Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

FDA Perspectives

kraftkid

Member
Think it horrible that this would happen, but how in the world can you ban something like PH where there is extremely limited info on any adverse effects and then leave something like this out there. This isn't some weak link, this is take the pill and three people died. I don't get it.

Invalid Link Removed
 
Dude...that's scary to me. 72 women have needed blood transfusions from massive bleeding? Over 600 adverse events reported? I would never let my girlfriend take this stuff.

And how would you know if you had a tubal pregnancy or not?

This is so political. I'm pro-choice, but if a drug is harming and killing women, pull that **** off the market!

3 deaths is a lot b/c:

1. No one overdosed.
2. People followed directions.

It's nothing like the Ephedra deaths, where overdose, pre-exisitng conditions, or rampant abuse caused the problems.
 
You get no arguement from me. I just find it completely contrary to say that "hey we found some vague links that show that ephedra, or PH may somehow, might be, maybe a health risk, so lets ban it all." Yet they know without a doubt that this drug resulted in the death of three people and stand by it.

I'm not saying they should this either, but be consistent and don't pick and chose who you are going to screw over.
 
"Schadenfreude"

No one ever uses that word anymore--that's awesome--and you're not even German! BTW, it's also the name of a really funny radio comedy show on Chicago Publice Radio.

Seriously, I hope they're not, but I'm sure there are a few. After all, people like Rev. Phelps still exist.
 
but the US still sells cigarettes. that is my biggest issue. they ban, ephedra, phs and the list is getting longer every day, but philip morris can still sell a delivery agent for nicotine and cancer causing poisons, thats fine.
 
Well, I can shed some light on the exact reason for cigarettes being allowed. I used to work at a certain company. They paid hundreds of millions in taxes. They were in constant threat of litigation. All the companies making cigarettes got together and started talking about literally closing every single office in the US and moving to Europe. They were going to relocate to a country that would give them legal protection and in exchange they would generate a like amount of tax revenue for that country. They were seriously considering doing it........... one year later, they settle with most of the Attor Gen's. Even though there is still some stuff going on with lawsuits, it erased a huge portion of the problem surpressing their stock, namely the uncertainty.

Bottom line, there are a lot of powerful people in the country that either benefit from the taxes that booze and cigs generate, or they don't mind a late night snifter, or maybe a good Cuban.

If there were a bunch of meathead Senator's, we'd be set.
 
Hardcore pro-lifers must be having a bit of Schadenfreude over this.
If I remember correctly it was the pro abortion groups that brought attention to this drug. A few years ago they were using it in France. I think they put allot of pressure on the government to approve of the drug. They were basically stopping short of saying that not passing the drug was the equivalent of overturning Roe v. Wade. I heard a doctor on the radio say that the drug was dangerous back then. I guess he was right.
 
Back
Top