You’ve “patiently taught me” that you’re completely unwilling to read the answers to your questions – you’re evading the responses.

You have called everyone kook’s because they don’t agree with your level of deregulation.

Do you continue to slime Ron Paul because he disagrees with you?

You still want to evade this issue.

Regulation can be as simple as asking the manufacturer to put a label on the product to indicate it isn’t safe for infants, or requiring that only pharmacists distribute the product, or outright banning if it’s dangerous.

Herbal teas can range from a variety of benign infusions to some seriously dangerous products – you can’t blithely dismiss the regulation of something just because it’s “tea”. To dismiss the regulation of a wide variety of potentially toxic items because it’s “tea” is simple minded, to demand that all “tea” be de-regulated (or removed from food and drug regulation on issues of safety and toxicity) is kookville central.

Even simple things can be toxic like peanuts. The level of regulation needs to be commensurate with the risk. For example, there are kids at our local school who have peanut allergies and the school politely asked parents in the community not to send their children to school with peanut butter sandwiches. That level of cooperation is possible on a small level of a few hundred parents.

However, at the national level the dynamics change dramatically. You and I can’t just ring up the owner of a factory and ask them whether their production line switches between shifts from peanut products to other things. In this case, our equivalent of the FDA requires that the products are marked with this possibility (may be traces of nuts).

This information costs the manufacturer very little, informs customers that the product may well be toxic, saves us money in medical costs and occasionally saves a life.

In short, it keeps us safe from nuts.

Do you think Aussie Authorities are koos seeing they regulate anywhere near enough to US standards?

You can purchase serious stuff over the counter like Nitro tabs to help people with Angina.

You’re still avoiding the issue. I have patiently taught you that the US med/FDA/ Drug/herbal tea process is very regulated.
You believe it should be highly regulated, obviously more so than here.

Do you therefore consider anyone who doesn’t think herbal teas need FDA authorization are kooks?

I would not trust a wealthy doctor who said he did a lot of work for free. He would have had half the Houston ghetto lining up to see him if it were true. He is all about increasing the cost of health care in a system whereby poor immigrant families get nothing and children die young.

Many of todays powerful drugs are derived from plants from Asia and South America which were and still are presented in tea format. Drugs that will knock you out or alter your heart rate.
Some of the new painkillers being developed from shellfish poison for example have side effects like heart attacks.
The range of medicines and health products available in US is staggering.

It is worth testing new drugs but not for 10 years, not on animals, and not on humans. Human tissue can be grown using genetics which is effective for testing cellular and chromosomal changes and averting disaster.

After thalidomide, the US government decided that a drug manufacturer should prove the safety and efficacy of their compounds. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. Yes, the cited herbal tea example is extreme, yes I think these things should be regulated.

Read it again.

The US FDA rejection of thalidomide was not a happy accident – the applying company did not fulfill the filing requirements and the researcher rejected the application multiple times.

Regulation works.

thanks for your comment.

1. You presented Thalidomide as a great example of knee deep government regulation helping avert disaster. See here.

“JC you entirely missed the point of raising thalidomide as a legitimate example of the FDA process being effective. ”

————
2. And I responded with a prefectly reasonable comment

” You missed the point that despite that drug going through the hoops at the time it still caused damage. So I fail to see hat your sacred FDA did to prevent the damage to kids.”

——–

3 And then you finally decided to do some research on the the drug and made this comment:

JC, thalidomide was rejected by the FDA in the US (not because their process uncovered it’s side effects, but the inertia involved in the approval process). The effects in Europe occurred during the period where it was awaiting approval. So children were harmed, but not where the FDA had jurisdiction. Google is your friend.

———————

4. and then both Jeremy and I picked you up on the point that completely went over your head. see here:

“It’s no credit to the FDA that the effects of Thalidomide weren’t felt in the US because somebody sat on the file. It’s a happy accident: a bit like avoiding a train accident because having an argument with your kids delayed your departure for work.”
——————–

The final result being that you call me a troll. Look, i don’t mind you calling me everything under the sun, but you’re relying on the point that FDA slowness in approving this drug was a good thing because it saved kids from being disfigured.

This is like saying you want to continue driving down the cliff because you were saved the first time round. I’m speechless that you think regulatory ineptude in this case trumps all. The slowness was a fluke, not a designed business strategy.

Let’s go through this again shall we?

The FDA regulates too much in the US, even allergy pills and pain killers that could , like here, just as easily be sold over the counter.

The FDA controls the sale of vitamins C for instance.

This is one of the reasons US medicine is so expensive. I know becasue I lived with it for 16 years and couldn’t believe they even regulate such thing like Telfast.

Ron Paul wants ease this regulatory burden lifted because I think most reasonable people don’t see a need for overseeing the sale of Citrus lollipops (Vitamin. C etc).

—-

Finally Ron Paul simply wants to remove regulkation out of the medical system, be it haelth foods, holistic medicine or cancer drugs.

he wants to impede the market much less so than it is now. I’m sure that if the drug market looks like ours in terms of what is over the counter and what isn’t would make him a happpier man.

I really think you’re awfully confused.