MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Dying Patients vs. the FDA: 'Right to Try' Laws Give Hope - And Time

Dave Huntley was a father, husand, & triathlete who contracted Lou Gehrig's Disease. But the FDA was his biggest foe.

David Huntley was an Iron Man triathlete, a professor emeritus at San Diego State University, a father, and a husband.

In 2013, he was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), more commonly known as Lou Gehrig's Disease. It's a death sentence given current science, but there are ways to combat the speed at which it progresses and the pain it causes.

Before he passed away on July 4, 2015 Huntley wanted to try a promising new drug called GM604, but it hadn't been approved yet by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). So Huntley was denied access to GM604.

"How is keeping a potentially life saving drug saving my life?," said Huntley. "The decision to use an investigational drug to fight a fatal disease should be between a patient and his or her doctor."

Two years ago, The Goldwater Institute, a free-market think tank based in Arizona, designed a model bill for states that would allow terminally ill patients to go around the FDA approval process. The initiative is called "right to try."

So far, 23 states have adopted a version of right to try and 13 more are actively considering some form of the legislation.

It's too late for Dave Huntley, but will terminally ill patients in the future have an easier time getting access to experimental drugs?

About 5 minutes. Shot by Paul Detrick. Produced by Alex Manning. 

Scroll down for downloadable versions of this video, and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • jrom||

    If people have tried more mainstream drugs to try to cure an illness, and they don't work: then, people should have the right to try experimental treatments. Including drugs that have not yet cleared all safety screenings. Especially, if they are going to die anyway. What have they got to lose? Just another example of government insisting on micro managing the lives of the people. Assisted suicide should also be legal. A few years ago, a relative of mine was starved to death in a nursing home for over a month. All because the state outlawed assisted suicide and would send doctors' to prison if they assisted. So, my relative who was terminally ill, had to just tough it out.

  • WoodchipperPatriarch||

    People do have the right to try experimental treatments, that's not a question. The question is whether the evil bureaucracy of the FDA will recognize that right.

  • buybuydandavis||

    People do have the right to try experimental treatments purchase any fucking treatment they want, from anyone who wants to sell it to them.

    It enrages me how this needs to be pointed out even in supposed libertarian circles.

    Some WoodchipperPatriarch you are.

  • PaulW||

    Both of your statements can be true and not contradict each other.

    Perhaps you should calm down a little bit.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Two issues. Should drug companies be allowed to con money from desperate people for drugs that don't work?

    What happens when these patients die? is that an adverse event for the drug? Is it evidence the drug doesn't work?

  • Atanarjuat||

    I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  • Millard Fillmore||

    We are all dumber for having listened to him speak.

  • Bubba Jones||

    These are the challenges of pharmaceutical research.

    If I have a drug that has never been shown to work in humans, should I be allowed to sell it to desperate people? Isn't that fraud?

    If I am conducting clinical trials for ALS, I typically have to carefully select my population to make sure they really do have ALS. What happens when a bunch of people who have a similar neuropathy take the drug and show no benefit. Do I need to include those in my analysis?

  • Cytotoxic||

    "If I have a drug that has never been shown to work in humans, should I be allowed to sell it to desperate people? Isn't that fraud?"

    As long as the patient is fully informed, then the answers are yes and no.

  • GamerFromJump||

    How does one tell the difference between "con" and experiment, or something not working *that time* and something that would never work?

  • Bubba Jones||

    You don't. That's why we do randomized controlled trials. The funny thing is that ever since we started requiring pharmaceutical companies to prespecify their end points, the success rate for clinical trials has dropped to 8%.

    To me, that suggests that 90% of the "compassionate use" would be for drugs that don't actually work.

  • Cytotoxic||

    What defines "success"?

    Also, even a 10% chance of something working is better than nothing.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Should drug companies be allowed to con money from desperate people for drugs that don't work?

    Of course not. They should be held to the same standards of civil and criminal fraud that anyone else is.

    But thank you for demonstrating that the main point of FDA approval is to protect companies from being held accountable to the consumers they injure.

  • Agammamon||

    Its not about what *they* have to lose - its about (and always is about) what the *regulators* have to lose.

    If terminally ill patients are allowed to control their treatment, then other people might want to control their own treatment. And if people can control their own treatment, they might start to wonder what purpose the regulators serve.

    We've gotta protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTmfwklFM-M

  • buybuydandavis||

    "... then, people should have the right to try experimental treatments."

    Hello, pretend friends to freedom.

    *All* people in whatever state of health they happen to be in have the right to take whatever medicines they like, and it is a *crime* to prevent them.

    It is simply pathetic that such a thing still needs to be said in a group of supposed libertarians.

    The basic control over your own health should be about as fundamental a right as there can be, and people who would take that right from you deserve a date with Mr. Chipper.

  • ||

  • Agammamon||

    If people have tried more mainstream drugs to try to cure an illness, and they don't work: then, people should have the right to try experimental treatments. Including drugs that have not yet cleared all safety screenings. Especially, if they are going to die anyway. What have they got to lose?
  • mr burns||

    People should get to try anything they want to save their lives. The FDA could be helpful by documenting the treatment so as to further medical knowledge. But the FDA participation should be up the patient and their doctor . We should NOT be treated as slaves or pets of the federal government . Free people are responsible for their own health and medical treatment and consequently get to choose what that treatment is. All these compassionate bureaucrats ensure that no one takes financial advantage of dying people by ensuring that their disease kills them . Murderers .

  • Jack Strawb||

    The suffering inflicted on people in chronic pain who have only very restricted access to legal pain relievers is sickening. Any who must rely on government health care or health insurance is particularly screwed.

    "People should get to try anything they want to save their lives. The FDA could be helpful by documenting the treatment so as to further medical knowledge."

    Agreed, and fwiw this is why I support pro ball players being able to use any supplement and meds they like. Everyone one else would benefit substantially from what could be learned from unrestricted use.

  • ||

    This is my whole attitude towards the bicycle rider Lance Armstrong. Everyone is so much in arms because he was doping his blood to win races.

    No one is commenting that during that time period he conqured Testicle cancer.

    Is there a connection between the blood chemistry experiments he was using to ride a bicycle faster and further and the fact that his testicle cancer was cured at the same time ?

  • Sevo||

    "This is my whole attitude towards the bicycle rider Lance Armstrong. Everyone is so much in arms because he was doping his blood to win races."

    Not everyone; I didn't give a hoot. Along with not giving a hoot if Bonds was getting shots of whatever he was taking.
    The bicycling outfit has the right to make there rules, as does MLB, and they can certainly care and ban them, but I don't care.

  • ||

    'The suffering inflicted on people in chronic pain who have only very restricted access to legal pain relievers is sickening.'

    Especially when one bears in mind that the therapeutic effects of opium ha been known for centuries and modern chemistry has developed even more potent analogs. And all of it is cheap as fuck to produce. It's the one thing that modern medicine can offer which redeems its otherwise dastardly existence, and instead diabolic associations of physicians and pharmacists have conspired to make it almost entirely unavailable to the people that need it at a bearable price. Which is all the preverser as it makes the medical complex just not worth the trouble and expense demanded, since even when we pay for it we don't get guaranteed access to the one thing of superlative value it has to offer.

  • BigT||

    The best 20 mins you will spend thinking about death:

    "What are the rights of the dying? Barbara Mancini of Compassion and Choices discusses the end of her father's life."

    http://tinyurl.com/hor9mf3

  • MSimon||

    The suffering inflicted on people in chronic pain who have only very restricted access to legal pain relievers is sickening.

    That is why there is a black market.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    People should get to try anything they want.

    FTFY

  • The Hyperbole||

    I'm always amazed at the caveats otherwise freedom loving people place on this issue- "If you're dying" , "With your doctor", "After you tried everythiong else". Even die hard libertarians can't seem to help themselves from adding these stipulations.

  • WoodchipperPatriarch||

    This is why the only true libertarians are me, you and Stossel.

