Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Where Presidents Meddle With Your Television Set
Starting last night, thanks to Le Prez Nicolas "Bling Bling" Sarkozy, France's four (count 'em!) national public television stations are now prohibited from broadcasting commercials between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. Lest you think this is some kind of Hungaro-Gallic starve-the-beast ploy to get L'etat out of the TV biz, think again:
The government says the reforms will improve the quality of programming on public television by freeing it from "the tyranny of ratings" and it has pledged to make up for any shortfall in advertising revenues. [...]
The reform creates a funding gap for public TV which will largely be filled by a levy on private broadcasters and Internet providers and by government support.
The 2009 budget includes 450 million euros to compensate for the loss of revenue[.]
The usual protest strikes are scheduled, etc.
Note: French households currently pay 116 Euros a year (newly indexed to inflation) for the privilege of owning a television set. Also, as every French journalist is quick to tell you in conversation, Sarko is close personal friends with the heads of various private television honchos and other media owners, and has been cruder than his predecessor in using that influence to quash stories and reward allies; neither of which has ever proven particularly difficult in France. And, as part of the same law banning ads, the president will now have the direct ability (instead of merely the indirect ability) to hire and fire heads of state-owned media.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 11:05AM|#
Hey, I value my freedom to watch terrible mind-insulting
advertisements!
This is worse than when those pesky liberals took away my freedom
to buy food that will kill me, drugs that will make me sicker, and
enter into work contracts in which I'm treated in an inhumane
way!
Nigel Watt|1.6.09 @ 11:06AM|#
Yep, that's all this will be used for, MNG. The beneficent rulers know what is best.
.|1.6.09 @ 11:12AM|#
Sarkozy has also moved to ban blog-trolls. Internet accounts will be billed an additional 75 Euros annually to rid the web of the ubiquitous pests. Hell threatens to go on strike.
Xeones|1.6.09 @ 11:13AM|#
Yo, fuck Sarkozy. On the other hand, it is, as always, hard to feel bad for the French.
robc|1.6.09 @ 11:19AM|#
MNG,
Considering some studies have estimated (its tricky to figure out
real numbers) that the FDA has easily killed more people thru
delays than it has saved from keeping bad drugs off the market, I
do oppose not having the freedom to buy the drugs that will make me
sicker.
You also sound like the Drug Czar saying that.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 11:22AM|#
robc
You really believe that if there were no FDA, and anyone could sell
anything as anything to any sick and 'willing' person, that less
people would be die than a system in which medical products have to
pass a rigorous test before they can be bought and sold?
You don't need no study to see that's wacky crazy.
Let me ask you this: if alcohol were completely unregulated, anyone
could call anything whatever alcohol they want and anyone could buy
it, you really think less people would get sick from buying funky
alchohol?
Wowza.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 11:25AM|#
There's no shortage of people who would try to turn a quick buck
by selling something dubious at best.
And a ton of people who are stupid enough to buy it (have you been
to a 7-11 late at night or a Motor Vehicles Administration during
the day lately?).
|1.6.09 @ 11:26AM|#
This is just one of the many unintended consequenses of the Bush
Jr. years. Fiscal irresponsibility here keeps the Euro strong
against the Dollar.
That means Europeans think they matter, and that their wacky
economics will yield a superior culture, where nobody has to work,
get sick, or grow old, and the grass gets greener, air and water
get cleaner, and mother earth nestles them all in her ample
bosom.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 11:26AM|#
I mean, how quickly do cures that are not passing the FDA come
out?
Because I know how quickly people would be willing to sell dubious
stuff to sick people. Much more common.
Kunal|1.6.09 @ 11:27AM|#
MNG,
You're right, except alcohol (outside of the St. Bernard pass) does
not really save lives, so regulation of alcohol does not keep
potential life-saving material away from people.
robc|1.6.09 @ 11:28AM|#
MNG,
Companies dont like getting sued out of business.
A requirement of bonding and insurance to cover lawsuits would be
more than enough to prevent the drug companies from maliciously
releasing drugs on to the market.
But, the studies have been done, look them up. If you dont like
them, do a counter study and get it published too.
robc|1.6.09 @ 11:30AM|#
MNG,
Do you not realize how many people have died due to drug delays?
The numbers you are talking about are TINY compared to the number
of people who would have been saved if beta blockers hadnt been
delayed for 10 years.
Lurker|1.6.09 @ 11:32AM|#
"as part of the same law banning ads, the president will now
have the direct ability (instead of merely the indirect ability) to
hire and fire heads of state-owned media."
MNG are you really so liberal that you can not see the problem
here?
Abdul|1.6.09 @ 11:32AM|#
Has anyone here ever watched French TV? I haven't. But I know
Euro standards on nudity and sex tend to be lower (or as Urkobold
would say: "better") and prime-time TV in Italy is almost all
sexually oriented.
Is this the case in France? Is it all "Double Shot At Love" and no
"Touched By an Angel?"
EJM|1.6.09 @ 11:32AM|#
Still, they are much better off compared with the
Italians...
When I was reading the original post, I got the impression that
Sarkozy was actually taking some cues from Berlusconi.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 11:34AM|#
robc
Those studies are'nt in the Cato Journal of Ideas or the Von Mises
Institute of Austrian stuff are they? Because that kind of stuff
really doesn't count.
But like I said, this is one of the areas where ordinary common
sense is all that is needed.
Companies that don't like getting sued out of business get sued out
of business all the time. They do it to make a quick buck
sometimes. People are irrational like that quite a bit.
