BuffettNews.com

Skibo wrote:

springparrot wrote:

SharkOnLand wrote:If you stop eating tomatoes, the terrorists win.

Now jalapeño and serrano chiles, cilantro are on the list

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/ ... be3eb.html

Could this be a Bush plan to get the illegal Mexicans to go back to Mexico? Salsa is out, what's next black beans?

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:Most states, if not all, allow waivers based on religious, medical or in some cases, philosophical beliefs. If a waiver is not in place, students can be excluded from school until it is, just like they can be excluded until their vaccinations are current.

OPHarbor wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

green1 wrote:

ph4ever wrote:Hell the FDA doesn't even do research on the meds out now. The research is done by the drug companies who report their findings to the FDA and then the FDA approves the drug. Like the drug companies are going to report adverse sides?

The FDA is a huge joke and a waste of our tax dollars.

The FDA does do research on drugs, but the FDA receives the majority of their funding, not from the federal government but from pharmaceutical companies. That stems from legislation requring the drug companies to fund a portion of the cost of getting their products through the process. Liek so many other government plans, it was a nice idea, but inherently flawed at it's core. No one stepped up and asked about the conflict of interest in having the funding of an agency reliant upon the company which the agency is supposed to monitor.

I beg to differ on the research. From the FDA's website http://www.fda.gov/oashi/clinicaltrials ... aldoc.html

The Food and Drug Administration's job is to make sure medical treatments are safe and effective for people to use. However, FDA does not develop new therapies, or conduct the clinical trials to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. FDA staff members meet with researchers, and perform inspections of clinical trial study sites to protect the rights of participants and to verify the quality and integrity of the data.

The ratio between FDA staff members vs clinical trials/research is so HUGE common sense should tell you there's no way that every FDA staff member can research the thousands of clinical trials going on. That's why drugs are on the market for sometimes a year or two before the FDA issues warnings or completely pulls the drugs off the market.

OK I gotta weigh in on this one, although a bit off thread. The quotation above is exactly correct. The FDA inspects the R&D documntation to ensure that the drug product is safe and effective. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to deliver all documentation to the FDA, for not only the clinical trials, but all documentation from conception. The clinical trials are but one stop in the process, in fact the clinical trials that everyone talks about are Phase 3 trials. I am currently working on a NDA (new drug application). We completed the Phase III trials early last year. Every protocol, test method, capability study, safety build...etc., etc, etc...is scrutanized. Documentation that fills an entire 40' X 40' room will be inspected, during a PAI (pre-approval inspection). What I'm getting at here is yes, there are flaws in the system, but it work pretty Damn well in the big picture. We've had literally hundreds of people devote nearly 4 years developing a very safe and effective product and will spend at least another year before we will ever sell the first one. WE DO NOT HIDE OR MIS-REPORT ADVERSE RESULTS! It is frankly offensive to me that, one would assume or state otherwise.

There now I feel better

green1 wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

ph4ever wrote:Has anyone noticed a rise of pertussis in their area?

Several cases of it at Victoria's school last year. I don't know whether it is true or not, but I've heard different people say it is because some parents are choosing not to immunize. However, it isn't the DTaP (diptheria, tetanus, pertussis) shot that seems to raise people's immunization eyebrows, but rather the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) that has been suspected in some to trigger autism.

But what do I know.

So were the children who did not receive the DTaP vacine the ones who got pertussis? Or the children who had the vaccine? Or was it a mix? If it was the 1st, then the parents of vacinated children have nothing to worry about. If it was the 2nd or 3rd, then maybe we should step back and question the effectiveness of the DTaP vaccine. Or even it's necessity. Or perhaps the vaccine for pertussis was compromised when it was packaged together with Diptheria and Tetanus. Sadly we don't know because the government has never required long term studies of the effects vaccines have on children.

flyboy55 wrote:

green1 wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

ph4ever wrote:Has anyone noticed a rise of pertussis in their area?

Several cases of it at Victoria's school last year. I don't know whether it is true or not, but I've heard different people say it is because some parents are choosing not to immunize. However, it isn't the DTaP (diptheria, tetanus, pertussis) shot that seems to raise people's immunization eyebrows, but rather the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) that has been suspected in some to trigger autism.

But what do I know.

So were the children who did not receive the DTaP vacine the ones who got pertussis? Or the children who had the vaccine? Or was it a mix? If it was the 1st, then the parents of vacinated children have nothing to worry about. If it was the 2nd or 3rd, then maybe we should step back and question the effectiveness of the DTaP vaccine. Or even it's necessity. Or perhaps the vaccine for pertussis was compromised when it was packaged together with Diptheria and Tetanus. Sadly we don't know because the government has never required long term studies of the effects vaccines have on children.