  • The Hyperbole||

    Do you have a killer 'stache? if not you can't join me and Stossel as true Libertarians.
    Furthermore
    I don't want to imply that anyone who equivocates here is less of a Libertarian than they could be, I just wonder why on this particular issue so many seem willing to waffle.

  • ||

    Simple. Admitting that people have a right to whatever drugs they can afford removes the locus of control of the state its licensed physicians and puts it on every person, and most people are at some point in their Weltanschauung dependent upon the idea that they or someone they knew was not responsible for actions he performed which can be attributed to taking drugs without the blessing of one of the bishopprinces of medicine. I've had the discussion many times, and if the person's argument is pursued deeply enough, it always comes to this. Just like charismatics who depend upon the idea that their actions at some point or other were not the result of their choices but rather because the devil made them do it.

  • SusanM||

    So a porn 'stache is a requirement?

    TIWTANFL...

  • Agammamon||

    And you and Stossel aren't *real* libertarians!

  • The Hyperbole||

    The fuck you say? and here at one time I was drawing cartoons in your defense, well you can cram it with walnuts, ugly!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Themz fightin wordz, bub!

  • SIV||

    Even die hard libertarians can't seem to help themselves from adding these stipulations.

    They're not any kind of libertarian at all.

  • MSimon||

    Depends on the end goal. are the stipulations the end point? Or the camel's nose in the tent?

  • BigT||

    "die hard libertarians"

    Swiss, please pick up the white courtesy phone.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Thank you.

  • ||

    "But the FDA participation should be up the patient and their doctor ."

    No. It should be up to the patient, and up to whoever is paying for the service. Preferably, it'd be voluntary, and no one would pay the FDA for dick, since they suck at everything except fucking up. Doctors have no claim to authority over their patients. They are consultants paid for a service. If they don't want to continue advising a patient because of his choices, they're free to do so, as should be the patient to pursue whatever fucking "treatment" he wants, regardless a doctor's approval.

  • Robert||

    Every bit of state legislation I've seen on this subject betrays a misunderstanding of federal & state drug law, and would have no discernible effect. Is it possible that the model legisl'n it's based on has just as ignorant a basis?

  • WoodchipperPatriarch||

    I'm curious, why couldn't you just spell out legislation again?

  • ||

    Because he's on drugs.

  • SIV||

    I wish I was. I can't even feel the quart of Corona Familiar I'm rapidly approaching the bottom of.

  • ||

    You must be too familiar with it.

  • Cap'n Krunch||

    The FDA is pretty much the front line in the war on drugs sold to the public as a means of protecting the public from bad drugs, another in a long line of government bait and switch programs. It's probably killed more people that illegal drugs by preventing perfectly good drugs from reaching the market and is a large part of the skyrocketing cost of our medications.

  • Eman||

    oh it's the main reason for high drug costs. getting a drug approved is such a long, unsure process they need to make a killing on the drugs that do get through.

  • ||

    Who cares how many whoresons it's kilt off over the years? The undisputable fact is that it's caused hogsheads and hogsheads of suffering and pain and misery and demoralisation and degradation and been throughout an unwavering instrument of evil. It doesn't matter if this or that collective actions can be said to have saved lives or kilt folks off. If it injures people, it's wrong. And if it's principle function is working evil, then it's wrong. Surviving/dying off is not a valid measure of good/evil. Survival/extinction is felicificly and morally neutral (and ultimately, subjective value based on derived happiness is the only reliable measure of good and evil).

  • Jack Strawb||

    Government regulation of pain medication has become a huge and deadly problem, with many men dependent on the VA its victims. Because it somehow calculated that prescription medication abuse meant human beings didn't really, actually suffer, the VA recently limited veterans' access to opioid pain relievers. In addition, in places like New York state, the government first made itself the sole arbiter of opioid pain medication, then drastically limited the ability of people to obtain opioid pain medication through their own doctors. The state here has further insinuated itself into the doctor- patient relationship in a way that makes mandatory ultrasound prior to an abortion seem positively benign.

  • Jay Dubya||

    law enforcement's battle against opiates reveals a great deal of the cognitive & moral cancer at the heart of prohibition.

    opiates were among medicines first legitimate miracles - the first synthesized medical compound was morphine, and the first drug administered intravenously was morphine (theres an apocryphal tale that attributes the discover of IV not to doctors, but to Civil war veteran morphine users who accidentally tapped a vein while attempting to inject intramuscularly).

    the cure opiates offer is as much existential as medical: opiates relieve & prevent pain. as a side effect, they produce often produce pleasure. opiates arent perfect: they produce nausea, constipation and respiratory depression - the latter of which, when untreated, can be fatal & is referred to as an overdose. finally, they produce both tolerance and dependence.

    while opiates are routinely demonized for the dependence they create, I am convinced dependence has no bearing on the demonization of opiates. Antidepressants produce similar to idential results, with some producing fatal reactions when mixed with innocuous foods like cheese and red wine.

  • Jay Dubya||

    Prohibitionists hate opiates because they prevent pain and cause pleasure. those are the only qualities that opiates do not share with 'legal' drugs but do share with 'illegal' drugs.

    the justifications for denying humanity one of the few workiing treatments for suffering are varied but at their heart they worship pain & suffering - they exult pain as healing, purifying & transformative. meanwhile pleasure is denigrated and pathologized. Pleasure is a sin, a crime and a disease.

    applying this cruel logic by ensuring cancer patients cant fill their Oxy script strikea most as an escalation in the drug war. To me it smacks of first principles. the inner life of the cancer patient is, body and soul, the concern of the prohibitionist just as the stoner or crack head. If a cancer patient takes opiates to relieve suffering they are by definition abusing drugs, and then by definition the cancer patient is a drug addict.

    the nirmal healthy state of the cancer patient is to experience pain. after all, pain builds character, teaches us important lessons, blahblahblah. having a disease is no excuse for getting high. after all, drug addiction is a disease, isnt it?

  • ||

    The Canadian opioids commission, or something like that, published a review of the literature ten years back or so, and showed that almost all the dangers associated by physicians with the drugs have little or no basis in fact. At best, they tend to be true only with regards to a small number of patients with peculiar features.

    On the other hand, there is a persistent transformation of limbic function following on lengthy opioids therapy (and which ought to be entirely predictable based on known neuropharmacology), which is very rarely acknowledged by anyone and never seriously studied, so far as I've seen. The problem is that it tends to only become a significant impairment in people who are considered recovering addicts, and so the symptoms tend to get blown over and treated as manifestations of the psychiatric (with some bullshit fake neural astrology) addiction syndrome and not recognised for what they are. Everything gets queered, however, when too many psychiatrists get involved in a medical question.

  • SIV||

    People have to be taught they're addicts. Either that or they need steadily increasing 24/7 doses of narcotics until they build up enough tolerance that they barely catch a buzz off a dose strong enough to kill a cape buffalo. Even then you could just alternately teach them they have a bad case of the flu when they go through withdrawal.

  • MSimon||

    There are no addicts.

    People in chronic pain chronically take pain relievers

  • Robert||

    Why is this problem so much worse in the USA than in countries that have much more socialized medicine? Does it not seem anomalous that in countries where gov't employs or pays all the doctors, patients don't have a problem getting adequate pain relief?

  • Contrarian P||

    This problem is not worse in the USA. You have no idea what you're talking about. The United States consumes about 90% of the world's narcotic pain medicine, so your postulate that other countries do so much better is laughable. In countries with socialized medicine patients frequently cannot access pain relieving medications and procedures. If you've got some evidence that things are so much better in these other countries, let's see it, but otherwise you're completely wrong.

  • Robert||

    Because the problem of withholding narcotic analgesics from patients is practically unheard of outside the USA, even in countries that are in most respects more severe in narcotics laws. It may be that due to inadequate care in general in countries with socialized medicine, often types of rationing, patients might lose access to certain treatments—but that's not because available drugs are deliberately being withheld from them!