And besides, no FDA means you don't have to be some company with
R&D and such, Grandpa's Home Cancer Elixir and such could go
out on every street corner. And try suing every cheap con artist to
control con artistry. Blood and turnips.
This is like saying "companies would never cheat their customers
because they don't want to lose them." Of course cheating customers
never occurs, right? Or "companies will never break moral or legal
codes because the bad press and the lawsuits will blah blah." Of
course companies never break moral and legal codes, right?
C'mon robc.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 11:37AM|#
More like "Touched by two girls lapping tongues" Abdul.
Kunal
Ys, but the alcohol regulation does keep things from being sold as
non-healthy alcohol that is actually much more dangerous substance
x, y and z.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 11:39AM|#
Jim Bob and his home still of swill, what's to stop him from
selling his dangerous wares as 100% Safe and Yummy Liquor and Cough
Syrup and Cancer Reliever?
The threat of lawsuits? Insurance requirements?
You're killing me.
robc|1.6.09 @ 11:39AM|#
MNG,
The one I saw was peer reviewed.
Looking some stuff up, I havent found it yet, but some references
that I remember (the beta blocker one for example).
The regulatory delay of propranolol may have caused more deaths
than all deaths caused BY drugs in the 20th century.
It was only delayed 3 years. The FDA was criticized for clearing it
too quickly.
That is one drug. One. I get your point, but the fact is fraud drug
deaths are very, very small comparatively.
1000 individual cases of fraud causing 10 deaths each can easily
get swamped by one drug being delayed. People are very bad at
judging relative risk. I would have never believed this either
before reading the study a few years back.
Citizen Nothing|1.6.09 @ 11:41AM|#
Obviously there are lots of unscrupulous folks out there.
MNG appears to believe that there are fewer such folk in
government, or that they are somehow changed for the better by
getting their hands on government power.
But I could be wrong.
|1.6.09 @ 11:43AM|#
Companies dont like getting sued out of business.
Most naive statement ever.
Especially when one considers bankruptcy and limited liability and
the ability of many of these large companies to get the laws
changed to protect/limit them from liability.
robc|1.6.09 @ 11:43AM|#
You're killing me.
There is a drug that will prevent that, but it is still in trials.
Tough luck.
robc|1.6.09 @ 11:44AM|#
Tom,
Especially when one considers bankruptcy and limited liability
and the ability of many of these large companies to get the laws
changed to protect/limit them from liability.
They do that because they dont like getting sued out of business.
My statement stands, you just helped prove it.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 11:46AM|#
I mean "companies" are funded by people with limited liability
and run by folks with the same.
They go belly up from stupid decisions all the time. Regulations
are meant to keep some of those stupid decisions from killing
folks.
It's just human nature man.
|1.6.09 @ 11:46AM|#
I will also add that the FDA is a corrupt organization as well (consider how many former drug company execs become members) that is politically influenced (look at the Plan-B bullshit) and is just as corruptible ()
stuartl|1.6.09 @ 11:47AM|#
Jim Bob and his home still of swill, what's to stop him from
selling his dangerous wares as 100% Safe and Yummy Liquor and Cough
Syrup and Cancer Reliever?
MNG, have you ever been in a GNC store or the natural supplements
section of Whole Foods? I haven't heard of any crisis of people
dropping dead from fake medicines with pictures of plants and
flowers on them.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 11:49AM|#
Robc
Of course they don't LIKE being sued out of business, but I think
Tom's point was that the prospects of it are not always enough to
keep them from doing something stupid and harmful (even ultimately
to their own bottom line). Especially since even "rational self
interested" humans often seem to calculate very badly their
likelihood of getting busted or of horrible consequences in general
(the field of behavioral economics deals with this all the
time).
|1.6.09 @ 11:49AM|#
They do that because they dont like getting sued out of
business. My statement stands, you just helped prove it.
I agree that they don't like getting sued. But that wasn't your
point, was it robc?
Where we disagree is that you believe that because they don't like
being sued that will motivate them to be a good actor and to make a
safe product.
But that isn't true.
robc|1.6.09 @ 11:49AM|#
MNG,
Regulations are meant to keep some of those stupid decisions
from killing folks.
But when the regulation actually has the opposite effect?
Maybe time to change the regulation? Look, Im all in favor of
preventing fraud. That is why I suggested the insurance regulation.
If an insurer wont touch the drug, you cant release it. Heck,
insurers may require testing as strenuous as the FDA, but I doubt
it. As far as I know, the UL has a better reputation than the
FDA.
Citizen Nothing|1.6.09 @ 11:52AM|#
Hey! What we need are better regulations! Why hasn't anyone thought of that before?
robc|1.6.09 @ 11:52AM|#
Where we disagree is that you believe that because they
don't like being sued that will motivate them to be a good actor
and to make a safe product.
But that isn't true.
It would be (mostly) true if we also prevent them from influencing
government. If we are going to get rid of one corrupt government
org (the FDA), we cant let them run to another (congress) for
help.
There will always be bad actors. But they are dwarfed by the
problems the FDA causes the good actors.
robc|1.6.09 @ 11:54AM|#
CN,
I wasnt so much suggesting better regulations as much as a strict
liability standard. Whether that is a regulation or not, I wont
judge.
In a minarchy, regulations (however few) will exist. That is the
price anti-anarchists have to pay. It sucks, but Im realistic about
it.
Citizen Nothing|1.6.09 @ 11:58AM|#
robc,
I'd gladly support and work to achieve fewer, clearer regulations
in just about any area, although that probably would lose me my
Anarchist Society membership card.
Oh wait...
