ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 29th May 2019, 09:47 PM   #481
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,706
Exclamation A thimerosal in vaccines liar is not a reliable source about vaccines

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Sure, they diligently did their duty and failed to report (brag about) their accomplishments for 30 years.
The reports from the departments are not "brags". They are summaries of what happened since the report. The DHHS spent time and money for 30 years promoting vaccine safety as stated in the many reports it published.
29 May 2019 Itchy Boy: A bureaucratic failure of the DHHS does not make vaccines not monitored or unsafe.

30 May 2019 Itchy Boy: A thimerosal in vaccines liar is not a reliable source about vaccines (Robert F Kennedy)
He was in 2015 and may be still deluded about thimerosal in vaccines making them unsafe: Thiomersal and vaccines. For example, most U.S. and European vaccines have had thimerosal removed (over a period starting maybe 15 years ago!) because of public concerns about an rumored link with autism and autism, etc. have not decreased !
He wrote a 2005 article in Rolling Stone and Salon.com with a paranoid conspiracy theory about a CDC meeting to "conceal the dangers of thiomersal to protect the pharmaceutical industry". Salon retracted the article 6 years later.

He lies about winning a trivial court case that was dismissed. Did the US Government Lose a Landmark Vaccine Lawsuit?
He did get a result - the DHHS stated that they had missed presenting 2-yearly reports. That is 16 reports over 32 years and maybe hundreds that they did publish. The DHHS did report to the US government, just not those specific reports, and no one they were supposed to present the regulated reports to, complained about it.

ETA: Things called court documents exist !
Case 1:18-cv-03215-JMF Document 18 Filed 07/09/18 (PDF) hosted on the ICAN web site is the result of the case.
Quote:
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the particles by and through their respective council:
1. That the above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed...
This is signed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. making any winning a case a lie.
August 25, 2017: ICAN submitted a FOIA request for reports to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and Committee on Labor and Human Resources Of the Senate.
April 12, 2018: ICAN filed a Complaint in the US District Court seeking those records if any.
June 27, 2018: HSS told ICAN that there were no records found.
ICAN believes that response resolved all claims in the action. Action is voluntarily dismissed.

This is a complaint for declaratory relief and injunctive relief which is not strictly a legal case with an accuser and one or more defendants. This was a judge deciding whether an injunction was needed to enforce the FOIA request (injunctive relief) or a declaration needed to determine the rights of parties (declaratory relief). Neither was needed because the parties resolved the issue thus the dismissal.

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th May 2019 at 10:35 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 11:15 AM   #482
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,295
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
https://www.nutraingredients-usa.com...as-head-of-NPA

"Fabricant most recently was the director of the Division of Dietary Supplement Programs at the Food and Drug Administration. Prior to his stint at FDA, which began in 2011, Fabricant was president of global government and scientific affairs at NPA and was its acting CEO for several months in 2009."
I know Dan Fabricant and have worked with him in the past. He is smart and really does care about the dietary supplement industry and the safety of those products.

If Daniel Fabricant has anything to do with the FDA's oversight of or regulation of vaccines then I agree with you that there is something seriously wrong at the FDA.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 12:43 PM   #483
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 783
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I know Dan Fabricant and have worked with him in the past. He is smart and really does care about the dietary supplement industry and the safety of those products.

If Daniel Fabricant has anything to do with the FDA's oversight of or regulation of vaccines then I agree with you that there is something seriously wrong at the FDA.
The issue is not about Daniel or whether he was involved with vaccines.
The problems at the regulatory agencies are systemic. Daniel going back and forth is just one small example of people in the agencies working for the companies they're supposed to regulate, and vice-versa, thus creating conflicts of interest.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 01:41 PM   #484
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 43,979
Just another Anti Vaxxer at work, folks.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 02:43 PM   #485
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,706
Thumbs down Repeating the antivaxxer "conflict of interest" myth does not make vaccines unsafe

You seem to be repeating anti-vaccination myths, lies and paranoia without doing any research first, Itchy Boy.

27 May 2019 Itchy Boy: Please list the large sample size fully unvaccinated populations in the world (as in a antivaxxer "One Study").
29 May 2019 Itchy Boy: A bureaucratic failure of the DHHS does not make vaccines not monitored or unsafe.
30 May 2019 Itchy Boy: A thimerosal in vaccines crank and liar is not a reliable source about vaccines (Robert F Kennedy)

31 May 2019 Itchy Boy: Repeating the antivaxxer "conflict of interest" myth does not make vaccines unsafe.

What you and the antivaxxers are actually saying is that all drugs approved by the FDA are unsafe and maybe should be withdrawn !

