Amish farmer thrown in jail by FDA for not having "approved" medicine

Yabuturtle wrote: Here's a list of drugs recalled by the FDA. Some stayed on the market longer than others. I know some will say "lolz this site is fakez" or something like that. Then it's best to look for it yourself then. Which makes me wonder, why do people ask for evidence when they end up rejecting it anyway because it doesn't fit with their perception of reality? The FDA is corrupt, apathetic and completely disregards the harmful side effects as long as they make money off of it. Of course that's also part of the plan too. You can't make money off of cured patients, can you?

https://consumerjusticegroup.com/fda-drug-recalls/recalltimeline/
https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005528

So you're saying we need to get rid of the agency responsible for recalling the harmful drugs because they allowed the harmful drugs to be sold in the first place?

Without the FDA, the drugs would've been sold in the first place anyway and never recalled. Pharmaceutical companies would still abuse the public and people would be poisoned with little to no recourse. Tobacco companies are proof of what happens when there is insufficient regulation and corruption. Trusting them to regulate themselves because the government is a big bad wolf is not the answer.

People will take your arguments seriously when they are not circular and contradicting themselves. Offer a more consistent and efficient solution than the current FDA to regulate pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. and I'll consider it. Otherwise you're just bitching because a guy who breaks the law repeatedly finally got what was coming to him.

Senan wrote:

Yabuturtle wrote: Here's a list of drugs recalled by the FDA. Some stayed on the market longer than others. I know some will say "lolz this site is fakez" or something like that. Then it's best to look for it yourself then. Which makes me wonder, why do people ask for evidence when they end up rejecting it anyway because it doesn't fit with their perception of reality? The FDA is corrupt, apathetic and completely disregards the harmful side effects as long as they make money off of it. Of course that's also part of the plan too. You can't make money off of cured patients, can you?

https://consumerjusticegroup.com/fda-drug-recalls/recalltimeline/
https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005528

So you're saying we need to get rid of the agency responsible for recalling the harmful drugs because they allowed the harmful drugs to be sold in the first place?

Without the FDA, the drugs would've been sold in the first place anyway and never recalled. Pharmaceutical companies would still abuse the public and people would be poisoned with little to no recourse. Tobacco companies are proof of what happens when there is insufficient regulation and corruption. Trusting them to regulate themselves because the government is a big bad wolf is not the answer.

People will take your arguments seriously when they are not circular and contradicting themselves. Offer a more consistent and efficient solution than the current FDA to regulate pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. and I'll consider it. Otherwise you're just bitching because a guy who breaks the law repeatedly finally got what was coming to him.

Thanks for the added insults by the way. And you have the nerve to call yourself a "Jedi". Please...

We don't need big pharma or the FDA. What are you talking about? How long have we lived without those agents? We don't need the government telling us what we can eat, and which medicine is good for us. When you have a government that does that, you're entering into 1984/Brave New World territory.

They were FDA approved. Lots of those drugs, recalled or not, were approved by the FDA. Being approved doesn't mean anything. Doesn't mean it's safer or more dangerous, it just means they gave the ok to let it out. Of course when the side effects start getting more common, they end up recalling it. But nobody looks at the people who approved it, do they? Maybe if these drugs were actually tested instead of shoved out in the market, we wouldn't have so many sick people. More people die from legal drugs than they do illegal drugs, but they don't tell you that either, do they? It's called "research" and "experience". Something you should look up.

A guy, who wasn't hurting anyone to begin with, did not deserve something like this.

Does anyone seriously think this is ok? People honestly believe throwing this guy behind bars is justified because he didn't cow-tow to their demands? Demands made by people who don't follow the rules themselves? You have a clue on what Big Pharma has done? You have any idea?

Maybe I'll be more likely to listen to you when you stop acting like a jerk.

Yabuturtle wrote: Well it's obvious that when they are caught, they need to recall or they end up looking bad...

Well yes, if the risks are some that haven't been known about, then to not recall a drug after discovering them would be bad to their reputation. But the people don't elect the FDA, so what ever public reputation damages they suffer are at best relevant to the government that put the agency in power. And yet, even with all of that "damage control", I'm not sure that their reputation has ever been very stellar, so if that's their purpose, they must be pretty bad at it and yet nobody thought to maybe hire some marketing experts to help with that for some reason, almost as if reputation wasn't what it's about.

The people got killed or sick, and they still made their money for the most part. Even if they get sued, it doesn't even take a fraction of their profits.