MNG|1.6.09 @ 12:09PM|#
Dietary supplements are still regulated by the FTC and the FDA, they just don't have to go through the same review process before hitting the market. And there is a definition as to what falls under this kind of stuff.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 12:14PM|#
Robc
"But when the regulation actually has the opposite effect?"
I agree with you here robc, I'm not for the regulation for the sake
of regulation. Really.
And it's an empirical question, you're absolutely right: if the FDA
regulations are doing more harm than good then something else needs
to be tried.
And perhaps they are doing more harm than good. It's just I find
that to be incredible given what I know about incentives, human
nature and their self-interested and sometimes less than completely
rational mindsets.
Your insurance option doesn't sound that terrible to me to be
honest. I do think that private insurance companies, even with
their bottom lines and reputations (which matter because of the
bottom line) at stake, could be very corrputible to make some zany
decisions (like how private stock analyst firms rated the risks of
certain securities in a zany way recently, or how some private
insurance firms rated the same securities).
Citizen Nothing|1.6.09 @ 12:18PM|#
But given human nature and self-interest, aren't the regulators just as corruptible, MNG?
MNG|1.6.09 @ 12:19PM|#
You want strict liability on all that stuff? Food and
supplements and such too? Not a lower standard (say
negligence)?
robc, I'll be honest, here's the problem I see with letting tort
standards replace regulations. Torts don't kick in until after
people have been harmed, regulations can kick in prior.
Now don't get me wrong, the mere existence of the after-the-fact
tort is supposed to provide some deterrent effect for future acts.
But I'm not sure it always does because people often calculate
badly as to whether they will get caught, and people often seem to
act with an amazing disregard for likely future consequences even
if they know they will follow!
MNG|1.6.09 @ 12:21PM|#
Citizen
Don't you think the incentive structure is different? Sure, if the
regulators are being straight up bribed then there is this economic
incentive, and their are bizarre ways bureaucracy effects the minds
of otherwise rational actors, but the seller of a ware has a very
strong incentive to make bucks quickly. Your solution is to put the
decision as to what goes on the market solely in the hands of the
latter.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 12:24PM|#
I should point out that insurance decision makers can be
straight up bribed too. The loss of profits and job is supposed to
fight this (if I insure something via a bribe and the thing ends up
going bad and we now have to cover the costs the company goes out
of business), but look at how management and ownership is split in
companies and the limited liability there and other corporate
forms. Managers can be personally bribed and screw the possible
results to "the company" and get away pretty.
So you see private organizations have a lot of perils here too.
It's not just a case of perfect rational private organizations
versus these nutty evil bureaucracies with no incentive to be
rational (bureaucrats actually do lose their jobs, perks, etc., all
the time and politicians do to).
robc|1.6.09 @ 12:26PM|#
MNG,
And perhaps they are doing more harm than good. It's just I
find that to be incredible given what I know about incentives,
human nature and their self-interested and sometimes less than
completely rational mindsets.
Its basic math, really. Its hard to kill 10k people with a bad
drug. They are gonna figure it out well before that point. Its
actually easy to save 10k people with a good drug. In the right
area.
I finally found a page that went thru a bunch of different studies
(mixed of peer reviewed and the Cato type you dont like. More of
the first). It appears the estimates are that FDA regs save about
500-1000 lives a year. Delay estimates range from 2k to 12k lost
lives a year.
For a handful of drugs, there were estimates of 10k lost lives per
year.
10000 people a year is a hard standard to overcome.
Citizen Nothing|1.6.09 @ 12:29PM|#
The buyer of a ware also has a very strong incentive to purchase
high-quality goods.
You are assuming that the government regulators, or at least the
majority of them, are on the side of the buyer and not the seller -
or are at least neutral. And that government regulators will do a
better job of providing information concerning those wares to the
buyer than would some other provider.
I think otherwise.
robc|1.6.09 @ 12:29PM|#
MNG,
I wasnt trying to use legal terminology, so maybe strict liability
isnt the term I was looking for. Lets call it strong liability to
avoid specific legal terms.
Probably negligent liability is the right level, but I dont want
them to get off easy because they didnt test first. But, if they
are pushing it as experimental and you are already dying and it
offs you faster, well, there probably shouldnt be much liability
there, if any at all.
So, whatever standard that is.
|1.6.09 @ 12:31PM|#
I kinda figger that people who are dumb enough to kill
themselves with medicine that is unsafe is a feature, not a bug,
with getting rid of the FDA.
I'm serious. I shed no tears for junkies, frat boys who drink
themselves to death on their 21st birthday or somebody who hasn't
the good sense to either research drugs they are taking or gettoing
expert advice from a trusted source.
Getting rid of the FDA will provide more material for this website and help clean the
gene pool at the same time.
Of course some would rather trust our benevolent elected overlords
(preferably Democrats) like Spitzer, Blagojevich and Richardson*
and those they appoint, who are far more concerned about "the
people" than their own desires.
* Hey! He's only a suspect! It's not like he's been convicted or
anything!
MNG|1.6.09 @ 12:32PM|#
robc
linky?
Here is another reason I'm skeptical.
Where do they get their estimate of the number of dangerous
products that would enter the market sans FDA and the damage they
will do? I mean, where would it come from (how can we know how many
people will introduce how many dangerous products and how dangerous
they will be since this has been prevented by the FDA for decades
now)?
Because it just seems to me the number of people willing to cheat
other people is enormous.
As you qualify "In the right area."
