• I think so

    Hey seem to approve any and all drugs as long as 60% of subjects seem to respond positively. They not only deny the ability of nutrition to heal you but they label the most nutritious of things as health hazards like Vitamin B17 for example. The FDA is just a mofia and if you read about their unsound practices with an open mind, (yes that means you cant be someone with you head stuck in the sand) you will notice this very quickly. Something very fishy about this business...Oh that's right, they are a business! That is the root of the problem.

  • Allegations against them are unsound

    Investigative journalism would have discovered the scoop of the century if they discovered widespread corruption at the fda. Instead of investigative journalism,all we have are unsubstantiated claims on the other side. Innocent until proven guilty, and there is no proof here, not even a reasonable description of how the critics came to their conclusions.

  • I'm all about the evidence.

    My argument is simple: If there's sufficient scientific evidence that is corroborated from hundreds of scientists from around the world in multiple countries in a variety of companies/organizations/academic labs, then I'm inclined to believe what they conclude.

    Of course, my opinion is subject to change with new information. The new information, however, ideally has VALID and SUFFICIENT scientific evidence that has been peer-reviewed and deemed as acceptable in the scientific field in order for it to be accepted as scientifically SOUND.

    If evidence is lacking in the area of a far-fetched claim, I'm inclined to NOT accept it.

    I can't believe I need to explain this, but some people still don't get it - if there's something that you are upholding as "proof" and you want it to be included the in the realm of "science", then for science's sake, make sure the "proof" is VALID. Make sure the experiments are replicable, the methodology is sound, the group of scientists have had previous research in that area, the published journal a reputable one, and peer-reviews have been made with said research.

    A study by ONE scientist in some back water journal, or perhaps a sensationalist journalist who doesn't understand a lick of what science is, or this "science" we see all the time in the social media with eye-catching and emotion-eliciting words like "killing our CHILDREN" or "POISON in our foods" is of course likely to make the unscientifically sound mind (i.e. mentally tests propositions for the ways in which they might be falsifiable), that also shudders at the word "chemistry" or "molecular biology", would OF COURSE be swayed by these superfluous viewpoints.

    That, and I believe people are way too paranoid in general. Granting, but NOT conceding, the point of being untrustful in the FDA, then who do we trust then, hmm? A backyard scientist? A gullible journalist looking for the next big sensationalist title? Dr. Oz? A TV personality? Someone on tumblr? A random vlogger?

    No thanks, I'll trust in the thousands of scientific minds that already exist.

  • Yes.

    They write off every herbal/natural therapy as quackery. That is a good thing considering it is pseudo-scientific. They expose such quackery and it prevents people from buying into nonsense like "Penta Water". They also mandate labels and quality for food. Although I think they should be stricter, that doesn't mean they can't be trusted.

  • Yes, the FDA can be trusted.

    Yes, I believe that the FDA can be trusted. The FDA, or Food and Drug Administration, has the important task of regulating what food and which drugs are safe, and what is not safe. They are also responsible for a myriad of tough regulations on producers of food and drugs, such as the warnings you here during drug commercials that list the side effects of particular drugs. The FDA has no hidden agenda and is not particularly susceptible to lobbyists, so they can be trusted.

  • Yes. They are more trustworthy than a company.

    While they may be part of the government and subject to political pressures from time to time, there is not much evidence to indicate that the FDA does any harm to us, though there is plenty of evidence that it improves our safety. At any rate, a non-profit government agency is better than a corporation whose only motives are money.

  • It's Mostly Politics

    The FDA fails to protect the public from the side effects of certain drugs. The FDA overprotects when the media throws a ruckus over a false alarm like the scares about silicone breast implants. Worst of all is its stance on herbs.

    To those who "Herbal/natural therapy" is all "quackery"? So I guess you better stop taking aspirin, they derived that from willow bark treatments, must be a pseudoscience. The vast majority of pharmaceutical treatments are derived from substances found in nature. The herb itself is a cocktail of thousands of substances. Is it really that farfetched that perhaps in some cases the cocktail that has been around in nature and used by human beings far longer works better than the isolated substance? That's what medical marijuana patients generally find if they try taking the THC pill, Marinol that the herb/chemical cocktail alleviates symptoms better than the isolated substance. And it's not because the person just wants to get "high". The Marinol pill bottle actually has a warning that says "may cause euphoria". If they just wanted to get high they would just be happy with Marinol.

  • Obstacle to medical advancement

    The FDA is the largest obstacle to the development of effective therapies. The FDA makes a concerted effort to prevent natural therapies from being approved. The FDA and the Natioanl Institututes of Health are all in the game to ensure only the pharmacueticals have the resources to get therapies approved.

