The Dangers Of Junk Science

Look, I'm not justifying what the terroists, religious radicals and hate mongars are doing to our planet. They need to be arrested and tried for their crimes just like any other criminal. My point was, with Bush's patriotic campaign of violence against Iraq and Afghanistan, it's just making the situation worse. Thanks to him, these terror group can now recruit more terrorists because violence just begets more violence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So where is the evidence for that which you claim?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Beeep. No cookies for you. Seemingly here you do confuse speciation with evolutionary change.

Short definition of evolution: change of the gene-pool composition over time.
Now guess again.
Given the fact that in your short post you revealed several misunderstandings with regards to evolution, I can only support Skinwalker here:
get a textbook regarding this topic and read it. Then think again.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Dangers of Junk Science are obvious in Spidergoat constantly making inane statements about things he/she clearly doesn't understand.

The FDA is a very tough regulator and typically uses physician specialists in public hearing to advice them (the FDA) on the acceptability of proposed new drugs.

It is the cost of doctors, nurses and hospitals that are the vast majority of medical costs, not drugs.

Even if drugs were given away you wouldn't have enough to marginally dent the medical care bill. And if they were cheap - would you trust that they had been developed with safety in mind?

Just for once it would be nice to see Spidergoat engage brain before begining to type.

 

Ahhh, open season on numpties....

Youve already been pilloried for the first mistake.
How do you know that the universe is infinite in "time and space"?

Where are your measurements of faster than light entities?

If you cannot produce any evidence for anything like the above, you are not doing science. By evidence, I mean replicable observations that do not depend upon the observer for their results.

 

What did I say that had anything to do with science?

Yes, doctors that used to work for the drug industry.

For individuals, drugs are often the most expensive daily burden.

It's the job of the FDA to regulate drugs, it should not be dependent on cost.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What did I say that had anything to do with science?
Duh ... It's in the title of the Thread - but you're right in this Science Forum you rarely say much to do about science.

Yes, doctors that used to work for the drug industry.
No - Doctors who are clinicians and specialists in hospitals.


For individuals, drugs are often the most expensive daily burden.
No - The tax and insurance costs paid in case medical support is needed is the biggest cost for individuals.


It's the job of the FDA to regulate drugs, it should not be dependent on cost.
Yes - but unfortunately good science (which is what the FDA try to ensure) does cost a lot - the average cost to develop a new drug is circa $1bn

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[/QUOTE]
Wow - your eloquent, well thought out, carefully targeted rebuttal has floored me - how can I possibly answer that - keep up the good science!

 

Regardless of the title, this has become more a debate about policy than science.

The FDA relies on outside advisory panels to provide recommendations on the safety and effectiveness of drugs and medical devices. However, many of the scientists who serve on these panels have financial conflicts-of-interest that bias their recommendations, or at least give the perception of bias. For example, 10 of 32 scientists on the FDA's Cox-2 advisory panel had ties to manufacturers of the drugs. Had their votes had been eliminated, two of the three drugs in that class would have been voted down by the panel, instead of receiving narrow support. In April, an FDA panel reviewing the evidence supporting the controversial silicone gel breast implants included a scientist that had made a promotional CD supporting the products.
http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/fda_reformbill.shtml

 

Cancer Risk Not Sticking To Teflon​

<div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">It looks like the attempt to link </span><a href="http://www.teflon.com/NASApp/Teflon/TeflonPageServlet?pageId=/consumer/na/home_page.jsp"><span style="font-family:arial;">Teflon</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> as a carcinogen may not be sticking. Earlier this month the </span><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-02-15-epa-teflon-carcinogen_x.htm"><span style="font-family:arial;">EPA put out a report </span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">stating that the chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) which is a component of Teflon, as a "likely carcinogen". Do-gooders, activists and scare mongers everywhere have sounded the alarm and threw out their pots and pans demanding the government ban the product. After all Teflon is made by DuPont, the same evil company that created the dreaded silicone breast implants. I am sure that liberals loved the idea of linking Teflon to something sinister since the word is associated with Ronald Reagan ever since the former Congressette and short time presidential candidate </span><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-06-schroeder_x.htm"><span style="font-family:arial;">Patsy “Cry me a river” Schroeder</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> dubbed him the "Teflon President" in the 80’s, because nothing the Democrats threw at him would stick.

Well housewives and domestic goddesses everywhere may have no need to throw out their Teflon wares after all. It seems that Teflon may be just the latest victim of junk science run amok. According to George B. Corcoran, a noted toxicologist and chairman of the department of pharmaceutical sciences at Wayne State University in Detroit, who is a member of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency advisory committee says that the proof is not there and that he would have no problem using a Teflon product himself.</span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Arial;">
</span></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">From </span><a href="http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2006/02/23/hscout531173.html"><span style="font-family:arial;">Forbes.com</span></a>
<span style="font-family:arial;">
<em><strong>"Do I still use Teflon cookware, even though I've been on this panel for over a year and a half now?" he said. "The answer is: Yes."</strong></em></span></div><div align="justify">
<em><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>According to Corcoran and other experts, the evidence for PFOA-related harm from everyday cooking remains slim. "My sense is that we [scientists] are being prudent in reducing further exposure, because we just don't know what the bottom line is yet," he said.</strong></span></em></div><div align="justify">
<em><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>For its part, the EPA on its Web site says that, because of "scientific uncertainties at the present time, EPA does not believe there is any reason for consumers to stop using any consumer or industrial related products that contain PFOA."</strong></span></em></div><div align="justify">
<span style="font-family:arial;">In the first EPA report they stated that Teflon contains a "likely carcinogen" now they say it is a "scientific uncertainty". Why did they irresponsibly put out a report they knew would put the press in a lather, and cause activists to demand the immediate banishment of the product? Not to mention the fact that every lawyer in the country is licking their chops, and cutting down several forests to produce the paper required to file their lawsuits. I can just hear Merrill Streep now “What are we doing to our children!”</span></div><div align="justify">
<span style="font-family:arial;">It’s another bad example of the </span><a href="http://www.i-sis.org.uk/prec.php"><span style="font-family:arial;">precautionary principle</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">, which holds that even if there is no evidence linking a product to anything harmful, the bare fact that it might is enough to keep it off the market.</span></div><div align="justify">
<span style="font-family:arial;">The damage is done however, now that the original report by the EPA has come out it doesn’t matter how many other scientists come out and debunk it. Years after the silicone breast implant scare was shown to be based on faulty science the product is still kept off the market and probably will forever be tainted in the eyes of consumers, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever change that. Hopefully Teflon will be Teflon and the pronouncements of perveyers of junk science and other activists will not stick.</span> </div>

Reprinted from Oblogatory Anecdotes

 

Tanstaafl

 

Last time I visited the junkyard, it was a mess!
The scientists down there are basically running a junk pile! And they ain't doin a good job of it, neither!

Frankly, I'm worried about the state of junk these days.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Have you noticed? It just smells more than it used to...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

AH! Rael! The man. The cosmonaut. The giant cockroach.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The legend!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Dear Raelian,

Are you really a follower of the Rael man? Vorilhon, I like to call him.
How's he coming with the international space embassy? I assume he's making good time.

 

Now that's a good one.