  • Contrarian P||

    If nobody is withholding narcotics from patients anywhere else, how is it that we are dispensing so many more of them here? Your definition of withholding seems to be odd. You're telling me that the reason the rest of the world is using so many few narcotic pain meds is because they have hardly anyone in pain? Or are they just made of tougher stuff in the EU where they don't need opiates?

  • Robert||

    No, they just don't have enough distribut'n of the drugs to begin w. But a situation such as in the USA, where the drugs are there but simply aren't given, is not known elsewhere.

  • Contrarian P||

    The EU doesn't have distribution of narcotic pain meds? I'm calling bullshit. Let's see some evidence.

    http://www.pae-eu.eu/wp-conten.....llenge.pdf

    Here's a paper published in Europe by a European pain control advocacy group detailing the artificial barriers to opiate use and the prevalence of inadequately controlled pain in those countries, all of whom have socialized medicine. There is more evidence freely available by a simple Google search.

    Look, I understand the desire to win an argument, but on this one you're completely and demonstrably wrong. Give it up already.

  • Robert||

    That was the word I saw from drug reform circles: that opiophobia in treating pain was a peculiarly USAn problem.

  • WoodchipperPatriarch||

    Why would you contract a word by replacing two letters with one apostrophe? Are you an idiot?

  • Contrarian P||

    Should be "the rest of the world is using so few". An edit button...one of these days.

  • ||

    There is a edit button.

    It's called proofreading before clicking submit.

  • SIV||

    You're right, they're wrong. A patient in extreme undeniable pain is lucky to get Tramadol in most of the world. Opiate analgesics are almost unheard of in the the 3rd World. Largely because the U.N. persuades and/or coerces them to make them unavailable.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Socialized countries don't have access to experimental drugs.

  • Eman||

    if you actually need opiates for some medical reason getting them illegally is so much cheaper and more reliable than dealing with a prescription. i actually need to take adderall just for it's stimulant effects (long story) but i remember one day my doctor fucked up writing the prescription so i had to go like an hour and a half each way to get it rewritten. compared to, the same morning, calling the guy i bought weed from and he met me like two or three blocks from my apartment within an hour. if this is how we're going about the drug war, it's dumb

  • WoodchipperPatriarch||

    You don't seem to understand the actual goals of the drug war.

  • ||

    And there's cases where the physicians and even pharmacists who've no business make the patient's life hell constant harrassment, degradation, and insults, and at the end of it all might just suddenly decide not to prescribe further pain drugs. Where I live, there is only one medical clinic that doesn't require patients to subject themselves to random drug tests for whatever the administration feels like testing them for in order to get prescriptions for opioids. And I've seen this crasy process in numerous clinics in which a drug with decades of history of effective and adequately safe use gets dimly associated with a fatality or near fatality and then the administrators pass a rule banning physicians from prescribing it. There's also a policy at all the clinics but one near here that prohibits the prescription of amphetamines or methylphenidate except by a psychiatrist. This, despite the fact that there are neurological conditions that it can more safely treat which have nothing to do with psychiatry.

  • ||

    And let me tell you, if you rely on physicians for an opioid prescription, NEVER submit to being seen by a "pain specialist" (usually not even a medical doctor). These people exist for the purpose of giving clinics an excuse to stop prescribing a drug the prescription of which they see as a potential liability. In almost every case I know of, submission to such an examination was followed by reduction and often cessation of opioids prescription by the referring physician.

    It's noteworthy that when I lived where most people were dirt poor and rarely had medical insurance, physicians were much more willing to prescribe cheap narcotics than those in wealthier areas with more widely available medical insurance. Thing was, nobody's going to keep paying hard earned cash to go see a doctor who just runs him through the ringer and won't do dick for him, and so the doc who wanted to be an asshole wasn't going to make much of a living unless he was one of the few who got aholt of the few rich clients in the area. Similarly, prescriptions weren't marked up nearly as much as they were where everyone used insurance (For example, $7 for a three month supply of methadone, versus $40 a month in insuranceland.). Of course, there's probably nowhere in this country where somebod can make these comparisons anymore, but that it used to be this way shows how fucked up is the currently predominating orientation.

  • ||

    Folks worry about inchoate death panels, when we're already living under a spurge of suffering and misery panels. Maybe it's so when the death panels come round and start handing out death warrants, folks will be saying, for the most part, "Thank heavens! Please! Cornhole me with a trout and put me out of my misery!"

  • AlmightyJB||

    You have to break some eggs in order to make a pile of broken eggs.

  • WoodchipperPatriarch||

    And then you get more funding to study the epidemic of broken eggs.

  • ||

    Death panels, I guess they're real. This is why I will be leaving the USA upon retirement. Well, that's just one of the reasons.

  • rudehost||

    There is a special place in hell reserved for people who work at the FDA in a spot just a bit hotter than the one reserved for the people who clocked in for work every day at the NAZI concentration camps.

  • Robert||

    The vast majority of workers at FDA do no harm at all.

  • rudehost||

    They are part of an organization that actively kills people for their own good. I guess it depends what you mean by "does no harm". Arguably that is true of people working for the mafia, FARC, ISIS and pretty much every other barbaric organization that has ever existed. I don't give people a pass who facilitate the work of an evil organization just because they don't personally tell dying people they can go screw themselves.

  • Robert||

    The organiz'n didn't do that, Congress & state legislatures did. If the legislature takes it on themselves to forbid something, don't blame the people whose jobs were established by the same legislature to make exceptions to the prohib'ns. Would you rather there be nobody with the key to the door, & the door simply remain locked to everybody forever?

  • Robert||

    You don't have to take my word for it, because this has already been seen in gov't shutdowns. The people who could license you to do something were off the job, but the police were still stopping you for not having the permission that you could not get.

  • MSimon||

    The people who could license you

    Uh....

  • rudehost||

    No the organization does do that. I wouldn't give the people who ran the gas chambers a pass because they didn't pass the laws. These people are willfully involved in an evil organization. That makes them evil in my view just like someone who joined ISIS and just did the books but didn't actually behead somebody. They are participating in what amounts to the murder of their fellow citizens and the fact that congress passed the laws doesn't excuse them.

  • Robert||

    Blame the police, then. They're the ones actually doing what you think some bureaucrats & scientists do.

  • rudehost||

    Really? It's the police's fault this agency who has the official job of withholding life saving medicine is fully staffed? The only reason the agency can even exist is because there are sociopaths willing to work there.

    This has zero to do with the police and everything with the moral bankruptcy of anyone who would work for that agency.

  • Robert||

    They are not sociopaths. You think people who work at FDA like it when a product doesn't make the grade? They want good news about products; they don't enjoy bad news. They're thrilled when they can approve an appl'n.

    What do you think would happen if everybody at FDA quit? States wouldn't allow unlicensed products to be sold. Suddenly the state pharmacy laws on the subject would be relevant again, & you wouldn't like the result? Didn't you notice that from gov't shutdowns?

    The only way it works is if the police quit. Then you can do what you want.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "They are not sociopaths. "

    Yes they are. They have no empathy with people like those featured int his article.

    "They want good news about products; they don't enjoy bad news. They're thrilled when they can approve an appl'n.

    I didn't know you had a connection to the cortex of our FDA benefactors.

    "What do you think would happen if everybody at FDA quit? States wouldn't allow unlicensed products to be sold. Suddenly the state pharmacy laws on the subject would be relevant again, & you wouldn't like the result? Didn't you notice that from gov't shutdowns?"

    None of this makes the FDA any less evil.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    "Yes they are. They have no empathy with people like those featured int his article."

    Nathaniel Branden's Head fails to distinguish between an institution and the people working there. An institution can be evil without anyone working there doing anything evil. If your job is to put rivets on warheads, does that make you morally culpable for the deaths caused by the warhead? I don't think so.

