FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc • Hacker News Board

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#121

Post by vkou » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 11:23 AM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #94

vkou wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you seriously think that we'd have fewer of these issues if companies could shop around for the cheapest & most lax regulator? If you believe that, please explain to me why the BBB exists, and what positive social purpose it serves. It is the poster child for a toothless opt-in 'regulator', and it is worse than useless at dealing with malfeasance by its members. (But it's pretty good at collecting membership dues.…

Imagine if absolutely nothing changed about the BBB except that I forced you to fund them against your will.

Given that the FDA is a product of a democratically elected government that is ultimately accountable to the people, while the BBB is a 'non-profit' corporation, accountable to nobody, I think you missed one other important difference.

If I don't like the FDA, I can vote for someone who will fix it. I happen to think that they have, overall, done a far better job than most examples of industry self-regulation.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#122

Post by rootusrootus » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 3:18 PM UTC

mikestew wrote: post #112

rootusrootus wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talc is still very much commonplace. What is actually somewhat hard to find is pure talc with no fragrance at all. Not everyone wants to smell like baby powder.

Thanks for a different POV. Here in Redmond, WA I’m either not looking (which is quite possible), or corn starch dominates the shelves.

I've no doubt it varies considerably by store. Maybe by area, as well, though I'm not all that far from you, so that probably isn't a big factor.

To get actual unscented pure talc I had to find it on Amazon.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#123

Post by Consultant32452 » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 3:54 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #121

Consultant32452 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if absolutely nothing changed about the BBB except that I forced you to fund them against your will.

Given that the FDA is a product of a democratically elected government that is ultimately accountable to the people, while the BBB is a 'non-profit' corporation, accountable to nobody, I think you missed one other important difference. If I don't like the FDA, I can vote for someone who will fix it. I happen to think that they have, overall, done a far better job than most examples of industry self-regulation.

>Given that the FDA is a product of a democratically elected government that is ultimately accountable to the people

The head of the FDA is appointed by Donald Trump.

>If I don't like the FDA, I can vote for someone who will fix it.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/charles-wheelan/2014/04...

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#124

Post by asdf21 » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 4:39 PM UTC

mikestew wrote: post #69

asdf21 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Government isn't working well! Easy fix, what we need is more government." Smart thinking over here.

"We've cut budgets such that there aren't enough regulators to keep tabs on things, while J&J bullshits consumers, and your solution is more government?" Yes, that is exactly my solution. Do you have suggestions?

Privatization is the solution to regulatory capture.

Larger government just creates more regulations to capture.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#125

Post by vkou » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 5:42 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #123

vkou wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the FDA is a product of a democratically elected government that is ultimately accountable to the people, while the BBB is a 'non-profit' corporation, accountable to nobody, I think you missed one other important difference. If I don't like the FDA, I can vote for someone who will fix it. I happen to think that they have, overall, done a far better job than most examples of industry self-regulation.

>Given that the FDA is a product of a democratically elected government that is ultimately accountable to the people The head of the FDA is appointed by Donald Trump. >If I don't like the FDA, I can vote for someone who will fix it. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/charles-wheelan/2014/04...

Donald Trump is an incredibly shitty person, but is democratically elected. The head of the BBB is not.

You're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#126

Post by gamblor956 » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 6:05 PM UTC

lightedman wrote: post #99

gamblor956 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People mean citations to researchers that don't stand to directly profit from their spurious (i.e., fake) research, like the idiot/murderer that spawned the anti-vaxx movement. So far you've only cited doctors and clinics that directly benefit from promoting stem-cell research, and no unbiased (i.e., academic) studies showing any sort of statistical benefit.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073510970... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2095130/ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daisuke_Sakai/publicati... https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ten.tea.2010.0248 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03009... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00395-005-0553-4 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.15…

I don't think you bothered to read the citations you provided. Half of them merely describe what stem cell therapy is, several of them describe what they hope stem cell research will accomplish, and only a handful of them actually consist of research on stem cell therapy itself, almost all of which involve animal trials or laboratory trials on human cells outside of the human body.

One of these articles even noted that stem cell treatment appeared to be more dangerous than chemotherapy with respect to cancer treatment...

So yes, thanks for the cites but you still haven't provided any cites that support the notion that stem cell treatment is either safe or effective in humans.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#127

Post by Consultant32452 » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 6:08 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #125

Consultant32452 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Given that the FDA is a product of a democratically elected government that is ultimately accountable to the people The head of the FDA is appointed by Donald Trump. >If I don't like the FDA, I can vote for someone who will fix it. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/charles-wheelan/2014/04...

Donald Trump is an incredibly shitty person, but is democratically elected. The head of the BBB is not. You're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The head of the BBB doesn't have a monopoly guaranteed by men with rifles and cages.

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that if you dislike the FDA you can vote someone in who will fix it? I provided pretty compelling evidence that suggests you cannot.

We're all responding to a story of the FDA allowing a big megacorp give us all cancer for literally decades. I think we have a very different definition of the word "good." You can't vote in a better FDA, but you can fire the BBB by simply ignoring them. No system will be perfect, but a better system is one in which you can choose to ignore an unreliable source of information and aren't forced to fund their production of unreliable information.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#128

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 9:10 PM UTC

loceng wrote: post #46

costcopizza wrote: post #13

And we can't vote these regulators out nor boycott them. Stories like this erode my faith in...everything.

It seems there will be constant battles until enough of society is educated enough where they know what they will take a stand for, accept, and what they won't - in part so they are able to elect politicians who are the gatekeepers, on "both sides" - who will eliminate and watch, protect against these efforts or mechanisms of bad actors. The first step is "getting money out of politics" - which is likely an impossibl…

Won't the lobbyists just spend their $5B on ads encouraging people to spend their $30B on their chosen candidates?

Sounds like a lobbying force-multiplier.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#129

Post by dzhiurgis » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 10:04 PM UTC

girvo wrote: post #103

dpau wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

J&J's actions are also very similar to those of the tobacco industry and oil companies- the dangers of their product were well-known within the industry and yet they took steps to obscure the issue and limit regulation rather than address the problem. (In fact I just did a Google search for "hazardous talc" and the first result is an ad: "Johnson & Johnson | Get the Facts About Talc‎" https://www.factsabouttalc.com )…

In a different corner of information: pulmonary talcosis is a known danger for intravenous drug users who shoot up pills. We’ve known about that for decades, too

Is the risk there for people who sniff them as well? I have some friends who like their adder too much

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#130

Post by girvo » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 12:26 AM UTC

dzhiurgis wrote: post #129

girvo wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a different corner of information: pulmonary talcosis is a known danger for intravenous drug users who shoot up pills. We’ve known about that for decades, too

Is the risk there for people who sniff them as well? I have some friends who like their adder too much

It’s theorised that yes, there is, but I haven’t seen the same papers/case studies that prove it. But: consider that talc dust inhalation is known to cause talcosis, then consider that snorting crushed up tablets with talc in them goes straight into your mucous membranes and lungs, I personally would not be at all surprised.