As is the case almost always, when a significant law is enacted that restricts freedom of the people, there is usually a hidden agenda. There is the real "hidden" reason, and the reason that is publicly stated. They are rarely the same.
In the case of the FDA, the stated reason was to protect the public. However the FDA would never have been created without either a groundswell of support from the public, or a big push from the pharms. It was the big push by the pharms that supported the creation of the FDA. The pharms had only one interest then as now. They have never had an interest in protecting the public. Instead their interest is to make people purchase medicines that they hold patents on and can charge high prices for. They did not want people able to cure themselves with inexpensive non-patentable items. Then as now, a cured patient is a lost customer. Marshall Ode Coyote wrote: > Not quite true, though it may have become true now. > There were a lot of independent remedies then that didn't work or were > mislabled or plain old dangerous, most of which contained high levels of > cocaine and heroin or other poppie extracts. > But, I think the whole function of the FDA should be to do the testing and > issue information...not outlaw anything or be supported by drug companies or > depend on the regulated to test thier own products. > It's like cops telling a con man that he'd better not lie. > > FDA approval should mean just that. That it has been tested and approved and > is therefore a known substance. For something to not be approved should mean > "No information available, use at your own risk" Then there's "disapproval", > meaning "This stuff has been tested,is dangerous , here's why and contains > X,Y and Z"...don't buy it. [Not, "we're gonna bust you if you try to sell it" > unless you misrepresent what it is...then it's fraud.] > "Not FDA approved" does not mean the same thing as FDA DISAPPROVED if no > testing has been done. But it has come to mean that in general usage and > sometimes in law. > Ken > > At 10:10 AM 9/28/01 -0400, you wrote: > >>>> > > No, the FDA was formed around that time, to stamp out remidies that > worked but did not make the pharms any money. > > Marshall > > Quietcove wrote: > > Wasn't CS FDA approved in 1936 Roger?qc > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [<mailto:[email protected]>mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 9:24 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: CS>Rising to the Challenge? > In a message dated 9/28/2001 9:00:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > > Roger -- according to my friend, this was the most > UNmaverick doc she's ever been to (she's 67.) > She was astonished by his apparent switch.Of course > that's subjective, but doesn't change the circumstances. > Judy Down Maine > > Judy: Well, action speaks louder than words. I had a CS > discussion with a physician end when he told me that would never even > consider using any medication that was not approved by the FDA. Roger > > <<<< > > -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. > To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: > [email protected] -or- [email protected] with the > word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. > To post, address your message to: [email protected] Silver-list archive: > http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike > Devour