    Furthermore, the assumption here seems to be that the FDA's mission is somehow evil. That is not the case. What is evil is that the FDA's decisions are enforced through violations of the NAP, that competition with the FDA is forbidden, and that the FDA is not itself accountable to any market forces. We clearly need some kind of drug oversight. Absent the FDA, the market would sure provide some kind of testing and watchdog agency to fill that need.

  • rudehost||

    "An institution can be evil without anyone working there doing anything evil. "

    Absolutely not true. If you are knowingly facilitating evil you are culpable.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    "Absolutely not true. If you are knowingly facilitating evil you are culpable."

    ORLY? I take it, then, that you either do not earn income or refuse to pay income taxes? Because knowingly paying income tax facilitates many evil schemes of the government? After all, no one is forcing you to have a job, or to stay in this country.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Americans living overseas still have to pay income tax.

  • Brian||

    "After all, no one is forcing you to have a job, or to stay in this country."

    But they are forcing you to avoid employment or leave the country, if you don't like paying taxes.

    That's not exactly "free to choose."

    I don't think it makes much sense to say, "Well, the Nazis would make me pay taxes anyway, so I might as well join the storm troopers. Same thing."

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    "But they are forcing you to avoid employment or leave the country, if you don't like paying taxes."

    Well, then perhaps you should be so quick to judge some schmuck at the FDA that could not find any other job and honestly and naively thinks he is doing good work by keeping big pharma in check. I maintain my claim that such employees are not evil. Deluded, perhaps, but not evil.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    "Well, then perhaps you should be so quick to judge..."

    I meant "NOT be so quick to judge"

  • Robert||

    They don't think they're keeping big pharma in check, only that they're doing a job keeping foods, drugs, cosmetics, & medical devices on the market in high quality. Look at some job descriptions for technical people at FDA. "Keeping your boot on someone's neck" is not a part of any of them. They evaluate data, & they report on the results. Is it their fault how the police choose to act on those results?

  • Cytotoxic||

    ""Keeping your boot on someone's neck" is not a part of any of them."

    It is what the FDA does however.

    "Is it their fault how the police choose to act on those results?"

    The police didn't keep Beta-blockers out of America for years. WTF nonsense is this.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "What is evil is that the FDA's decisions are enforced through violations of the NAP, that competition with the FDA is forbidden, and that the FDA is not itself accountable to any market forces. We clearly need some kind of drug oversight. Absent the FDA, the market would sure provide some kind of testing and watchdog agency to fill that need."

    Translation: "well aside from everything the FDA does or how it operates, they have good intentions"

  • Robert||

    Then what do you think would happen if everyone at FDA quit or were fired, & there was no change in the state or federal food & drug laws? Explain why you think things would go down the way you think.

  • ||

    "I didn't know you had a connection to the cortex of our FDA benefactors"

    What Canadian ?

    I didn't know you had a connection to OUR FDA either.

    SMFH

    Why don't you apply for US citizenship since you seem to think you are one ?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "They are part of an organization that actively kills people for their own good. "

    No, no.

    Let's be fair. The FDA kills people for their own power, which they use to extract money and favors from the medical mafia they empower to shake down the peasants.

  • ||

    "The vast majority of workers at FDA do no harm at all."

    Nor do they do any good. Fuck'em. Fire them all.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Is that a woodchipper I hear whizzing away in the background?

  • ||

    Did you say wood chipper ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDtZeONUXDM

    No woods were hurt in the chipping of this video which I did not make nor approve of.

  • Bubba Jones||

    All government workers should spend 100 years in limbo for each year they drew a government salary or pension.

  • ||

    "There is a special place in hell reserved for people who work at the FDA..."

    I hope not. I keep praying they have to make it in the general population. Probably doesn't do any good, though, since I'm never sure whether I should be addressing my prayers to Metatron or Adramelech for this one and so keep switching back and forth.

  • ||

    Government is the single biggest threat to human progress and even existence today, bar none. It is so far above any other threat that it makes other threats seem almost non-existent.

    The 2nd biggest threat is probably a major meteor or asteroid strike, but that seems to be a pretty small threat for the next couple hundred years at least.

    3rd may be some type of super caldera volcanic eruption. Again, not too great a threat for a while.

    Global warming. Ok, I finally stopped laughing now so that I can continue typing.

    Big government is a disease upon humanity that is the greatest threat we've ever faced as a species. Full of the dumbest retarded luddites in society, it's truly a threat so great, I don't know if we survive this or not.

  • ||

    "The 2nd biggest threat is probably a major meteor or asteroid strike"

    I think this underestimates how much damage a solar flare hitting earth dead center can do.

    "Global warming. Ok, I finally stopped laughing now so that I can continue typing."

    Real natural climate change either cooling or warming (cooling is probably the biggest danger) would seriously fuck up humanity...of course Big Government would play a huge role in making it worse and impossible to adapt to.

  • Gray Ghost||

    I think this underestimates how much damage a solar flare hitting earth dead center can do.

    Welcome back, Corning; I hadn't seen your name here in awhile.

    Even if the flare hits Carrington Event levels, it's only going to be hard on gadgets, not directly on people. (Provided astronauts can get off the ISS in time)

    Unlike taking a one mile wide-asteroid impact to the face.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    it's only going to be hard on gadgets

    From what I understand, a CME the size of the Carrington Event, like an EMP, would take out anything with a computer chip (anything not hardened or in a Faraday cage, that is). And how much of the earth is affected depends upon its duration. How long are people in NYC going to last without electricity, food, water, transportation, sanitation and fuel?

    If that's accurate, it has the potential to be a shitstorm bigger than we've ever seen. But they are, of course, guessing.

  • Gray Ghost||

    I'm still going with the 1 mile wide impact breaking up more stuff.

    But the worry about a giant CME train is definitely out there. I guess we just dodged a rather large bullet with one in 2012. Although, a lot of the damage estimates pre-suppose a complete lack of warning that one's going to hit, whereas in practice, we'd have quite a few hours to prepare---powering down and isolating large national grids, so as to not cook the few 100kV+ transformers we have, etc...

    Still not going to be fun. Anything that could cause fires in telegraph offices, just from the sheer size of induced currents over 100 mile long wires, is a lot of magnetic energy.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I'm still going with the 1 mile wide impact breaking up more stuff.

    Oh, it would, but it's a lot less likely to happen any time soon. They say a big CME event happens every hundred years or so. We're overdue.

    I wonder if cars get fried as well? If so, lots of people are going to starve to death.

  • Gray Ghost||

    The link I looked at---one of the ones at the Carrington wiki---mentioned a study that indicated it might be as often as every 15 years or so. It's just that most of them miss the Earth. The one in 2012 evidently smacked an orbiting solar observatory right in the chops, so they got a great look at how many CMEs were sent off (the thought is that a Carrington type CME is actually composed of multiple CMEs in rapid succession; the early ones clearing out a lot of the solar wind and muck, enabling later ones to hit with much higher energy), and how powerful they were.

    I'm curious, though not enough to go look it up right now, what the differences are between a CME's effect on the Earth's magnetosphere, and a nuclear-pumped HEMP. I do know that for the EMP, one component of it is the one that messes up large power grids, and another component is the one that does the number on ICs. It's harder to shield against the IC-frying one, is my understanding.

    Asteroid defense/characterization, FWIW, is one of those expenses I'm perfectly OK with a national government underwriting. Helps that NASA et al, is so friggin' cheap compared with other line items.

  • Robert||

    I've read the model legisl'n, and you know what that'd change in any state that adopted it? 0. The states aren't doing anything now to prevent patients from obtaining drugs that are in the experimental status the bill targets, even though state pharmacy laws would technically forbid it. Yet the model legislation doesn't even explicitly amend state pharmacy law in accordance, on the off chance it would be enforced!