Take the mumps. Frequent outbreaks among young adults - almost all of whom were vaccinated on schedule. Pointless to have everyone vaccinated for mumps anyways. Getting the real disease once gives life time immunity, unlike the vaccine. Complications due to getting mumps are/were extremely rare. The vaccine manufacturers are raking it in (in the case of the mumps 'vaccine').

NEO wrote:Darn You people are making me work...

There are only Stats for Hep A and Hep B no HepC.
Next Time I see some Hep C stuff I will send it to You Connie.

No Indepth sudies for immunized VS non immunized
for Pertussis.. Last week I have Data for is 6-27.
That week 65 cases for entire US.. With a cum total for 2008 so far 2,942

Total for 2007 4,313

No seperate data for Samonella Deaths Either
695 total cases for week of 6-27 Down from Median of 776 cases and max of 2,116.. Cum total for 2008 13,957 and Total for 2007 16,755.

Note: I just now get a total of all deaths by Ages ( All causes) For the Largest 122 cities.

Also note These are for IDs that were reported..

ph4ever wrote:

NEO wrote:Darn You people are making me work...

There are only Stats for Hep A and Hep B no HepC.
Next Time I see some Hep C stuff I will send it to You Connie.

No Indepth sudies for immunized VS non immunized
for Pertussis.. Last week I have Data for is 6-27.
That week 65 cases for entire US.. With a cum total for 2008 so far 2,942

Total for 2007 4,313

No seperate data for Samonella Deaths Either
695 total cases for week of 6-27 Down from Median of 776 cases and max of 2,116.. Cum total for 2008 13,957 and Total for 2007 16,755.

Note: I just now get a total of all deaths by Ages ( All causes) For the Largest 122 cities.

Also note These are for IDs that were reported..

well you asked Thanks!!!

and I've recently heard of some adverse sides from one of the Hep A or B vaccines

green1 wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:

green1 wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

ph4ever wrote:Has anyone noticed a rise of pertussis in their area?

Several cases of it at Victoria's school last year. I don't know whether it is true or not, but I've heard different people say it is because some parents are choosing not to immunize. However, it isn't the DTaP (diptheria, tetanus, pertussis) shot that seems to raise people's immunization eyebrows, but rather the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) that has been suspected in some to trigger autism.

But what do I know.

So were the children who did not receive the DTaP vacine the ones who got pertussis? Or the children who had the vaccine? Or was it a mix? If it was the 1st, then the parents of vacinated children have nothing to worry about. If it was the 2nd or 3rd, then maybe we should step back and question the effectiveness of the DTaP vaccine. Or even it's necessity. Or perhaps the vaccine for pertussis was compromised when it was packaged together with Diptheria and Tetanus. Sadly we don't know because the government has never required long term studies of the effects vaccines have on children.

Take the mumps. Frequent outbreaks among young adults - almost all of whom were vaccinated on schedule. Pointless to have everyone vaccinated for mumps anyways. Getting the real disease once gives life time immunity, unlike the vaccine. Complications due to getting mumps are/were extremely rare. The vaccine manufacturers are raking it in (in the case of the mumps 'vaccine').

Flyboy, you and I are usually at completly opposite ends of the spectrum on most issues. But I am in total agreement with you here.

buffettbride wrote:

green1 wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:

green1 wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

ph4ever wrote:Has anyone noticed a rise of pertussis in their area?

Several cases of it at Victoria's school last year. I don't know whether it is true or not, but I've heard different people say it is because some parents are choosing not to immunize. However, it isn't the DTaP (diptheria, tetanus, pertussis) shot that seems to raise people's immunization eyebrows, but rather the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) that has been suspected in some to trigger autism.

But what do I know.

So were the children who did not receive the DTaP vacine the ones who got pertussis? Or the children who had the vaccine? Or was it a mix? If it was the 1st, then the parents of vacinated children have nothing to worry about. If it was the 2nd or 3rd, then maybe we should step back and question the effectiveness of the DTaP vaccine. Or even it's necessity. Or perhaps the vaccine for pertussis was compromised when it was packaged together with Diptheria and Tetanus. Sadly we don't know because the government has never required long term studies of the effects vaccines have on children.

Take the mumps. Frequent outbreaks among young adults - almost all of whom were vaccinated on schedule. Pointless to have everyone vaccinated for mumps anyways. Getting the real disease once gives life time immunity, unlike the vaccine. Complications due to getting mumps are/were extremely rare. The vaccine manufacturers are raking it in (in the case of the mumps 'vaccine').