The stories you have cited just reveal that the FDA is run by people and people have obvious flaws that the FDA knows about and tries to eliminate.

The antivaxxer "conflict of interest" myth is a delusion. The FDA has rules to recuse people with actual conflicts of interest from reviewing the drugs: What is a conflict of [financial] interest?. In the real world, the people most likely to have expertise about the testing and safety of a new drug are the researchers for the drug. It is not a conflict of interest for one to be a reviewer on a panel of multiple reviewers. The FDA has been looking at guidelines to reduce any bias introduced by a reviewer who presumably has a bias toward their drug (they call this an appearance of conflict of interest).

Last edited by Reality Check; 30th May 2019 at 02:49 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 04:46 PM   #486
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 783
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
What you and the antivaxxers are actually saying is that all drugs approved by the FDA are unsafe and maybe should be withdrawn !
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. People can 'interpret' comments any way they like, at the cost of losing the intended meaning of the comment.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 05:45 PM   #487
Chris Haynes
Perfectly Poisonous Person
 
Chris Haynes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West
Posts: 4,394
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The issue is not about Daniel or whether he was involved with vaccines.
The problems at the regulatory agencies are systemic. Daniel going back and forth is just one small example of people in the agencies working for the companies they're supposed to regulate, and vice-versa, thus creating conflicts of interest.

Funny how you are throwing shade at every other department of the FDA, while you ignore Health Canada. Just love how someone outside of the USA uses American government agencies as their punching bags.


So how was thalidomide handled in Canada in the early 1960s? The USA was spared by a very vigilant doctor who was from Vancouver Island:

https://cfmedicine.nlm.nih.gov/physi...raphy_182.html
__________________
I used to be intelligent... but then I had kids

"HCN, I hate you!"
( so sayeth Deetee at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1077344 )...
What I get for linking to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/

Last edited by Chris Haynes; 30th May 2019 at 05:50 PM.
Chris Haynes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 06:08 PM   #488
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 783
Originally Posted by Chris Haynes View Post
Funny how you are throwing shade at every other department of the FDA, while you ignore Health Canada. Just love how someone outside of the USA uses American government agencies as their punching bags.


So how was thalidomide handled in Canada in the early 1960s? The USA was spared by a very vigilant doctor who was from Vancouver Island:

https://cfmedicine.nlm.nih.gov/physi...raphy_182.html
I have no data for Health Canada or other regulatory agencies around the world. That's why I'm 'ignoring' them. If they're doing a better job than the US, I applaud them.

No punching bag. I like the US and it's people. And what happens there affects a lot of people around the world. For example, a vaccine approved by one country smooths the way for approval in other countries. 'It smooths' the way, but there's no guarantee other countries will approve it.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 06:13 PM   #489
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,652
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I have no data for Health Canada or other regulatory agencies around the world. That's why I'm 'ignoring' them. If they're doing a better job than the US, I applaud them.

No punching bag. I like the US and it's people. And what happens there affects a lot of people around the world. For example, a vaccine approved by one country smooths the way for approval in other countries. 'It smooths' the way, but there's no guarantee other countries will approve it.
You have a very strange idea of simple logic, it seems to me.

Consider these two statements:

"I have no data for Health Canada or other regulatory agencies around the world."

and

"For example, a vaccine approved by one country smooths the way for approval in other countries. 'It smooths' the way, but there's no guarantee other countries will approve it."

You can't see that there is a glaring inconsistency here?
JeanTate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 06:24 PM   #490
Chris Haynes
Perfectly Poisonous Person
 
Chris Haynes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West
Posts: 4,394
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
... For example, a vaccine approved by one country smooths the way for approval in other countries. 'It smooths' the way, but there's no guarantee other countries will approve it.

Except Canada actually approved a different MMR. They used the Urabe mumps strain and not Jeryl Lynn version. Do you understand that there was a difference between them? Even Wakefield made a stink about that. Though he was trying to deflect attention away from his fraud and this consequence of him calling for single vaccines: https://webarchive.nationalarchives....con2031106.pdf



Seriously, why should we care about your opinions? You do not even know that there are several different MMR vaccines, which all depend on country and manufacturer. Then you cannot even figure out how access the public health system of your own country! (by the way that info does exist, I am not going help you find it)
__________________
I used to be intelligent... but then I had kids

"HCN, I hate you!"
( so sayeth Deetee at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1077344 )...
What I get for linking to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/
Chris Haynes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 07:28 PM   #491
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,706
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
No, that's not what I'm saying at all....
You linked to a handful of appearance of conflict of interest stories that do not mention vaccines. You are claiming that they apply to vaccines. The stories apply to all drugs. Whatever you believe about vaccines and their safety from FDA approval thus applies to all drugs.