People are going to be able to introduce unsafe products into every
imaginable area sans FDA.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 12:35PM|#
Citizen
As I said, the field of behavioral economics is rife with what a
poor job consumers can do in estimating dangers and benefits.
Sometimes more neutral thinking is needed to get it right.
As I mention there are all kinds of ways private suppliers of
information can go wrong (corporate entanglements for example, or
principal/agent problems you probably are aware of). In some of
these areas government experts, bad as they are, can actually be
more right on.
|1.6.09 @ 12:38PM|#
Oh wait, my bad. The FDA is composed mostly of highly competent, well compensated public servants who are afforded civil service protections and therefore immune from the temptations of the evil profit making world.
robc|1.6.09 @ 12:41PM|#
MNG,
Where do they get their estimate of the number of dangerous
products that would enter the market sans FDA and the damage they
will do?
Europeans countries get drugs to the market much faster than the
US. I think the estimates are based on the differences in dangers
due to the US for EU time lag.
They arent comparing to NO FDA (although there were some
comparisons to pre-1962 FDA*), but to the european
equivalents.
People are going to be able to introduce unsafe products into
every imaginable area sans FDA.
Well, my argument has only been about the D part of the FDA. Get
rid of the FDA is code for drug company testing, not food and other
areas. Thats a different argument altogether (I take the same
position, but I may not have the numbers to back me up).
*Kefauver-Harris Bill, as mentioned yesterday, good things never
come from Kefauver
MNG|1.6.09 @ 12:41PM|#
Given the often heard hostility to tort law from libertarian
circles I hope you guys will cut me some slack if I say that I'm a
less than convinced when libertarians tell me that regulation is
not needed because we have tort law to do that job! But I don't
think every libertarian feels that way or needs to, just
saying.
J sub
I think that's crazy to be frank. I mean, you would feel no pity
for little old ladies in pain who don't properly research drugs
that then harm them? The elderly would be a big part of those who
are harmed here (who takes more pills and is more the target of
cons and why)?
But I will say that most people, including myself, could not
properly ensure their safety through this research you speak of.
What are you talking about, looking up info online about a product
and its provider? Or going through a private information source
(remember again, some of the most likely to make bad decisions on
their own would be the least likely to afford this)? Everyone is
going to be able to navigate through the various subsidiaries and
corporate name changes and mergers and product swaps and know all
about everything they are taking, and do this for every medication,
food, cosmetic, etc they buy (remember the FDA regulates more than
just life saving medecines)? I don't buy that for a second...
robc|1.6.09 @ 12:43PM|#
Link I found today:
http://www.fdareview.org/harm.shtml
References used in the page above, so you can make your appeals to
anti-authority (anti-Cato arguments):
http://www.fdareview.org/references.shtml#peltzman73
MNG|1.6.09 @ 12:43PM|#
"They arent comparing to NO FDA (although there were some
comparisons to pre-1962 FDA*), but to the european
equivalents."
Well my goodness but that is a big qualifier!
robc|1.6.09 @ 12:45PM|#
MNG,
Given the often heard hostility to tort law from libertarian
circles
WTF? We think it is one of the few legit areas of government. I
think punitive judgments are abused, but that is easily fixable by
not allowing the plantiff or lawyer to get a cut of the punitive
damages.
robc|1.6.09 @ 12:45PM|#
MNG,
Well my goodness but that is a big qualifier!
Not really, that is what they have to compare with. They also
compare pre to post 1962 FDA, which is when the big changes
occurred.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 12:47PM|#
robc
You are aware that this listing is certainly not a comprehensive or
even random listing of all the evaluations of the efficacy of the
FDA but most probably (given its source) a collection (after quite
a hunt I would bet) of all the articles that are anti-FDA? In fact,
as it is a references page and not every footnoted claim in the
article even purports to be a damning finding about the FDA it is
even less than that...
You can't evaluate whether this is representative of the findings
of most peer reviewed looks at this subject so this is pretty bad
to rely on really.
|1.6.09 @ 12:47PM|#
I mean, you would feel no pity for little old ladies in pain
who don't properly research drugs that then harm them?
Just as much as I do the little old ladies in pain who can't get
drugs that will help them, because of the FDA/DEA.
tarran|1.6.09 @ 12:47PM|#
I should point out that prior to the modern FDA, both the evil
AMA and the slightly less evil ( ;) ) Consumer's Union performed
drug safety testing. While these organizations' had great weight,
people weren't bound by law to obey their dictates. It is that loss
of freedom which I personally rail against.
The agency that became the FDA was the Federal Chemical Board which
did do very valuable scientific work in developing techniques for
assaying mixtures in the early 20th century.
Incidentally, the trigerring event for the creation of the FDA was
a pretty disastrous decision by Massengil to use anti-freeze as a
solvent for a drug. They killed a few hundred people before people
put 2 and 2 together, and Massengil lost all their customers, had
to pay out huge judgements and was reduced to a shadow of its
former self and the guys responsible committed suicide to atone for
their crime of stupidity.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 12:50PM|#
robc
Are you going to tell me that tort reform is not a big thing in
libertarian circles?
Or that tort reform doesn't involve having less teeth in tort law
(yes, yes, it aims for wiser teeth, but it certainly involves
things like lower standards for liability, limiting damages, etc.,
which are "less teeth")?
It's kind of like saying: "we don't need that Doberman on the
grounds because we have a perfectly good Pit Bull. In other news,
we hate that fucking Pit Bull."
|1.6.09 @ 12:51PM|#
J sub
I think that's crazy to be frank. I mean, you would feel no pity
for little old ladies in pain who don't properly research drugs
that then harm them?
