Net Neutrality Is Marxist?
levipearson at gmail.com
Tue Apr 13 00:26:11 MDT 2010
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Michael Torrie <torriem at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nicholas Leippe wrote:
> By the way this kind of link is far more convincing in support of your
> claims than the blog post and WWN-wannabe news rag you linked to before.
I don't know about that. That final link is the keynote speech from a
'natural supplement' expo. Whatever you think of natural supplements,
it's clear that those who stand to make a lot of money by promoting
natural supplements as medicine have a bone to pick with the FDA,
which insists that such claims actually have some experimental basis
to them. The FDA is certainly broken to some degree, but it's an
agency with an overly-broad scope and not enough funding to carry out
its mission. I think the idea at the end of the article to reduce
drug company influence on drug safety decisions is a great one, though
the one to make the staffers personally responsible for the bad
results of approved drugs is laughably stupid. It kind of puts things
in perspective that they'd suggest making government people
responsible before the ones who actually make and market bad drugs.
I also have to wonder what people who call for dismantling of agencies
like the FDA think would happen if the drug and supplement companies
could simply say and do anything they pleased without any sort of
regulatory bodies, even partially corrupt ones, regulating them? The
free market idea depends on rational, well-informed beings, but
advertising dollars are intended explicitly to subvert rational
decision making, and with advances in understanding of human
cognition, they are getting very effective. If they can bend the very
visible and high-profile FDA to their will now, how much more so would
they be able to bend the wills of various smaller and less visible
entities if the FDA were disbanded entirely?
More information about the PLUG