    How could a state amend its law to encourage distribution of investigational drugs to patients? They could amend their tort law to abolish liability for injury from the use of such drugs; or the state could indemnify for such torts instead of the drug cos. They could also enact some sort of indirect compensation scheme so drug cos. could make $ off the distribut'n of such drugs without its being considered "commercial". In this case a series of wrongs could approximate a right. When you don't have the power to enact justice (which would be laissez faire), you might be able to enact a few minor injustices that would cost taxpayers a relative pittance, & thereby do less injustice than currently.

  • ||

    "The decision to use an investigational drug to fight a fatal disease should be between a patient and his or her doctor."

    The fuck you say. If you owned yourself then that would be true, but you don't, do you?

  • ||

    It should be between a patient and the investigational drug. Otherwise, murder has been committed by whoever interfered in that decision.

  • GILMORE™||

    "It should be between a patient and the investigational drug. "

    Yes.

    "murder has been committed by whoever interfered in that decision."

    uh.... murder?

    This isn't quite the "Heinz Dilemma", but its darn close.

    Technically, the regulator isn't 'causing death' so much as interfering in one person's willingness to take extra risks due to an already-terminal condition.

    And technically, the FDA does allow access to experimental drugs under certain conditions. The details of the criteria are here

    I havent' watched the video, so i don't know if they explain why this guy was barred from this particular treatment. I think the case is often that they feel it may negatively affect ongoing clinical trials, ultimately resulting in a far-longer/more expensive process for all drug testing.

  • ||

    No. If there is a drug that might save my life and someone prevents me from using it, they are guilty of murder, period, regardless of whether or not the drug would have actually saved my life. That's my opinion.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""a drug that might save my life""

    Technically, according to the details of ALS and this particular patient, there's is absolutely nothing that's going to "save anyone's life".

    He has already lost most of his normal life functions (needs assistance breathing and eating).

    At best, the promised treatment *might* slow further degradation so that the inevitable death comes before he's completely reduced to a pile of mush on life support.

    i.e. there is not even the prospect of a delay of death, but merely a modification of the quality of life associated with the descent to death.

    The completely different scenario that you describe - that a person facing imminent, certain death could be "Cured" by a currently-experimental treatment - is far closer to meeting the criteria that are specifically required for the FDA to allow these sorts of things to be used.

    in any case- the idea that "murder" is committed by passive omission of potential help is something of a stretch. Even sans the FDA's barriers, there's no reason why the drug developer is necessarily obligated to hand their treatment out to terminally ill patients under any conditions.

  • rudehost||

    "in any case- the idea that "murder" is committed by passive omission of potential help is something of a stretch. "

    in any case- the idea that "murder" is committed by passive omission active prevention of potential help is something NOT a stretch.

    FTFY

  • ||

    The FDA hates poor people and minorities because only White Overlords can afford to cross international boundaries and get the lifesaving experimental treatments that always save their Privileged oppressing lives.

  • GILMORE™||

    That's what you get for sleeping with Lou Gehrig

  • sarcasmic||

    Top. Men.

  • ||

    BLOOD MOON!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!

    So, they say this blood moon will be most visible in the EC. I'm going out around 10pm to see if I can see it. I'm not sure if it's cloudy or not, I have to walk out front to see, too many trees back here to see.

    Was nice knowing ya'll. Blood moon gotta blood moon.

  • ||

    That comet in Game of Thrones is actually a space ship that amplifies telepathic abilities.

    Just sayin...

  • Gene||

    It was teh awesome. I have a small observatory behind my barn in a small orchard, my 9.25 inch Celestron and a big wide eyepiece showed many stars just arc seconds from the edge of the moon during mid eclipse. It was clear for once, a rarity here in the Great Lakes this time of year, hooray.

  • ||

    OT: Hey I bought some books to read:

    Mostly Baen SF/fantasy novels cuz i have been hearing some good things.

    2 David Weber novels: Wind Rider's Oath and Echoes of Honor
    Lois McMaster Bujold's Brother In Arms

    I will say Baen novels have to most corniest cover art on the fucking planet. Seriously dragon Lance novels are better.

    Is Lois McMaster Bujold a libertarian?

    Also got The Martian by Andy Weir. I do not plan on watching the Matt Damon movie and i got the book cuz quincy recommended it in another thread. It better not be suck and/or be SJW bullshit quincy!!!

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    LOOKIT THE FAGGIT READIN TEH BOOKZ. BOOKZ NOT MAKE MERKA GREAT AGIN. TRUMP MAKE MERKA GREAT AGIN1!!

    /you missed me, din't you - Trump Voice

  • ||

    Do you know Lois McMaster Bujold's politics?

    "/you missed me, din't you"

    Nah Gilmore and Cytotoxic make pretty good stand ins for you.

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    Nope.

    And....nope.

  • ||

    "and Cytotoxic make pretty good stand ins for you"


    That's low.

    Very low.

  • gaoxiaen||

    HE SOUND LIKE STEVE SMITH.

  • Christophe||

    It better not be suck and/or be SJW bullshit quincy!!!

    We sometimes tease you for dragging in #GamerGate into unrelated threads, but that does not make us Social Justice Warriors.

  • ||

  • GILMORE™||

    Yes it does

  • ||

    Anyway I mention SJW not because I think quincy or you are one only that I heard about the The Martian and avoided it because it was being promoted on typically SJW sites like Boing Boing and Gawker.

    Also looking at the Hugo nominations vote totals it looks like it might have been on an SJW voting slate.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Is Lois McMaster Bujold a libertarian?

    I'm not sure, but you know who is? Michael Flynn. His Firestar series is basically Atlas Shrugged, but with asteroids.

  • ||

    "Publisher: New York: TOR Books, 1996.; First Edition edition (1996)"

    Fuck TOR!!!

    Maybe I will buy it used....

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What do you have against Tor, pray tell?

  • ||

    Scalzi's endless bullshit and editors there calling everyone who is not an SJW Nazis.

    Side note: I did notice that Neal Asher even though he is published in the UK by Pan Mcmillan is publishing his new book with Night Shade after it came back as an imprint.

    Might be he is pissed at TOR's SJW bullshit might be Night Shade kept some of its people and he just likes them. Don't know.

  • ||

    Scalzi's idiotic neuroscience was an injury to himself and others. But when I complained, fans would say I was a jerk, that somebody shouldn't have to have some understanding of a scientific field if he wanted to write a science fiction story rooted in concepts arrayed thereon. It was unfair, or something, to suggest a fiction author should know what the dickens he's talking about when he makes up his imaginary milieu. This response is totally beside the point for two reasons, I don't know which is obviouser.

    One is that writers of speculative fiction for decades have been advancing the technique of convincingly writing stories with elements constructed in sciences of which the authors are not expert. Andre Norton alone has probably perfected dozens of tricks that enable an author to stick whatever in hell he wants in his fucking story without knowing dick about what he's talking about and at the same time without being a shockingly stupid ass. And none of it is that difficult. Anybody that's ever read any quantity of speculative fiction should be able to effortlessly apply a sufficient number of such devices. Scalzi doesn't even bother.

  • ||

    The other is that the only sort of person who could come up with such glaringly stupid errors in neuroscience and neuropsychology would be a person who is not himself conscious and who lacks the capacity to make choices and who has never actually thought thoughts. His depiction of how thought processes and experiences are mediated by neurology would never make sense to an actual human being who had been alive for any duration of time. He designs his fictional milieu without regard to the basic logic of human existence, material events, or rational thought. Holy fuck, this guy makes me want to puke.

  • GamerFromJump||

    Their ebook selection is shit compared to Baen, and they sit on older out-of-print stuff.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    Echoes of Honor is pretty deep into that particular series if you haven't read the previous eight novels. On Basilisk Station I believe is the first.

    Wind Rider's oath is the third in that series.

    Both are pretty good, but stepping into the middle of the series might not be the best way to start them. I think both of the first novels are legitimately available for free in e-reader form; that's how I got them. Look for Baen's free library.

  • ||

    Yeah I noticed that....they were the only ones at the store i was at and were cheap being used editions. I was only there for The Martian and just grabbed some Baen books that caught my eye.

    I will probably hold off and read the first books first.