Because under the presently highly regulated medicinal drug system
in the US elderly patient never get poisoned by their
prescriptions, right?
I'll raise that with chemo patients, AIDS sufferers, etc. who are
still fucking waiting for FDA approval of medicinal
marijuana? You'd think enough research has been done on the
efficacy and safety of reefer by now, wouldn't you?
It all about serving humanity and protecting us from our own
incompetence, right?
robc|1.6.09 @ 12:51PM|#
Are you going to tell me that tort reform is not a big thing
in libertarian circles?
That is exactly what Im saying. Most of us prefer tort to
regulation. We just think lawyers are scum. I dont see the
contradiction.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 12:52PM|#
Talking to RC is always such a waste of one's time (I think I'm supposed to be filtered anyway), but I hope he sees that I'm talking about the situation created by having the old lady in question be the one to figure out what is safe and what is not.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 12:54PM|#
Most of us prefer a vastly weakened tort system to
regulation.
Fixed that for you.
J sub
The FDA doesn't prevent the sale of medical marijuana, the criminal
laws of the federal government do. I oppose those laws with a
passion, btw.
robc|1.6.09 @ 12:57PM|#
Most of us prefer a vastly weakened tort system to
regulation.
Wrong.
I think you are confusing libertarians with conservatives.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 12:58PM|#
"caveat emptor."
You and J sub are under the impression that you and your loved ones
would be the wily consumer that avoids the trouble.
No offense but I doubt that (really no offense, I don't think I
would be either).
I bet right now that if we had an expert on contract law ask all
three of us questions about how well we understand, say, our
current cell phone contracts or insurance contracts he'd find us
pretty wanting.
But we are supposed to be counted on to track down and process all
the relevant scientific and corporate information that would be
necessary to make a really informed decision on EVERY food and drug
product that we and our loved ones use? And if we make a mistake
then caveat emptor?
That's crazy, man.
Are you kidding?
|1.6.09 @ 12:58PM|#
Back on topic -
As much as I like to bitch, I have to admit the US has it all over
the rest of the world when it comes to telecommunications
regulations and taxes. We have lot's less and still produce far
more popular programming than any place else in the solar
system.
Not near as much boring opera on the airwaves though.
robc|1.6.09 @ 1:01PM|#
MNG,
but most probably (given its source) a collection (after quite
a hunt I would bet) of all the articles that are
anti-FDA
While glancing thru another article in the same section, I found
this happens to not be the case. A number of the listed articles
are pro-FDA. OR, actually, anti, in that they are criticizing the
FDA for not taking enough time.
This one, for example:
Willman, David. 2000. How a New Policy Led to Seven Deadly Drugs.
Los Angeles Times, Dec. 20.
robc|1.6.09 @ 1:03PM|#
MNG,
You and J sub are under the impression that you and your loved
ones would be the wily consumer that avoids the trouble.
I dont know JsubD, but I know me and my loved ones. Im smarter than
that. I know we arent the wily consumers.
Are you kidding?
You did see my insurance and liability comments, right?
mark|1.6.09 @ 1:04PM|#
hit and run time...
Television advertising to minors should be banned because it harms
their developing brains and poisons the culture. Television in
general is bad for kids but standards would likely go up (perhaps
to Sesame Street levels) as the profit motive diminishes
and only the most self-motivated people get into children's
television. I am a libertarian.
Discuss.
robc|1.6.09 @ 1:04PM|#
libertarian think tanks
I think this is the point where I make a True Scotsman comment.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 1:04PM|#
"In fact, as it is a references page and not every footnoted
claim in the article even purports to be a damning finding about
the FDA it is even less than that..."
It was right below the sentence you quote.
That makes your case worse, you know?
robc|1.6.09 @ 1:05PM|#
mark,
Sesame Street makes enough money to fund PBS. Lack of profit
motive, my ass.
robc|1.6.09 @ 1:06PM|#
MNG,
Are you still arguing from source. Are the numbers true or not? If
the numbers are true and I have seen enough evidence elsewhere to
believe them, then they are true.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 1:08PM|#
robc
The references pages of an article written by and/or for a think
tank whose goal is anti-FDA is certainly not going to be an
adequate review of the relevant literature on the subject.
"Researchers" in think tanks lose their job if they don't make a
case that is consistent with their employers mission. That's a
mighty big incentive to cherry pick studies I would think.
This would be like me linking to the references of an article by
FDA scientists attesting to the efficacy of the FDA.
Boston|1.6.09 @ 1:09PM|#
Just if any one cares. Cato has about 358 things on tort reform. Whereas a place like AEI has over 5000. I think this is a ox gored by conservatives over libers.
robc|1.6.09 @ 1:09PM|#
MNG,
Simple question for you to answer - did the delay in beta blockers
kill 10k americans per year or not?
This is the important question. The FDA (or, more specifically, the
1962 FDA amendments) was the cause of those deaths.
robc|1.6.09 @ 1:10PM|#
This would be like me linking to the references of an
article by FDA scientists attesting to the efficacy of the
FDA.
Unless you think the FDA is fraudulent, I think those studies would
be valuable to see.
Kolohe|1.6.09 @ 1:11PM|#
Like Boston said, what the fuck does this have to do with:
1) banning all daytime commercials,
2) taxing other TV providers and the internet to make up the
difference, and
3) giving the head of the executive more direct control of the
state run media?
MNG|1.6.09 @ 1:11PM|#
robc
You have a page in which, let's say, to be charitable, 60% or 30 of
the referenced articles are peer reviewed and had anti-FDA
findings.