Yea, and what exactly is stopping them from just covering up those bad cases, calling them conspiracy nuts and keep the drug on the market and making even more of that delicious dough?

It's easier to digest the thought that your government would never betray you.

Yes, a very simplistic view indeed, childish, almost. Could you name somebody here who holds it?

Because no government in history has ever betrayed it's own people right? Just as the soviets, Nazis, north Koreans ect.

I don't know much of the history of North Korea, but I wouldn't characterise the rise and fall of either the Soviet or the Nazi regime as a betrayal of any of the peoples involved. FYI, I'd take either of those three over anarchy any day of the week, too.


Look, I'll save you some time. Nobody is actually arguing that the system is either perfect or working as intended. If all you are saying is that it's not, you are preaching to the choir. But from that it is imperfect it does not follow that therefore we should abolish it altogether and not replace it with anything. If that is your position, your argument so far doesn't actually help you establish it.

Yabuturtle wrote: Thanks for the added insults by the way. And you have the nerve to call yourself a "Jedi". Please...

I don't. Where did Senan insult you?

We don't need big pharma or the FDA. What are you talking about? How long have we lived without those agents? We don't need the government telling us what we can eat, and which medicine is good for us. When you have a government that does that, you're entering into 1984/Brave New World territory.

I agree that we don't need it. I'm just saying we are better off with it and I already explained why.

They were FDA approved. Lots of those drugs, recalled or not, were approved by the FDA. Being approved doesn't mean anything. Doesn't mean it's safer or more dangerous, it just means they gave the ok to let it out.

Citation, please. You are making the claim that there are no tests a drug has to pass in order to be approved. That an approval "doesn't mean anything". Evidence, please.

Of course when the side effects start getting more common, they end up recalling it.

That almost sounds as if there are standards they either want or have to uphold... But you just said that their approval doesn't mean anything... But the recalling does?

But nobody looks at the people who approved it, do they?

The FDA wasn't just some club of Joes from the street who decided to play legal busy body. It's a federal agency. I don't know how much oversight they are now subject to, but I think you'd have a hard time demonstrating that it's none.

Maybe if these drugs were actually tested instead of shoved out in the market, we wouldn't have so many sick people.

You are saying that FDA approved drugs are not tested with clinical trials. Prove it.

More people die from legal drugs than they do illegal drugs, but they don't tell you that either, do they?

Well yes, that's because illegal drugs are harder to manufacture since that whole process needs to be underground. So there's fewer of them. There's also a much smaller market for them for the same reason. More people die from falling off a ladder in their home than from explosives brought onto a passenger plane, because more people climb ladders at home than get on board a plane with someone who had explosives on them. I'd ask you to back up that claim with statistics, but now that I think of it, I'll trust you on your word with it. What's your point? "Let's allow people to carry bombs onto planes, the free market will sort it out"?

A guy, who wasn't hurting anyone to begin with, did not deserve something like this.

Again, what's your background in consumer law? Who are you to make that determination in place of a judge who's job and lifetime's training it was to make it?

Does anyone seriously think this is ok? People honestly believe throwing this guy behind bars is justified because he didn't cow-tow to their demands?

Yes, the professional tasked with analyzing what to do thought that was the right course of action. Someone who was either elected to represent your interests or who was appointed by someone you elected to do so.

Demands made by people who don't follow the rules themselves?

Irrelevant. First of all, quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. Secondly, the court was not tasked with deciding who did more or the greater evils, it was tasked with determining whether that man was guilty of the charges alleged and what an appropriate punishment is according to the laws applicable tot he case.

You have a clue on what Big Pharma has done? You have any idea?

I don't. Do you?

Maybe I'll be more likely to listen to you when you stop acting like a jerk.

It's funny how you start off by accusing someone of insulting you, then complain about someone being punished for rules some unrelated other party didn't follow, and then proceed to actually insult someone yourself. But at any rate, likely or not is unimportant. Most of the criticism I wrote in this post I had raised before and so far it stood unaddressed. It doesn't matter how you are being treated, if a criticism is inconvenient to you, you will happily ignore it no matter how gently it is put...

Yabuturtle wrote: Thanks for the added insults by the way. And you have the nerve to call yourself a "Jedi". Please...

No insult intended, just observations. Show me why you take offense and I'll apologize.