  • GamerFromJump||

    On Basilisk Station is available for free on the Baen Library, along with several other books in the series. Check Wikipedia for the reading order.

  • Quincy.||

    From an Andy Weir Interview:

    My ideology is simple: At all costs, prevent the reader from putting the book down. Make them stay up late reading and then only stop because they had to sleep.
    I’m not saying I agree or disagree with any of Heinlein’s ideas, I’m just saying I’d rather read about a guy shooting at space pirates than a plodding explanation of economic libertarianism and group marriages.
    Because a publisher offered me a bunch of money for a print deal. I’ve always wanted to get a book published in print and I’m a big fan of money.

    SJW or True Believer? You decide.

  • ||

    "Make them stay up late reading and then only stop because they had to sleep."

    I have problems sleeping...

    FUCKING BASTARD!!!

    No but seriously thanks for the recommendation.

    Book read good grunt

  • ||

    A good book is one that I can read three pages and put the book down and mull it over for a day, maybe two or three days, before I've exhausted it of braingrits, and repeat till it's done. The newer books in general suck in part because they are clearly written so that one is kept in a constant state of tension which can only be relieved by reading the next passage, till the book's over. And so they lack any real substance, since it doesn't encourage the reader to blast through at top speed and since it's difficult to really lay out anything of great interest in passages whose primary aim is to incite reading of the subsequent passage as soon as possible.

    The big philosophical debates that fill up most of the bulk of Heinlein's stories have been typical of fiction for fucking ever. If anything, the more recent trend to substanceless writing is the oddity. And if one is put off the by the gay tone of Heinlein's crap from 1960 on, there's always everything he writ before, which although it still centers around these philosophical arguments it's not nearly as gay.

  • ||

    On the other hand, I absolutely agree that the author's main aim ought to be telling the fucking story. Screw everything else. Ideally, nothing gets in the way. Take Asimov, for instance. It's like the writing, the author, is totally fucking invisible. Asimov is his own fucking Second Foundation. Read Asimov, and all you get is the story. I am comparative philologist who obsessively takes note of phrasing, word choice, prosody (Norton's writing is almost universally possessed of amazing prosody. Great passages from most of her novels could easily be recited as chants. She also follows some really bizarre phrasing and word choice. Her writing also contains some fascinating philosophical questions, but never expressed as explicitly as Heinlein does, and rarely presenting a readymade answer in its entirety to the reader, even when the answer is obvious as fuck. She is also one of a tiny handful of writers who is capable of writing a story focussing on several different characters and yet not allowing knowledge to leak from the minds of one into those of the others. Heinlein is horrible for this: all his characters seem to share a brain. Plus, he's only got like three or four of them, and he just repeats them with different names as needed till he's got enough for the story.), and yet when I read something by Asimov, I can usually afterward not really recall the words used to tell the story, except where that was an important part of the story.

  • ||

    Pohl's language is more intrusive, but he invariably makes his choice of phrasing and so forth a functional element in telling the story. Pohl is there, telling the story. One can't ignore him, but at the same time, he never seems like some alien entity who intrudes unnaturally upon the domain of the story, unfairly distracting the reader.

  • ||

    Another thing about Norton is her ability to mimic with astonishing fidelity the styles of classic writers. She could have ghostwritten by Lovecraft, Wells, and even Poe if she was able to keep herself drunk and pissed off enough throughout along with a healthy dose of who-gives-a-fuck?. It's strange that two of the United States' greatest writers, Poe and Bukowski, those who wrote what are probably the two best American novels ever, and some of its most uplifting (though perhaps not really great in general and even most of it pretty bad) poëtry, couldn't write two paragraphs without semaphoring the sense that the author truly gave no fucks.

  • GamerFromJump||

    Keep in mind that the Weber books are parts of series, so you'll want to read the preceding.

    "On Basilisk Station" (Honor #1) begins with possibly the best rebuttal of a Basic Income Guarantee ever.

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    So I'm ready for some football. A Sunday-night partaayyyyyyyyyyy.

    And I find out there's a guy on the Lion's staff name of "Jim Bob Cooter". Fuckin' A! THAT'S a goddamned name right there! Coaches QB's, evidently.

    Jim Bob Fuckin' Cooter. Three first names. One of which is "Cooter". That's badass.

  • Tybus||

    He was also a quarterback at the real UT. He came some time after Manning. I can't remember if he ever got in a game though. Also, he likes to party.

  • ||

    Off Topic because I am bored:

    Orc - From middle French 'torque' meaning a type of whale. Any of several large, ferocious sea creatures, now especially the killer whale [from the 16th century].

    From Italian 'Orco' (man eating giant)

    1834 "The National Fairy Mythology of England" in Frasier's Magazine for Town and Country, vol. 10, p. 53:

    "The chief exploit of the hero, Beowulf the Great, is the destruction of the two monsters Grendel and his mother; both like most of the evil beings in the old times, dwellers in the fens and the waters; and both, moreover, as some Christian bard has taken care to inform us, of "Cain's kin," as were also the eotens, and the elves, and the Orcs (eotenas, and ylfe, and orcneas). "

    “In Beowulf the main characterization of Grendel’s otherness, his monstrosity, is expressed in religious and cultural terms which stress his anti-social behaviour, throughout the poem he is called: “Son of Cain” and must be remembered that, by killing Abel, Cain destroyed his familiar bonds, and subsequently his bonds to God;…”
    - From Encountering the Other in the Middle Ages: from Ibn Fadlan’s account to Michael Crichton’s Fiction, Francesco Giusti

  • ||

    I am especially intrigued by the association of the word with man eating giants and with Grendel and his mother. Also the name Grendel/Wendol and its similarity to the word Wendigo, which is a mythical North American creature associated with cannibalism.

    Put that together with Ahmad ibn Fadlan’s account of having seen a ‘Grendel’ or ‘Wendol’ that the Swedes had captured and caged around about 922 a.d. (which I cant find now) and one can certainly imagine that Neandertal man survived until much more recently than widely believed. Of course it is mostly speculation based on spotty evidence, but I have long believed that our myths and fairy tales about humanoid creatures is cultural memory from times past when there were actual non-homo sapiens humanoids around.

    Which leads me now to look into the Cyclops portion of the Odyssey. He seems oddly like a man eating giant who lived in a cave. There seems to be little connection aside from that and that Polyphemus was the son of Poiseidon.

  • ||

    It also occurs to me that many humans today have significant portions of their DNA from neandertals and that most eastern europeans have some skull characteristics of Cro magnon
    so it is not necessary for pure critters to have existed up until written history. It is possible some half-breeds or even humans that were culturally inhuman could have been around.

    In any case, we didn't just pull the bogey man out of our ass. At some time in the past he was a real danger.

  • ||

    I have my own batshit theory but it involves Elves.

    Namely that the Elves (fair complexioned other people) depicted in German and Norse mythology are in fact white people who invaded Europe between 4000 and 10000 years ago and like the Saxon's who adopted Celtic King Author/Merlin into their history the Germans and Norse adopted the very mythology of the "other" who were in reality themselves....

    White people are the Elves!!!

  • ||

    Oh yeah and my other batshit theory is that Humans won the homo wars cuz we had dogs and they didn't.

  • GamerFromJump||

    That...actually sounds plausible.

    Hell yeah, the team with big-ass demi-wolves is going to have the upper hand.

  • ||

    "It also occurs to me that many humans today have significant portions of their DNA from neandertals and that most eastern europeans have some skull characteristics of Cro magnon"

    You should see some of the true Swedes (as opposed to second-hand Geat-Swedes, Dane-Swedes, and Goth-Swedes). Give them a shave and a sport coat and a lot of them still couldn't pass as human. Amongst the Irish one sees it as well, but not as commonly. I used to live in a town with a lot of people descended from Irish settlers, and there's one guy who was a typical looking black Irishman, almost identical in physiognomy to the others, but for one exception, that he was three times as big, a huge giant of a man. It was kind of unsettling.