But this does nothing to tell you that perhaps there are 1,000 peer
reviewed studies on the efficacy of the FDA and the othe 970 found
the opposite.
You see?
robc|1.6.09 @ 1:12PM|#
Here is a quote from the FDA:
In the early 1980s, when I headed the team at the FDA that was
reviewing the NDA for recombinant human insulin, . . . we were
ready to recommend approval a mere four months after the
application was submitted (at a time when the average time for NDA
review was more than two and a half years). With quintessential
bureaucratic reasoning, my supervisor refused to sign off on the
approval-even though he agreed that the data provided compelling
evidence of the drug's safety and effectiveness. "If anything goes
wrong," he argued, "think how bad it will look that we approved the
drug so quickly."
robc|1.6.09 @ 1:14PM|#
MNG,
But this does nothing to tell you that perhaps there are 1,000
peer reviewed studies on the efficacy of the FDA and the othe 970
found the opposite.
You see?
Nope, because I have never found a link to those 970. Post
it.
Im assuming the peer reviewed articles are peer reviewed, in part,
but opponents of the position being taken, and yet still passed
review. Hence, unless their is specific evidence otherwise, they
are trustworthy.
robc|1.6.09 @ 1:15PM|#
MNG,
The FDA refers to itself as "I?"
The FDA is made up of individuals. Just like a study from inside
the FDA.
You really are dense arent you. Or a jackass, more interested in
rebutting sources than the material.
robc|1.6.09 @ 1:16PM|#
358 is still quite a lot!
No, it isnt!!!
I have more exclamation points, I win.
Summary|1.6.09 @ 1:20PM|#
Researchers that agree with me are awesome; researchers who disagree with me are poopy-heads.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 1:21PM|#
robc
I'm not saying there are not studies that are peer reviewed that
have findings that put the FDA in a bad light. Clearly some of the
studies are that way. I simply point out that given this is an
organization that hires and pays its researchers to come up with
anti-FDA findings then these findings may not be representative of
the majority (or the best) peer reviewed work in the field.
You do realize that when something is peer reviewed it is not being
certified as "true" right? It just means that it appears to be up
to professional standards and important enough to publish.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 1:23PM|#
Really robc, quoting a person who used to work for the FDA is
not "the FDA even says..."
358 articles on tort reform is a lot. That's a lot of articles. I
mean, read them all if you don't think so. Tort reform just is
position that most libertarian think tanks take. If you do not then
all the more credit to you.
robc|1.6.09 @ 1:23PM|#
Some detail on the Massengil case mentioned above:
Elixir Sulfanilamide is a sulfa drug (antibiotic) released by
Massengil in 1937 in liquid form without prior toxicity testing of
its solvent. The solvent diethylene glycol, used today as
automotive antifreeze, caused the death of 107 people, mostly
children. The chemist who created the elixir committed suicide. The
"Elixir Sulfanilamide tragedy" prompted the passage of the Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938.
107. That was the worst US drug accident of the 20th century. Oh,
wait, unless you ignore the 30k+ killed by a delay in propranolol.
And I dont think that is the worst. There were later drugs delayed
even longer.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 1:26PM|#
"Researchers that agree with me are awesome; researchers who
disagree with me are poopy-heads."
Holy moley I hope whoever posted this is not on the side that is
saying that checking out the references from an article from an
acknowledged ideological think tank is enough said on what research
tells us about something.
Wow.
robc|1.6.09 @ 1:29PM|#
You do realize that when something is peer reviewed it is
not being certified as "true" right?
I have more experience with Physics journals. Obviously false
doesnt get published. Well, sometimes it does, but I would argue it
wasnt obvious then. :)
Im still waiting for the link to the counter studies. I believe
they exist. I want to see them to draw a proper conclustion. Based
on all the evidence I have seen (which is much more than this page
I happened to google upon today), the beta blocker numbers are
pretty clear. And there is no risk level near that high from
unapproved drugs.
|1.6.09 @ 1:32PM|#
You and J sub are under the impression that you and your loved ones would be the wily consumer that avoids the trouble.
I dont know JsubD, but I know me and my loved ones. Im smarter than that. I know we arent the wily consumers.
I know that J sub D guy real well. He's smart enough to not take
antibiotics for the common cold even though he can get a doctor to
prescribe them for it. He's smart enough to known that oxycodone
has no advantages over heroin for intractable pain. He's also smart
enough to visit a reputable professional for advice when he lacks
the knowledge to make an informed decision (automatic
transmissions, chemotherapy drugs, translations from Arabic, etc.)
He is hardly a genius.
|1.6.09 @ 1:34PM|#
Used to be that MNG used to go shooting with Thoreau.
Now I think that he is Thoreau, just the government trusting
version.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 1:36PM|#
See robc, here is the difficulty. There probably would be no
"link" to the "counter studies" unless, like the link you found,
some pro-FDA organization had taken the time to compile them (I
don't know that I've ever heard of a pro-FDA think tank, since most
corporations want their drugs approved faster, not slower, I can't
think of many reasons why corporations would fund such
organizations as opposed to anti-FDA ones).
If you want to know what the studies as a whole say you'd have to
do a thorough literature review, which would involve probably going
to a univeristy library and search using various online academic
databases, then go pull those articles off the shelves and read
them.
Really.
For a shorthand you could go to your local university and find out
who the professors of public health are and ask them, they probably
have had to read all that for decades of their lives.
What I'm saying is that a listing of "articles that are relied on
in writing a non-peer reviewed article for an ideological think
tank that would fire us if we came to the wrong conclusion" is a
list that should be looked on with less than eager acceptance as
being the authoritarive findings of researchers on this subject.