Flyboy, you and I are usually at completly opposite ends of the spectrum on most issues. But I am in total agreement with you here.

I tend to agree as well. Similar to chickenpox, having the disease immunizes you for life. I understand the risks to having it as an adult can be bad, but that seems more the exception than the rule to have the chickenpox.

I'm not against vaccination per-se, but the ins and outs of them today sure don't set well with me.

flyboy55 wrote:

OPHarbor wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

green1 wrote:

ph4ever wrote:Hell the FDA doesn't even do research on the meds out now. The research is done by the drug companies who report their findings to the FDA and then the FDA approves the drug. Like the drug companies are going to report adverse sides?

The FDA is a huge joke and a waste of our tax dollars.

The FDA does do research on drugs, but the FDA receives the majority of their funding, not from the federal government but from pharmaceutical companies. That stems from legislation requring the drug companies to fund a portion of the cost of getting their products through the process. Liek so many other government plans, it was a nice idea, but inherently flawed at it's core. No one stepped up and asked about the conflict of interest in having the funding of an agency reliant upon the company which the agency is supposed to monitor.

I beg to differ on the research. From the FDA's website http://www.fda.gov/oashi/clinicaltrials ... aldoc.html

The Food and Drug Administration's job is to make sure medical treatments are safe and effective for people to use. However, FDA does not develop new therapies, or conduct the clinical trials to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. FDA staff members meet with researchers, and perform inspections of clinical trial study sites to protect the rights of participants and to verify the quality and integrity of the data.

The ratio between FDA staff members vs clinical trials/research is so HUGE common sense should tell you there's no way that every FDA staff member can research the thousands of clinical trials going on. That's why drugs are on the market for sometimes a year or two before the FDA issues warnings or completely pulls the drugs off the market.

OK I gotta weigh in on this one, although a bit off thread. The quotation above is exactly correct. The FDA inspects the R&D documntation to ensure that the drug product is safe and effective. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to deliver all documentation to the FDA, for not only the clinical trials, but all documentation from conception. The clinical trials are but one stop in the process, in fact the clinical trials that everyone talks about are Phase 3 trials. I am currently working on a NDA (new drug application). We completed the Phase III trials early last year. Every protocol, test method, capability study, safety build...etc., etc, etc...is scrutanized. Documentation that fills an entire 40' X 40' room will be inspected, during a PAI (pre-approval inspection). What I'm getting at here is yes, there are flaws in the system, but it work pretty Damn well in the big picture. We've had literally hundreds of people devote nearly 4 years developing a very safe and effective product and will spend at least another year before we will ever sell the first one. WE DO NOT HIDE OR MIS-REPORT ADVERSE RESULTS! It is frankly offensive to me that, one would assume or state otherwise.

There now I feel better

Sorry.

Vioxx made by Merck and taken off the market. Class action lawsuits. Adverse effects discovered during initial testing were apparently suppressed by Merck.

KeetAtHeart wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:

OPHarbor wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

green1 wrote:

ph4ever wrote:Hell the FDA doesn't even do research on the meds out now. The research is done by the drug companies who report their findings to the FDA and then the FDA approves the drug. Like the drug companies are going to report adverse sides?

The FDA is a huge joke and a waste of our tax dollars.

The FDA does do research on drugs, but the FDA receives the majority of their funding, not from the federal government but from pharmaceutical companies. That stems from legislation requring the drug companies to fund a portion of the cost of getting their products through the process. Liek so many other government plans, it was a nice idea, but inherently flawed at it's core. No one stepped up and asked about the conflict of interest in having the funding of an agency reliant upon the company which the agency is supposed to monitor.

I beg to differ on the research. From the FDA's website http://www.fda.gov/oashi/clinicaltrials ... aldoc.html

The Food and Drug Administration's job is to make sure medical treatments are safe and effective for people to use. However, FDA does not develop new therapies, or conduct the clinical trials to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. FDA staff members meet with researchers, and perform inspections of clinical trial study sites to protect the rights of participants and to verify the quality and integrity of the data.

The ratio between FDA staff members vs clinical trials/research is so HUGE common sense should tell you there's no way that every FDA staff member can research the thousands of clinical trials going on. That's why drugs are on the market for sometimes a year or two before the FDA issues warnings or completely pulls the drugs off the market.