Yabuturtle wrote: We don't need big pharma or the FDA. What are you talking about? How long have we lived without those agents? We don't need the government telling us what we can eat, and which medicine is good for us. When you have a government that does that, you're entering into 1984/Brave New World territory.

First, I've read both, and you're reaching. The FDA isn't running human breeding factories. Anyway, we may not need the FDA. We may not need pharmaceutical companies either, but we are participating in a capitalist free market. The same one that the Amish guy was trying to benefit from without following the rules we demand pharmaceutical companies follow. You can't have it both ways. If he can make money peddling his medicine, so can Pfizer, so long as the put the required labels on their products.

Yabuturtle wrote: They were FDA approved. Lots of those drugs, recalled or not, were approved by the FDA. Being approved doesn't mean anything. Doesn't mean it's safer or more dangerous, it just means they gave the ok to let it out. Of course when the side effects start getting more common, they end up recalling it. But nobody looks at the people who approved it, do they? Maybe if these drugs were actually tested instead of shoved out in the market, we wouldn't have so many sick people. More people die from legal drugs than they do illegal drugs, but they don't tell you that either, do they? It's called "research" and "experience". Something you should look up.

These drugs are tested. I'm currently in a clinical trial for a new immunotherapy drug to treat colon cancer. I don't have to look it up. I'm living it. I'm being a willing test subject and taking risks with my own health so that the FDA can determine if this drug will do more good than harm for people who are dying of cancer. This is real research and I'm experiencing it first hand, something I assume you have no experience with yourself.

You might also want to look up the thirty years of research into HIV and AIDS medications closely monitored and tested by the FDA that has turned an epidemic of a disease ending with a death sentence into a treatable condition that can be prevented. https://www.fda.gov/ForPatients/Illness/HIVAIDS/

And I shouldn't have to look up your point for you anyway. That's not how debates work.

Yabuturtle wrote: A guy, who wasn't hurting anyone to begin with, did not deserve something like this.

He deserved exactly what the law dictates, and he got it.

Yabuturtle wrote: Does anyone seriously think this is ok? People honestly believe throwing this guy behind bars is justified because he didn't cow-tow to their demands? Demands made by people who don't follow the rules themselves? You have a clue on what Big Pharma has done? You have any idea?

I believe it is justified because he was warned and continued to break the law. The demands were from law enforcement who we pay to enforce the law, and the demands were not unreasonable. They were what the law requires. Don't like it? Lobby to change the law, don't break it and the complain about the punishment.

And yes, I do know what "Big Pharma" does. I spend $10,000 every two weeks on chemo drugs that poison me because my other option is death. The markup is rediculous and my medical bills will bankrupt me eventually, but instead of breaking the law, I write my Congressperson and ask her to write or support legislation that will change this situation and I vote for candidates who support this view. That's what law abiding citizens do.

I also read the warning labels and get a great idea of what side effects to expect from these drugs. I'm glad these labels are required by the FDA. Otherwise the sudden intense tingling in my fingertips followed by no feeling at all would've been quite alarming. At least the documentation warned me this would happen and also that it isn't permanent. I bet they learned that during research and testing.

Yabuturtle wrote: Maybe I'll be more likely to listen to you when you stop acting like a jerk.

I'm sorry you think I'm a jerk, but that is your opinion. It's an opinion not usually shared by those important to me, so I'll try not to let it bother me.

The FDA is how people like my mother know what meds they can and cannot take together, which when they're taking probably 15-20 meds a day, is life essential to avoid interactions that could possibly kill them. The FDA is also how people like myself are able to say "I'm allergic to [xyz]" and medical practitioners and pharmacists are required to look at my record and go "Oh, we need to give you something else, other than this." The FDA does so many things as a whole.

Yes, there is greed. It pisses me off that the FDA allows companies to charge a gazillion times production cost for people to obtain life saving medications, and that the insurance companies sit by and do nothing about it because that'll allow them to raise premiums and continue to line their pockets. But that's a symptom of a far larger systemic problem with the American healthcare system.

But does Joe Schmoe out in Bumfracknowhere, Virginia getting in trouble for telling people "here, smoking this dandelion leaf will prevent you from ever getting [xyz] disease!" upset me? No. It doesn't. And yes, I know that's a generalized oversimplification of what happened but. . .When I look for medicines OTC at the grocery store, I trust that they've been thoroughly vetted and have medical research backing them up to say that they treat what I'm trying to treat. Allowing every Joe Schmoe out there to sell their stuff without any research or regulation would completely undermine all that research and allow the pharmaceutical industry to be flooded with fake knock offs that will end up getting people killed. No, the FDA isn't perfect. But they are necessary.