Surely you can see that.
robc|1.6.09 @ 1:37PM|#
He's also smart enough to visit a reputable professional for
advice when he lacks the knowledge to make an informed decision
(automatic transmissions, chemotherapy drugs, translations from
Arabic, etc.)
When I bought my first house, I hired a property lawyer. I didnt
use the bank's. I hired my own. I was making a 100k transaction,
spending $500 to have someone make sure everything was right and
explain it to me seemed wise. Considering the mess people got into
signing mortgages that they didnt apparently understand, it seemed
a very prudent decision. I have been criticized for pointing this
out in housing threads by people saying it wasnt reasonable to
expect others to hire a lawyer.
They were wrong.
robc|1.6.09 @ 1:39PM|#
MNG,
Im not disagreeing with you, I googled, I expect you to hit the
medical library this afternoon. I expect you to accept the peer
reviewed articles found until you find counter articles, instead of
arguing against the source of the articles.
Or, read the fucking articles and let me know what they did wrong
in their methodology.
robc|1.6.09 @ 1:40PM|#
Or, read the fucking articles and let me know what they did
wrong in their methodology.
See the Hazlett/Keynes thread for an example.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 1:42PM|#
J sub D
You want to live your life having to "go see a reputable
professional for advice" everytime you go shopping at the grocery
store and pharmacy?
That's "freedom" to you?
Because how else would you know if that hamburger you just bought
is from a producer that regularly and thoroughly inspects it's
products, or that tomato to go on your burger is from a field that
didn't just sell thousands of contaminated tomatos, or that the
ingredients on that pepcid ac you will need after the burger
correspond to the pill and that the company that manufatured it is
not a wholly owned subsidiary of that company you read about in the
paper being sued for fraud in its packaging of drug products?
You benefit from all these government regulations and it gives you
the illusion that you are navigating the world on your own wiles
and good looks and so you can denounce the very measures that
assist you in staying so successful and the handsome devil I'm sure
you are.
robc|1.6.09 @ 1:43PM|#
Because how else would you know if that hamburger you just
bought is from a producer that regularly and thoroughly inspects
it's products
The UL sticker on the package?
robc|1.6.09 @ 1:45PM|#
MNG,
How do jews know if food is kosher without a government standard?
Surely they dont rely on private organizations to certify
products?
Reinmoose|1.6.09 @ 1:47PM|#
Because how else would you know if that hamburger you just
bought is from a producer that regularly and thoroughly inspects
it's products
Right, MNG, because there's no such thing as a private entity
certifying quality or some other criterion. All we have to go on is
just the word of the producer or the word of the government, right?
Because two private companies can be in bed with each other, but
the government is immune from that, right?
|1.6.09 @ 1:47PM|#
Whilst the control of media aspect is worrying (and Sarkozy is a nasty little troll), having flicked through french public TV a few times I can't see much potential for loss of quality, unless TV5 stops showing test rugby. I, of course, can see zero justification for state funded television unless it is providing something that the market is not, i.e. "quality" or overlooked programming and news. If they are organised around competing for ratings with the private channels then there would seem little point to continue funding them.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 1:48PM|#
"I expect you to accept the peer reviewed articles found until
you find counter articles,"
But as I've explained above robc that would be CRAZY since I have
very good reasons to believe that they might not represent the
majority of findings in the field. That good reason is that this
organization is admittedly against the FDA and hires its staff with
that mission in mind. So they have every reason to cherry pick,
it's just a matter of basic incentives.
Perhaps they overcame that incentive, or perhaps the field just is
composed of similar findings (and no cherry picking was necessary),
but it would be silly of me to "accept the peer reviewed articles"
they list as references without doing a thorough lit review.
The best I can say looking at what you've given me is "there
certainly seem to be some peer reviewed articles that exist that
seem to find the FDA does more harm than good." So for example if I
bumped into someone today who said "why there are no studies
demonstrating the FDA does more harm than good" I would have to say
"I think you are wrong on that, I saw some today that seemed
legit." But I also have to say "No, we can't so conclude from what
I've seen" to anyone I bump into saying "the research results on
this subject are in and they clearly point to the FDA doing more
harm than good"
|1.6.09 @ 1:50PM|#
robc,
The flaw in your suggestion is that UL doesn't get to put its boot
on anyone's neck.
"[Modern liberalism], like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."
- Frederic Bastiat
MNG|1.6.09 @ 1:52PM|#
Reinmoose and robc
I said upthread that the UL suggestion sounds interesting, though
at 12:24 I explained why insurance companies might have powerful
reasons to be less than trustworthy on this. Did you have something
specific about my points you wanted to mention?
And robc, I should point out as you admitted upthread most of these
vaunted articles you are relying on did NOT find that the FDA was
worse than simply leaving matters to private insurers, just that it
was worse than European governmental bureaucratic approaches.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 1:58PM|#
I've enjoyed the debate here.
Every now and then people on the thread will get mad at debates
with me, or joe or some other liberal and be like "why are these
people even posting here."
Because debate is fun and healthy (you learn things, if only what
people different than you think, imagine all the liberals who don't
know the differences between paleo-libertarians and
cosmo-libertarians or paleo-conservatives and libertarians and how
stupid they sound in the media). And imagine how boring these sites
would be without any liberals like me and joe on them (or
conservatives like Mad Max or TallDave I guess).
Poster 1: Yeah, the FDA sucks.
Poster 2: Totally, it's really terrible.
Poster 3: I know, can you believe how bad it sucks?