The question then is what do you believe should be done about vaccines from that belief. Many of your posts are contain antivaxer myths and lies.The evidence so far is that that you are an antivaxer who wants to ban vaccines. The conclusion from your FDA accusations and the other posts is a ban of all FDA approved drugs .

But feel free to state what we should do with all of these drugs that you claim have been wrongly approved. Start with how do we find them?

Last edited by Reality Check; 30th May 2019 at 07:45 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 07:38 PM   #492
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,706
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
... For example, a vaccine approved by one country smooths the way for approval in other countries.
If you do not know about other regulatory agencies around the world, then you cannot say anything about their approval processes.

For a start, different drugs including different vaccines are approved by these different regulatory agencies.

Your profile says you are Canadian so:
Please cite the regulations that allow Health Canada to use other approvals to "smooth" their approval.

Last edited by Reality Check; 30th May 2019 at 07:42 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 08:02 PM   #493
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 783
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
You have a very strange idea of simple logic, it seems to me.

Consider these two statements:

"I have no data for Health Canada or other regulatory agencies around the world."

and

"For example, a vaccine approved by one country smooths the way for approval in other countries. 'It smooths' the way, but there's no guarantee other countries will approve it."

You can't see that there is a glaring inconsistency here?
No.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 08:10 PM   #494
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 783
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
If you do not know about other regulatory agencies around the world, then you cannot say anything about their approval processes.

For a start, different drugs including different vaccines are approved by these different regulatory agencies.

Your profile says you are Canadian so:
Please cite the regulations that allow Health Canada to use other approvals to "smooth" their approval.
It's just common sense. There are no regulations regarding smoothing.
As I stipulated, there's no guarantee that any substance approved in one country will be approved in another. But, in my opinion, it increases the likelihood.
I'm not asking anyone to agree.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 09:56 PM   #495
Chris Haynes
Perfectly Poisonous Person
 
Chris Haynes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West
Posts: 4,394
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
No.

Because you cannot, due to the fact you are clueless.



Each country has their own approval and regulation systems. There is a reason why there are different vaccine requirements. And even if a vaccine is developed in one country, it could be years before it would be used elsewhere... because that country will test it!


For instance: the both the varicella vaccine and the DTaP vaccine were developed in Japan (does that make them "Eastern" medicine?). The USA spent years doing studies before they were approved in the USA. Canada probably did the same. If you knew how to use PubMed you can see those studies (by the way, they were not conducted by the FDA).


The USA introduced its first MMR vaccine in 1971. This was changed in 1971 because the rubella part was causing joint problems, and one that had been used safety for years in Europe replaced that part. After testing, it was approved for use in 1978.


The UK introduced three different MMR vaccines in 1988... ten years later. It was the first time they had started to actually vaccinate for mumps. But, and you would know if you bothered to click on my last link, they had to remove two from the schedule in 1992.



Now some of this was explained to you before you gave that single syllable answer. Since you obviously did not understand that countries actually have different vaccines, it seems you have a closed mind. Even when we give you data, you totally ignore it.


So, again, why should we care about your opinion if you are impervious to learning?
__________________
I used to be intelligent... but then I had kids

"HCN, I hate you!"
( so sayeth Deetee at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1077344 )...
What I get for linking to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/
Chris Haynes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 01:13 AM   #496
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 783
Originally Posted by Chris Haynes View Post
Because you cannot, due to the fact you are clueless.



Each country has their own approval and regulation systems. There is a reason why there are different vaccine requirements. And even if a vaccine is developed in one country, it could be years before it would be used elsewhere... because that country will test it!


For instance: the both the varicella vaccine and the DTaP vaccine were developed in Japan (does that make them "Eastern" medicine?). The USA spent years doing studies before they were approved in the USA. Canada probably did the same. If you knew how to use PubMed you can see those studies (by the way, they were not conducted by the FDA).


The USA introduced its first MMR vaccine in 1971. This was changed in 1971 because the rubella part was causing joint problems, and one that had been used safety for years in Europe replaced that part. After testing, it was approved for use in 1978.