No it isn't necessary. How do I know? Because we did find without it rather than depending on some monolithic group to tell us what we can and can't take. We didn't need it before and we don't need it now. Are there going to be knock offs? Sure, but there are some now, with the FDA's existence. You don't need someone tell you what to take and not to take. You enter into dangerous territory when you let Big Brother watch over you like that.

Has anyone seen anyone cured by drugs? I haven't. I've seen someone treated but not cured. There ARE lots of actual cures out there, but of course you can't make money off of cured patients. The FDA has this attitude that it has to be a drug in order to help you and everything else that isn't approved is not suitable. That's their mentality.

As society become more organized it allowed science and industry to generate more useful outcomes in the field of healthcare. These have to be regulated in some manner if not just to allow their effective use.

That said, I have met more then one doctor who chose treatments which would alleviate symptoms over taking an approach which might address the root problem. Specialists working with chronic conditions especially might be susceptible to the economic advantage in having more clients, then doing themselves out of business. But I'd bet its the minority and limited to certain diseases which are less understood, which means initially treating the symptoms would be the right course of action anyway, initially - just they don't have the time or interest to go the next level and try to explore other solutions. Which begs the question what tools would they use to explore, how would they know, how would they inform the client etc - without regulation to give them something to work with.

Yabuturtle wrote: No it isn't necessary. How do I know? Because we did find without it rather than depending on some monolithic group to tell us what we can and can't take. We didn't need it before and we don't need it now. Are there going to be knock offs? Sure, but there are some now, with the FDA's existence. You don't need someone tell you what to take and not to take. You enter into dangerous territory when you let Big Brother watch over you like that.

Has anyone seen anyone cured by drugs? I haven't. I've seen someone treated but not cured. There ARE lots of actual cures out there, but of course you can't make money off of cured patients. The FDA has this attitude that it has to be a drug in order to help you and everything else that isn't approved is not suitable. That's their mentality.

FDA stands for FOOD and Drug Administration. They also regulate the food we eat and how it is produced. They are the largest proponents of healthy diet and food education. That "Four Food Groups" thing you might have heard of? The good ol' FDA brought that to our attention. People used to die all the time from contamination and food born bacteria. They don't as much anymore. Any guesses why? We didn't do "fine without it" before. We died sooner and from a lot more causes. Now we know better. It's why we don't see cocaine in Coca-Cola anymore.

By the way, have you seen anyone with Polio lately? Small Pox? The Plague? I think scientific research and drugs can cure and prevent diseases. A lot more people have been saved by vaccines than Amish salves. Just sayin'.

Yabuturtle wrote: No it isn't necessary. How do I know? Because we did find without it rather than depending on some monolithic group to tell us what we can and can't take. We didn't need it before and we don't need it now. Are there going to be knock offs? Sure, but there are some now, with the FDA's existence. You don't need someone tell you what to take and not to take. You enter into dangerous territory when you let Big Brother watch over you like that.

Sure, we don't need it. It doesn't follow that we therefore shouldn't have it. We don't need agriculture either, we are just better off with it than as hunter-gatherers, but we can technically survive both. Technically we don't even need to poop, but we will die sooner if we don't and it will be a miserable life until then. Same with regulation. We don't need it, but anarchy is not a viable alternative.

Has anyone seen anyone cured by drugs?

I have. Not of cancer, of course, and not of limb loss, but of plenty another thing. I'm sure there are people who survived small pox without drugs, and those who died despite them, but I'll let it be your guess what the numbers will bear out if we looked them up.

I haven't. I've seen someone treated but not cured. There ARE lots of actual cures out there, but of course you can't make money off of cured patients.

Wait, but how do you know that those magic cures you speak of exist? Did you run them through clinical tests?

The FDA has this attitude that it has to be a drug in order to help you and everything else that isn't approved is not suitable. That's their mentality.

Citation, please. You made this claim probably well over half a dozen times now, and we are yet to see any evidence of it. It's almost as if you ignore any pleas for or challenges to it and just keep repeating yourself. I understand that this is how you are used to discuss things, but while preaching may work out there on the streets, it doesn't work if you are dealing with an audience of thinkers on a forum for discussions. Your claims don't get more believable the more outlandish they are, you are just taking on greater and greater burdens of proof and that never flips over to work in your favour.