  • ||

    It has been speculated that the cyclops mythology came about after people found elephant skulls. The large hole where their trunks attach may have been taken as an eyesocket, and would have been a neat catalyst for thinking that huge, one-eyed monsters existed.

    As for Neanderthals, their size difference with homo sapiens sapiens was probably way too small to create a giant mythology; plus any "cultural memory" would have to go back like 100,000 years or more to include them. Some of the other Australopithecines that existed would have been big enough, but they died out millions of years ago

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    The latest known Neanderthal bones date from 39,000 years ago, so it's not quite that old.

    Then there were Homo floresiensis, which only died out ~13,000 years ago...

  • ||

    Still, I think "cultural memory" is less likely than simply the fact that humans can see all kinds of animals that are clearly related yet significantly different sizes; be it a housecat and a tiger, or a deer and a moose, or an eagle and a sparrow. This would cause them to speculate, even without any evidence, that maybe there were some humanoids who did the same thing.

    And floresiensis would have inspired the idea of hobbits, not giants, because of their size. So I guess they're who we have to thank for having three The Hobbit movies. Bastards.

  • Atanarjuat||

    There are 7'+ humans today, plus people with all sorts of chromosomal abnormalities. I don't think it's even necessary to find a Homo non-sapiens to explain some weird monster/giant/lesbian albino stories. Not to mention how a person's appearance could be altered just by the ravages of living without proper medical care and whatnot.

  • DenverJ||

    The best explanation I have heard for the story of the Cyclops is based on the fact that Greece is full of fossils. A fossil of a mammoth would have a large hole in the center of the face.

  • ||

    I don't see how Romance orcõ and Old English orcneas could share a common origin. I think your source is stretching things past the breaking point.

    It's worth noting that Greek δϱάκων (drákǫn) was employed in Byzantine times rather in the same sense as orco.

    Just offhand I'd question whether torque as whale wasn't in reference to the fish's characteristic rolling motion, as is the English word "whale".

    Another noteworthy thing is the similarity amongst the old names for the Geats, Jutes, Jamts, Goths, and Jotnar (géatas, éotenas, eotas, gutanas, éotenas, etcétera).

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Shit, how did you get the Greek and the diacritical marks past the filter?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I don't see how Romance orcõ and Old English orcneas could share a common origin.

    Tolkien claimed that the OE was a borrowing of the Etrusco-Latin Orcus; if that is true, then it would be no big sin to claim they share a common origin. Noting of course that it's a Tyrsenian borrowing into Indo-European.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Rand Paul, Pataki, Piyush "Bobby" Jingal to exit GOP race soon:

    "Rand Paul’s campaign [reeks] of the same stench of death that surrounded the Perry and Walker efforts before their demise," said a New Hampshire Republican, who was one of 22 percent of those voters to name the Kentucky senator. "Paul’s polling is anemic, his fundraising is lagging, his campaign is disorganized and he is in danger of getting bumped off the main debate stage. He also has to consider when it’s time to cut bait and focus on running for reelection to the Senate. His time is running short."

    Said an Iowa Republican of the Kentucky GOP: "KYGOP is going to pressure him to concentrate on the US Senate race. There is no path to victory for him in the presidential race."

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/.....z3mzTArv5J

  • Cytotoxic||

    Rand Paul, Jingal said to be exiting GOP race soon according to anonymous speculation. -FTFY

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Ok folks, I'm off to conduct a human sacrifice so that the interdimensional portal that shall bring Yog-Sothoth fully into our plane of existence can be opened.

    Catch you on the flip side!

  • ||

    Hey, pick me up an Elder Thing and a shoggoth while you're there, would you?

  • ||

    Cthulhu 2016 - Why pick the lesser evil?

  • ||

    I'm partial to Nyarlathotep, myself.

  • ||

    On a scale of 1 to 10 10 being Suderman's imagined version of a typical Trump supporter standing in a Virginia alfalfa field and 1 being the love child of Jesus Buddha and Gandhi how racist was HP Lovecraft?

    How racist was Lovecraft's better; William Hope Hodgson?

  • PapayaSF||

    OT:

    A guy walks into the local welfare office, marches straight up to the counter and says, "Hello, I just HATE drawing welfare. I'd really rather have a job."

    The social worker behind the counter says, "Your timing is excellent. We just got a job opening from a very wealthy old man who wants a chauffeur and bodyguard for his 18-year-old nymphomaniac daughter. You'll drive his Mercedes. He'll supply all of your clothes and meals. You'll be expected to escort her on her overseas holiday trips and stay in an adjoining room. The starting salary is $200,000 a year."

    The guy says, "Are you kidding me?!"

    The social worker says, "Yeah, well, you started it."

  • Cyto||

    While I agree with the salient points above about patients deciding their own fates, there is a legitimate concern here that is very difficult to address.

    Even with the strict controls that exist in the US for clinical trials of drugs, there are scams that prey upon terrified and desperate people who are trying to keep the Grim Reaper at bay. In a doctor has been milking "clinical trials" for decades to extract tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars from dying patients. There are plenty of other examples of clinics that are successful at convincing people that their ineffective-at-best nostrums are the best hope of dying patients.

    Unfortunately, terminal cases make it terribly difficult or even impossible to prove out the harm of a scam. If they die, well, they were marked for death anyway. And if there is a rare but statistically expected remission? Well, that proves that the risk was worth it and provides the testimonial that ensures that the money keeps on flowing.

    If we had an effective private accreditation agency for medical practice and medicines, people would have a source to look to for useful advice. But as it is, we only have modestly useful professional societies and sometimes helpful, sometimes harmful government regulators.

  • GamerFromJump||

    I find that shooting has a strong deterrent effect against fraudsters.

  • Cytotoxic||

    OT: Catalonian separatist parties win in local elections.

    http://www.reuters.com/article.....RN20150927

  • ||

    I watch a lot of Arumba play EU4....

    So I am kind of pissed they call it Catalonia when it should be called Aragon

  • Woodys mom||

    The FDA has a clear duty to ensure that investigational procedures/products are brought to general use after through examination, through trials that are randomized, placebo controlled, double blind studies that include a statistical analysis. Not just some shit a drug maker says will cure (insert choice here). Otherwise we may as well be back to the snakeoil & charm days.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The FDA's obstinance in allowing beta-blockers to be used in America cost more lives than any amount of snake oil.

  • MSimon||

  • Robert||

    But it's not as if legislators regulators invented those procedures. They could be done without police power.

  • sarcasmic||

    If government doesn't do it, no one will. That's why there were no schools until the creation of the federal Department of Education in 1979.

  • Brian||

    Oh, please! Why, if it wasn't for the FDA, the American people would be suffering from pseudo-scientific crackpots and snake oil salesmen, left and right!

    Why do you hate health, libertardians?

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    Ayup.

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    This is an entertaining game. But I think the Lions will lose. Still - I got over it long ago. I don't ever expect them to do anything but break fans' hearts, so I'm just looking for entertainment. When they TOTALLY sucked and were boring, that was just unconscionable. But losing while entertaining?

    I'll accept that. I don't really have a choice if I'm going to follow the Lions;

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    I note that NBC has a little "Futbol Americano" in the line with the score, time, etc.

    TRUMP IS RIGHT!! WE'RE BEING OVERRUN! MISTER OBAMA - BUILD THAT WALL!

    /back to the game

  • ||

    Protesters calling Reason's Cathy Young a rape apologist and pull fire alarm to stop her speaking.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KpdL8UuntA&

    Hey ENB is it really MRAs (and name dropped gamergate) who are scaring away all the womenses from liberty? Or is it the lying censoring feminists?

  • SIV||

    Legions of rape-trained toddlers, indoctrinated by Pokemon, are gang-sodomizing rainbow-haired, social justice-minded BBW women's twitter mentions RIGHT NOW and only the United Nations and Ken White CAN STOP THEM! This is even worse than the Photoshopping in Vogue.

