mushroom poisonings.
As for benefits in healthy non-poisoned people, that is more questionable.
Perversely, if they manage to prove effectiveness they then fall under the FDA. Given that the FDA manages to simultaneously drive up costs and fails to provide safety, they want nothing to do with that.
So until the FDA is reformed to stay on-mission and avoid extreme costs for no benefit, they will continue to stay far away from spending money to prove effectiveness.
To be fair, conventional OTC drugs are also dangerous if not taken properly and you don't need a practitioner to get them.
Some herbal drugs have a low therapeutic value and high risk. Many have a low (or practically non-existent) risk and proven value.
Even with the regulations, several major brands that are considered (perhaps undeservedly) reputable were selling fakes. Imagine if there were no regulations.
I believe that was OP's point.
Which means it is not actually a bonus for anything other than (tax) accounting reasons.
Which is why your argument that bonuses would make a hiring manager do the right thing falls apart. That would be an internal process and so it won't happen.
OTOH, you vaccinating your kid leaves him vulnerable to chicken pox right about the age where serious complications become more likely and where a followup vaccine is much more risky. You also increase the chances of older adults getting shingles.
It's unfortunate that the government mandate can't be depended upon to stay within the bounds of science. I can agree that polio and mmr are important. But then they started pushing chicken pox.
Now we hear constant screeching about the flu shot even after it proves ineffective. I wonder how long until it becomes a demand.
By the time any of us knew our grandmas, the depression was decades in the past. Dietary habits remained, but going hungry was a bad memory.
Get up to date. Recent actual studies have shown that the link between saturated fat intake and blood levels is tenuous at best. Doubling saturated fat intake caused no change, for example.
In addition, fat triggers satiety. If you have adequate fat in your meal you will eat less and feel fully satisfied.
You are thinking of the studies that showed that the blood levels were correlated with those health problems. But we now know that blood level is not directly related to intake.
When it comes to nutrition, I'd say Grandma. Grandma's advice actually seems to work. People from her generation didn't blow up like a balloon or get diabetes at nearly the rate people do today.
Normally, I would say science but I see no evidence of Science being practiced in the area of health and nutrition. If it's not there, it's not an option.
There are some reasonable changes that should be made. I simply advocate a reasonable and balanced approach based in logic rather than fear.