Whats the Tea party about then?

Post Reply New Topic

So, couldn't that also be considered a Democrat In Name Only?

Yeah, sure. A D.I.N.O.

You say this as if having some sort of regulatory authority in place making sure our medicine is safe and effective is a bad thing. Do I really want a doctor randomly deciding to use some unproven or "alternative" procedure on me? Before the FDA, we had people selling "snake oil" and "cure-alls."

Nothing works exactly as intended. One of the side effects of FDA regulation is that many medical advances available in Europe, Japan and India are not legal in the U.S.

An agency like the FDA is more inclined to say No than Yes regardless of the facts.

ruveyn

Well, being on the other side of the law, I can say that one disadvantage is that the drugs that they ban and seek to regulate do more damage than good to society. The FDA has its place but reinforcing views of archaic government studies and social views isn't its proper place.

I say this as someone whose personal life and social attitudes have been directly affected for the better by tryptamines, and the casual consumption thereof (much like how alcohol's casual consumption served to benefit society's ability to communicate and socialize).

The FDA is an institution that should be able to be trusted but currently, the model indicates that it isn't to be trusted beyond the monetary threshold of whatever institution is looking to get its pharmaceuticals through the system.

The recent studies indicate that tryptamine drugs have a far better influence on bipolar and depressed patients than Prozac (or most related anti-depressants/social anxiety medication) does but there are no practices to capitalize on such studies and such behavioral effects and that is mostly due to the FDA's stringent stance on hallucinogens (the drugs that are tryptamines at their base function, such as psilocybin or dimethyltryptamine).