  • ||

    "Ken White CAN STOP THEM"

    Possibly the funniest shit to happen all week.

    "Abandon all free speech to the UN cuz gamergate is bad and the UN proved it!!"

    "hey Popehat did you actually read the UN report?"

    "aaaaahhhh.... Fuck you and your hate! It is your fault I did not read it!!"

    Popehat the great white progressive hope brought low by his own blind irrational hate.

  • Vampire||

  • AlmightyJB||

    All I see is an old story from last September?

  • AlmightyJB||

    oh I see

  • Robert||

    At least they didn't wipe out the old comments this time. I had when they rerun a piece w/o its comments, & we have to start from scratch.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    You monster!

  • DenverJ||

    Oh crap, didn't see that. I answered a post from suthenboy. That's two reheated leftover stories in one day.

  • SamDod598||

    lol, US politics, best politics money can buy lol.

    www.Full-Anon.tk

  • AlmightyJB||

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I agree with you. I really miss Corning.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Why?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    recalibrate

    I knew he had really lost in on the Triclosan post.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    *lost it

  • AlmightyJB||

    Hmm...don't recall that one

  • Cytotoxic||

    Neither do I.

  • MSimon||

    Cannabis cures cancer.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    No, it fucking doesn't.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Might.

    - Cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells in the laboratory(see Question 6).

    - At this time, there is not enough evidence to recommend that patients inhale or ingest Cannabis as a treatment for cancer-related symptoms or side effects of cancer therapy (see Question 7).

    - Cannabis is not approved by the FDA for use as a cancer treatment (see Question 9).

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Nope. It alleviates some symptoms and the side effects of some treatments. That's enough for me. Free minds, free markets.

    It does NOT cure cancer. Period.

  • Cytotoxic||

    There is some VERY preliminary evidence that suggests THC could be anti-cancer but MSimon's statement is irresponsible and not back by solid evidence.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Shit...meant to blockquote those 3 bullets. Apologies.

  • straffinrun||

    Cap'n gonna git ya. The comments are lovely.
    Easyeddie
    19 hours ago

    Gangs & terrorist do NOT deserve due process. The only way to deal with either is to identify, verify, exterminate with prejudice, reload and repeat.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    charlielines 1 day ago

    Many gang members are illegal aliens. Why are they not picked up and deported. better yet shot.
  • straffinrun||

    Preet, where are you? I'm sure the DOJ treats threats to illegals the same as they do judges.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Kind of opening himself up to a lawsuit if they do end up shooting one of those gang members.

  • Rhywun||

    Among those viewing the video was the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana which said the term “heathen” was inappropriate unless the captain knew the religion of those being sought.

    That'll put the captain in his place.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I thought you were joking. OMG. Fucking losers.

  • Rhywun||

    I wish I could come up with something that stoopid.

  • AlmightyJB||

    It's getting harder and harder to top reality

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I was going to post that the other day, but the visual of him talking tough while all those fat guys were standing behind him annoyed me too much to share with you good people.

  • Sevo||

    OT, SF political farce:

    As mentioned before, SF really doesn’t have a ‘housing crises’, but what is claimed to be such crises is largely self-inflicted; NIMBY, codes, height restrictions, rent control and what is regularly reported with a straight face, requirements for ‘Affordable Housing’ in new construction.
    Now, we also have a pretty big hole in the ground which is intended to be the northern terminus of moonbeam’s choo-choo, and as you can imagine, it is also to be a ‘legacy’ piece for one slimy politico or the other. It’s called The Trans-Bay Terminal, since it used to be that. Naturally, it’s being well managed: “The cost of the station has doubled since ground was broken in 2010 and now totals $2.4 billion” (from link below)
    To finance this boondoggle, the rights to build residential, retail and office was shopped to a developer, including some ‘Affordable Housing’ requirements. Said developer, being interested in making money, proposed to build the A-H some distance off since people buying market rate housing are concerned about ‘the neighborhood’, and all was fine.
    Cont'd.

  • Sevo||

    Cont'd.
    Until the latest election, when we got a worn-out ‘progressive’ returned to the Board of Supes, triggering a new alliance on the BoSs who dug out a requirement that the A-H be built within 5 blocks of the market rate development, regardless of prior agreements. That alliance is also pushing a requirement that new development reserve 25% for A-H, and I don’t have to tell you what that does to the prices of the market-rate units and the resultant chance of making money.
    Sooo, developer tears up contract, sez ‘up yours’ and bails, leaving the Terminal missing some $250M to complete construction, and given the uncertainty of building with such whackos having control, nearly no interest from any other developer.
    What to do? Why, we’ll just take out some loans (on whose OK remains to be seen), and, of course, that ain’t free:
    “Troubled SF transit project puts public on hook to Goldman Sachs”
    […]
    “The over-budget Transbay Transit Center is so stretched for cash that officials have been forced to take out a short-term loan from Goldman Sachs that puts the public on the hook for $37 million just in fees and other charges.”
    http://www.sfchronicle.com/bay.....845011.php

    I'm sure the proggies will blame the rethuglicans. If they can find one

  • Rhywun||

    2.4 billion? Pikers.

    I travel through the underground portion of this thing every day (you know, the train station - the whole reason for its existence) and while only 3 out of the 5 tracks are yet open, it's clear that the starchitecht didn't put any thought into actually using it. The trains come in and out about every 90 seconds during rush hour but the tiny staircases and occasional escalator are not up to the task - you should see the looooong lines to get in and out.

    It's pretty, though.

  • crazyfingers||

    About 10 years ago, when I was in college, this issue came up in a political science class. I said that if a potentially life-saving drug was legal in Europe, a terminal patient here should be allowed to have it. The professor and the entire class turned on me as if had said something horrible. They claimed no consideration should be given to the individual, if it meant subverting the federal bureaucracy.

    It was really an eye-opening experience. I didn't understand how people, let alone everyone but me (10+ people), could think that way. I still don't understand. It's not even about political ideology; it's about basic human compassion.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, I've had similar experiences criticizing drug testing. Evidently people really love urinating for the man.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    And now you're here.

    Statists making libertarians, one moronic policy at a time.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I've been pretty anti-authoritarian from a pretty young age. Grew up in 60's. Remember watching documentaries on Bull Connor and Kent State. The more I learned the less I trusted the state. Politically I would say that I fell for a lot of republican "shrink the government" rhetoric early on including that coming from Mr. $500 hammer Kasich currently running for King. Got tired of being Charlie Brown to their Lucy in pretty short order.

  • Quincy.||

  • AlmightyJB||

    Well, there goes my plan to cut back on coffee. Probably why I'm not dead yet:)

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Huzzah! I'm saved!

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    It's a meta study. So.... not meaningful

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Get a load of Negative Nancy over here, raining all over our parade.

  • AlmightyJB||

    You mean pissing. Or would you consider that making the parade better? I can never be sure about you.

  • Quincy.||

    That's why I said "Good news, everyone!"

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    You're a real buzzkill tonight, Mr Poopyhead.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Your first statement does not back up the second. There is nothing wrong with meta studies and we need more of them.

  • Quincy.||

    Actually watched the video. Goddamn, is my hatred of bureaucracy redoubled.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    It is an especially brutal one.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Kill the goddamn Fucking DEA with fire.

    But, most of you weird tringing dummies might vote for Trump...

    The ULTIMATE POLICE STATE HELL IN ORANGE.

    yea, trump will KILL America

  • jjjjj||

    My body, my choice.*

    *Unless you want to sell one of your organs to someone who needs it. Or take an experimental drug that might save your life or at least contribute to scientific knowledge. Then again, those two choices have the intention of saving a life, not ending one.

  • Madeline123||

    Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is one of the motor neural diseases, which selectively affects motor neurons in the anterior horn of spinal-cord, and the motor nuclei of brainstem and the pyramidal cells in the motor cortex of brain 192.168.0.1

Click here to follow Reason on Instagram

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online