  • Absolutely not

    If the FDA actually cared about our well being, they wouldn't write off every herbal/natural therapy as quackery. If you truly believe that the only cures/therapy for conditions such as cancer can only be achieved by synthetic highly poisonous drugs than I believe you have too much faith in humanity. Truth is the world is an ugly place.

  • Absolutely not

    If the FDA actually cared about our well being, they wouldn't write off every herbal/natural therapy as quackery. If you truly believe that the only cures/therapy for conditions such as cancer can only be achieved by synthetic highly poisonous drugs than I believe you have too much faith in humanity. Truth is the world is an ugly place.

  • Absolutely NOT.

    Just like any other governmental agency, they cannot be trusted as far as they can be thrown. How many drugs have they approved that have later been recalled due to permanent physical damage to health, or death? Their interest is not for your safety or health. They do what fills their wallets faster.

  • You're kidding right? Of course it can't.

    The FDA is run primarily by former CEOs and other leaders of big companies in the food industry. The FDA allows extremely questionable practices and downright unfair behaviors from large corporations. 80 percent of the meat packing industry is controlled by four major companies and these have secure foot holds in the FDA. I wouldn't venture so far as to say that the FDA is trying to harm us, but it is certainly true that it cannot effectively protect us. The FDA doesn't even have the power to shut down food processing plants that have repeatedly tested positive for Salmonella and E. Coli.

  • No, the FDA cannot be trusted

    I don't believe the FDA should be trusted. There have been many cases where the FDA approve a product, and it ends up making people sick anyway. There are products there are perfectly good for us in other Countries, but yet the FDA won't approve them. I would never trust the FDA's opinion when making a purchase.

  • Scott Gottlieb Is An Authoritarian Shill

    FDA boss Scott Gottlieb admits an opioid epidemic and now a teen ecig epidemic. His goals however will make things worse and fill the pockets of the very industries that are somewhat behind the epidemic. He's trying to ban kratom before new opioid replacement drugs come out. OH YEAH! PUT MORE OPIOIDS ON THE MARKET! Banning kratom will make people go back to the very habits they are trying to kick. He also has a hard on for ecigs.
    Yes we all know nicotine is habit forming but at ecigs are cleaner than traditional tobacco. I vape myself and I can tell you my health has improved yet I wasn't ever a smoker! Teens shouldn't use ecigs because they may very well regret it later on. However, If ecigs fall to a flavor ban or outright ban, People will go back to traditional tobacco leading to a tobacco health epidemic. Hooked teens will turn to tobacco as well accelerating health problems. Again teens shouldn't use nicotine but they do it anyways ruining our adult privileges.
    Scott Gottlieb's goals will exchange small to nonexistent health epidemics to much larger ones. He also has the nerve to ignore public opinions that are contrary to his. All that matters to him is the money he gets from big tobacco and big pharma. I thought Jeff Sessions needed to go but I think Gottlieb is now the priority.

  • There are reasons for many things but

    There are reasons for many other things too. The reason the FDA cannot approve herbs for medical use is because of long held laws about what makes a medicine. The primary reason chemical compounds found in plants are isolated for medicine is because people can be allergic or react negatively to anything in the world. Including water (yes people are allergic to water.) An isolated compound limits the amount of substances a patient may react to and there is no other compounds to conflict with any expected benefit. So instead of giving people willow bark tea, a plant that has thousands of different compounds a person may be allergic to or may compromise some part of their unique body chemistry, they instead give them aspirin. This also ensures medical safety since we know specifically that aspirin is safe except in certain circumstances instead of believing aspirin is safe but knowing that other compounds in willow bark definitely cause severe illness.

    That is why herbs are completely unregulated. They're still available for medical use but the medical authorities cannot advise or condone their use because there's simply too many variables. That is perfectly okay and perfectly sound logic. Banning herbs because they can't understand them or get bullied into it is another story.

    Another long held legal standard in democratic governments is statues against conflicts of interest. And the FDA is loaded with them. That is the root of evil in all of government. It has long since stopped serving the American people and started serving corporations. Scientists are not immune to persuasion and we should hold them up to standards or find ones who will meet them. It is very bad to only have so many genuine sources of medical authority in this country and for all of them to be corrupted by greed or other failings of the human nature.

  • Doctors lie to people

    Fda force doctors to push there drugs for them so they can make a bundle of money for both them and the doctors as well. So is there any one that can be trusted or not. How about using home treatments like the ones used years ago. What do you think!

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.