The UK introduced three different MMR vaccines in 1988... ten years later. It was the first time they had started to actually vaccinate for mumps. But, and you would know if you bothered to click on my last link, they had to remove two from the schedule in 1992.



Now some of this was explained to you before you gave that single syllable answer. Since you obviously did not understand that countries actually have different vaccines, it seems you have a closed mind. Even when we give you data, you totally ignore it.


So, again, why should we care about your opinion if you are impervious to learning?
I don't disagree with anything you said. I just don't think all of that and 'smoothing the way' are mutually exclusive.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 10:48 AM   #497
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 783
Originally Posted by Chris Haynes View Post
Because you cannot, due to the fact you are clueless.



Each country has their own approval and regulation systems. There is a reason why there are different vaccine requirements. And even if a vaccine is developed in one country, it could be years before it would be used elsewhere... because that country will test it!


For instance: the both the varicella vaccine and the DTaP vaccine were developed in Japan (does that make them "Eastern" medicine?). The USA spent years doing studies before they were approved in the USA. Canada probably did the same. If you knew how to use PubMed you can see those studies (by the way, they were not conducted by the FDA).


The USA introduced its first MMR vaccine in 1971. This was changed in 1971 because the rubella part was causing joint problems, and one that had been used safety for years in Europe replaced that part. After testing, it was approved for use in 1978.


The UK introduced three different MMR vaccines in 1988... ten years later. It was the first time they had started to actually vaccinate for mumps. But, and you would know if you bothered to click on my last link, they had to remove two from the schedule in 1992.



Now some of this was explained to you before you gave that single syllable answer. Since you obviously did not understand that countries actually have different vaccines, it seems you have a closed mind. Even when we give you data, you totally ignore it.


So, again, why should we care about your opinion if you are impervious to learning?
Here's a plausible, hypothetical example of how one country releasing a vaccine 'smoothes the way' for release in another country, and is compatible with 'normal procedures'.

Say the US approves and releases a new vaccine. The manufacturer applies for a licence in another country. Maybe that country is poor, or the health authorities are under a tight budget, yet they must follow all the proper procedures and do all the necessary tests.

When faced with performing a particularly expensive test as part of the licensing process, might that country not accept the US data on that test and save some money? Especially if the vaccine had been on the market for a while and no flags were raised?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 12:01 PM   #498
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,652
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Here's a plausible, hypothetical example of how one country releasing a vaccine 'smoothes the way' for release in another country, and is compatible with 'normal procedures'.

Say the US approves and releases a new vaccine. The manufacturer applies for a licence in another country. Maybe that country is poor, or the health authorities are under a tight budget, yet they must follow all the proper procedures and do all the necessary tests.

When faced with performing a particularly expensive test as part of the licensing process, might that country not accept the US data on that test and save some money? Especially if the vaccine had been on the market for a while and no flags were raised?
Precision and accuracy are not your strong suits, are they eh?

On the one hand, you admit that you "have no data for Health Canada or other regulatory agencies around the world."

On the other hand, you are perfectly happy to speculate, on the basis of "common sense", that "a vaccine approved by one country smooths the way for approval in other countries."

Not "might smooth", nor "could smooth", but an unvarnished 100% certainty, "smooths".
JeanTate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2019, 05:21 PM   #499
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,118
I saw on social media this morning that yet another massive study has been published that fails to link any kind of vaccine with autism or any related condition.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 05:21 PM   #500
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,706
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Here's a plausible, hypothetical example ...
that ignores the real world and your stated ignorance about "Health Canada or other regulatory agencies around the world".

In the real world, vaccines and drugs are tested before approval. It is that testing which forms the basis of the FDA approval process. If a drug was approved by the FDA then later approval by another regulatory agency will start with the latest tests of the drug around the world. That may include drug tests by local researchers. That probably includes post-approval monitoring. No competent regulatory agency should say "Lets ignore the research and just approve a drug because the FDA approved it"! Approval by regulatory agencies around the world may be a factor but that depends on the agency and what it is set up to do. Here in NZ publicly funded treatments (Pharmac) has a submission process for approval that seems to allow what other regulatory agencies have stated and what the research says.

Commonsense knows that different countries approving different drugs is evidence of no undue influence from the FDA. Commonsense also looks at that a country can approve a drug before the FDA approves it! Your hypothetical "smoothing the way" is just medical consensus on the safety of drugs. If one panel of experts says a drug is safe then another panel of experts can evaluate the current body of evidence and include that assessment from a panel of experts.

P.S.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd June 2019 at 05:30 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:31 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.