[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
As far as programs like FDA, great concept and great intentions, but can overreach. I think the supplement industry is a good example of a case study that isn’t regulated by the FDA. There are a ton of false claims by supplements that haven’t been proven with studies, but people are able to filter and learn about what is best for them.[/quote]
Are you sure about that?[/quote]
Yes, at least that is my understanding. I’m not sure what point you are disagreeing with, the fact that supplement companies can make exaggerated claims or that people can learn what is best for them.
In regards to claims by the supplement companies…maybe I should have said peer-reviewed studies? The studies are performed by a supplement company selling and are more propaganda than fact. They find a correlation and can claim their product delivers it. That’s why supplements along the lines of homeopathic medicine can exist even though they are essentially nothing. Placebo can be a very odd mechanism.
It’s similar to a 6-minute ab device. Can the device help you get abs? Sure. Is that what actually got the person in the video/ad to look like that? No. It’s not hard to fudge before and after pictures and the supplement you used could have helped, or might have been insignificant.
In regards to people being able to filter the noise from the supplement companies…The lack of regulation in market has created companies like Examine.com to get good third party research or use experts they trust to help get good advice and know what is propaganda vs. what works.[/quote]
So, a company selling synthetic heroin for pain treatments. Should they be required, by the government, to prove through extensive testing that the product is safe, and list all potential sides, and that it is in fact an opiate?
Or should the company be free to list it with “fantastic” claims and let people figure it out for themselves how they ended up a junkie?
[/quote]
Fair rebuttal, but is that far off from what they are currently doing even in a regulated industry? I know its not heroin but pain meds were previously handed out like candy and people became addicted to pain meds after receiving them legally through a doctor. Fortunately doctors are now more reluctant to hand out meds due to the liability. To directly answer your question, I think the end results would be the same if it was not regulated because a company has in their best interest to prove that their product is proven through extensive testing and safe for use, otherwise its a terrible product and people will not use it. The hospital/doctor doesn’t want to give out shady drugs or they will have a reputation as a shady hospital/doctor.
In the case of an illegal/legal substances used as medical practice, I think a better example is THC. I’m no expert on the issue but am from Colorado where it has used commonly as a “medicine” to now being similar to smoking a cigarette. There are numerous cases of parents showing how THC has reduced severe cases of childhood seizures but there are also cases showing that THC used at a young age is detrimental to brain development. The government is allowing it to be used, but it could be damaging. I guess I am cautious to trust the governement to know what is best for me. They could say its good or bad and I would still be cautious.
Another case would be the “worlds best burger”. How many food chains claim they are the best? Does the government need to determine what great burger is? The market, through restaurant ratings, yelp, word of mouth and popularity can actually prove that a restaurant has a good burger compared to a false claim.
That was a roundabout way of saying I understand your point. No regulation sounds awful because people can do stupid things and I am potentially naive in thinking that a market can regulate itself.