OK I gotta weigh in on this one, although a bit off thread. The quotation above is exactly correct. The FDA inspects the R&D documntation to ensure that the drug product is safe and effective. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to deliver all documentation to the FDA, for not only the clinical trials, but all documentation from conception. The clinical trials are but one stop in the process, in fact the clinical trials that everyone talks about are Phase 3 trials. I am currently working on a NDA (new drug application). We completed the Phase III trials early last year. Every protocol, test method, capability study, safety build...etc., etc, etc...is scrutanized. Documentation that fills an entire 40' X 40' room will be inspected, during a PAI (pre-approval inspection). What I'm getting at here is yes, there are flaws in the system, but it work pretty Damn well in the big picture. We've had literally hundreds of people devote nearly 4 years developing a very safe and effective product and will spend at least another year before we will ever sell the first one. WE DO NOT HIDE OR MIS-REPORT ADVERSE RESULTS! It is frankly offensive to me that, one would assume or state otherwise.

There now I feel better

Sorry.

Vioxx made by Merck and taken off the market. Class action lawsuits. Adverse effects discovered during initial testing were apparently suppressed by Merck.

I don't know the details about Vioxx, but even if Merck was as bad as the headlines would have you believe, that's one drug that caused slightly more problems than it solved. One. Of how many that have been approved???

There are some bad apples in any field, but the vast majority of people working in the pharmaceutical industry (FDA) are good, honest folks that really want to reduce people's suffering.

KeetAtHeart wrote:I don't know the details about Vioxx, but even if Merck was as bad as the headlines would have you believe, that's one drug that caused slightly more problems than it solved. One. Of how many that have been approved???

There are some bad apples in any field, but the vast majority of people working in the pharmaceutical industry (FDA) are good, honest folks that really want to reduce people's suffering.

KeetAtHeart wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:

OPHarbor wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

green1 wrote:

ph4ever wrote:Hell the FDA doesn't even do research on the meds out now. The research is done by the drug companies who report their findings to the FDA and then the FDA approves the drug. Like the drug companies are going to report adverse sides?

The FDA is a huge joke and a waste of our tax dollars.

The FDA does do research on drugs, but the FDA receives the majority of their funding, not from the federal government but from pharmaceutical companies. That stems from legislation requring the drug companies to fund a portion of the cost of getting their products through the process. Liek so many other government plans, it was a nice idea, but inherently flawed at it's core. No one stepped up and asked about the conflict of interest in having the funding of an agency reliant upon the company which the agency is supposed to monitor.

I beg to differ on the research. From the FDA's website http://www.fda.gov/oashi/clinicaltrials ... aldoc.html

The Food and Drug Administration's job is to make sure medical treatments are safe and effective for people to use. However, FDA does not develop new therapies, or conduct the clinical trials to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. FDA staff members meet with researchers, and perform inspections of clinical trial study sites to protect the rights of participants and to verify the quality and integrity of the data.

The ratio between FDA staff members vs clinical trials/research is so HUGE common sense should tell you there's no way that every FDA staff member can research the thousands of clinical trials going on. That's why drugs are on the market for sometimes a year or two before the FDA issues warnings or completely pulls the drugs off the market.

OK I gotta weigh in on this one, although a bit off thread. The quotation above is exactly correct. The FDA inspects the R&D documntation to ensure that the drug product is safe and effective. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to deliver all documentation to the FDA, for not only the clinical trials, but all documentation from conception. The clinical trials are but one stop in the process, in fact the clinical trials that everyone talks about are Phase 3 trials. I am currently working on a NDA (new drug application). We completed the Phase III trials early last year. Every protocol, test method, capability study, safety build...etc., etc, etc...is scrutanized. Documentation that fills an entire 40' X 40' room will be inspected, during a PAI (pre-approval inspection). What I'm getting at here is yes, there are flaws in the system, but it work pretty Damn well in the big picture. We've had literally hundreds of people devote nearly 4 years developing a very safe and effective product and will spend at least another year before we will ever sell the first one. WE DO NOT HIDE OR MIS-REPORT ADVERSE RESULTS! It is frankly offensive to me that, one would assume or state otherwise.

There now I feel better

Sorry.

Vioxx made by Merck and taken off the market. Class action lawsuits. Adverse effects discovered during initial testing were apparently suppressed by Merck.

I don't know the details about Vioxx, but even if Merck was as bad as the headlines would have you believe, that's one drug that caused slightly more problems than it solved. One. Of how many that have been approved???

There are some bad apples in any field, but the vast majority of people working in the pharmaceutical industry (FDA) are good, honest folks that really want to reduce people's suffering.