Poster 1: I totally agree with what you guys just said.
Reinmoose|1.6.09 @ 1:58PM|#
MNG -
So how does private regulation by potentially many entities lose
preference over government entities just because there could be
some flaws with private regulation? You make no claims as to the
corruptability of private insurers (though I see no need to focus
on simple insurers) vs. the corruptability of government. Why is
the current system automatically better than a simple change in
corporate liability laws?
|1.6.09 @ 1:58PM|#
J sub D
You want to live your life having to "go see a reputable
professional for advice" everytime you go shopping at the grocery
store and pharmacy?
That's "freedom" to you?
WTF are you talking about? You may recall that I'vce spent
considerable amount of time eating, carousing and generally living
in places far beyond the reach of the FDA.
I've ordered food from street vendors in third world countries
literally hundreds of times and somehow remain alive. It turns out
those folks were actually trying to sell food for a living, not act
out a Lucretia Borgia scenario.
Do you really think that Krogers is suddenly going to be filled
with poisonous foodstuffs absent the FDA? Fuck, even snake oil
salesmen (see herbal supplements comment upthread) don't poison
you, they just take your money and provide a useless placebo (see
my comment on getting antibiotics for a cold).
robc|1.6.09 @ 1:59PM|#
MNG,
I said I wasnt an anarchist. What the FDA is replaces with could
include a lot of things. I prefer private insurance. Others might
prefer European style FDA. Either way, the FDA has got to go.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 2:01PM|#
Befoer I ever read Reason or H&R I would have thought that
anyone advocating getting rid of the FDA was some sort of cave
person whose ideas would result in the re-birth of widespread
dissentery and such, but while I find these ideas about insurance
and private third party information suppliers ultimately either 1.
having problems of their own but possibly as workable as our
current system or 2. unworkable but interesting as a though
experiment, I can say that libertarian ideas are much more nuanced
on this than many people think.
Thanks, but gotta run now.
MNG|1.6.09 @ 2:03PM|#
Reinmoose
I gotta run, but really I think I covered all that in my 12:14,
12:29 and 12:24 posts.
guy in the back row|1.6.09 @ 2:04PM|#
Does this mean that the president gets to decide what the public
can watch on TV?
If in the near future a French president decides that he doesn't
like the hooliganism of football/soccer he can decree that it won't
be televised?
Man they'd bring back le guillotine for that guy!
|1.6.09 @ 2:13PM|#
Every now and then people on the thread will get mad at
debates with me, or joe or some other liberal and be like "why are
these people even posting here."
I read a lot of your posts MNG, but I'd have been more interested
in reading more on public television/political control of media,
and less on the FDA etc, in this thread ...
Loop2100|1.6.09 @ 2:16PM|#
When they say "freed from the tyranny of ratings", what they mean is they're going to put on programs that no one but elitist University faculty would watch. Think Masterpiece Theater and documentaries on crappy artists no one has ever heard of.
T|1.6.09 @ 2:28PM|#
It appears MNG thinks the only thing preventing people from
selling you poisonous foodstuffs is the gummint. Absent the
regulation, everybody would be doing it!
I know I would, but that's because I generally despise humanity.
I'd even advertise it as a feature on the box in big letters.
Now with 100% more melamine per serving! Cures what ails
you! Totally FDA unapproved! That way, I'm even cleared
for lawsuits. Shit, I told you on the box it was poisonous,
right?
Of course, if you make the pernicious and totally unbelievable
assumption that perhaps the rest of the world isn't composed of
murderous psychopaths, maybe you'd understand how a system free of
the FDA could work. Most people, despite what you may think, are
not out to fuck over the rest of the world at any cost. Those that
do have it as a life goal gravitate towards government.
T|1.6.09 @ 2:32PM|#
Anyhow, I was told French TV after 8 PM is all soft-core porn. Never having watched any TV outside of the US that wasn't graciously provided to me by the US Army or the Saudis, I can't verify that. However, if true, that means Sarkozy is going to subsidize porn? That should get somebody all fired up here in the US.
|1.6.09 @ 2:36PM|#
Anyhow, I was told French TV after 8 PM is all soft-core
porn.
Exactly the sort of programming that should be uninterrupted and
commercial-free.
|1.6.09 @ 2:40PM|#
Anyhow, I was told French TV after 8 PM is all soft-core
porn.
That's more certain channels in Germany - think endless telephone
sexline ads featuring girls playing minigolf in transparent latex,
and constant use of the terms "geil" and "von hinten."
In Copenhagen they have the Pirate channel on after ~11pm. No
complaints there really.
Naga Sadow|1.6.09 @ 3:02PM|#
Going back to the FDA bashing from earlier in the thread:
I blame the FDA for delaying the pills from Star Trek with an
entire days meal in them from reaching the market in a timely
manner.
Tacos mmm...|1.6.09 @ 6:51PM|#
107. That was the worst US drug accident of the 20th century. Oh, wait, unless you ignore the 30k+ killed by a delay in propranolol. And I dont think that is the worst. There were later drugs delayed even longer.
30,000 people were not killed for lack of propanalol. Beta blockers
extend life in individuals with heart failure. They do not cure the
disease. Instead of saying that people died for lack of the drug,
it's better to think in terms of life extension - how much extra
life people would have gained, multiplied by the number of people
that would have gained it - person years.
In any case, it's obvious why the FDA, and drug companies, for that
matter are cautious in introducing new drugs. The tort system
ensures that you can be damaged a lot more by a handful of bad
reactions than you can benefit from a great majority of good
ones.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245