Rediculous Conspiracy Theory, Or Not?

[larry mac]

Here in Texas, you must have a new prescription every year to buy new eyeglasses or contact lenses. Not only that, I wanted to purchase a different brand of contact for my son (he had colored lenses and we wanted to go to clear). Well, the "store" (they make a phony attempt to physically separate the vision place from the main store by a door, as it's required to be a separate entity by law) at Walmart wanted to charge me a fee the same amount as the examination just to change the prescription.

Needless to say, I told them where they could shove it and that they would'nt be getting any more of my business (the optometrist, not Walmart, got's to have my Walmart). What a ripoff.

Back on topic. There must be some balance of our right to obtain supplements, and the governments duty to ensure said supplements are safe and not allowed to make wild claims as to the medical effectiveness of the product. In the late 1800's and early 1900's, products were sold claiming to cure any and all ailments, and sometimes were mostly only alcolhol, maybe some morphine, stuff like that. If they were allowed to, supplement makers would make all kinds of BS claims.

So if you go back and carefully read the health rangers interpetations of the proposed regulations, it's obvious (to me anyway) that he is seriously misrepresenting the intent, and outright lying about the consequences. At least that's my opinion.

gfp, you said:

"The one pattern I always find true is that when an industry puts forwards the regulations its always to their advantage and the consumer is an afterthought."

You got that right. I don't trust corporate America one inch. Maximum profit is their God.

best regards, lm

[gfp]

Here in Texas, you must have a new prescription every year to buy new eyeglasses or contact lenses. Not only that, I wanted to purchase a different brand of contact for my son (he had colored lenses and we wanted to go to clear). Well, the "store" (they make a phony attempt to physically separate the vision place from the main store by a door, as it's required to be a separate entity by law) at Walmart wanted to charge me a fee the same amount as the examination just to change the prescription.

Needless to say, I told them where they could shove it and that they would'nt be getting any more of my business (the optometrist, not Walmart, got's to have my Walmart). What a ripoff.

Back on topic. There must be some balance of our right to obtain supplements, and the governments duty to ensure said supplements are safe and not allowed to make wild claims as to the medical effectiveness of the product. In the late 1800's and early 1900's, products were sold claiming to cure any and all ailments, and sometimes were mostly only alcolhol, maybe some morphine, stuff like that. If they were allowed to, supplement makers would make all kinds of BS claims.

So if you go back and carefully read the health rangers interpetations of the proposed regulations, it's obvious (to me anyway) that he is seriously misrepresenting the intent, and outright lying about the consequences. At least that's my opinion.

gfp, you said:

"The one pattern I always find true is that when an industry puts forwards the regulations its always to their advantage and the consumer is an afterthought."

You got that right. I don't trust corporate America one inch. Maximum profit is their God.

best regards, lm

Larry, the bottom line is you have to trust someone... ?

corporate America isn't evil... its just doing what it does... the purpose of compnaies is to maximise profit, pure and simple...

Where this gets complex is who should regulate? This is pretty much divided between the market regulating itself and someone presumably government or elected bodies ....

The problem with self-regulation is illustrated by your snake oil example...

Specifically talking about medicine sick people will try most things, dying people almost anything...

One stance is that its OK, if people are stupid enough to think the cure-all will cure cancer its their fault.... ultimately that its OK to advertise cigarettes to kids and give out cigarette candy to schools....

The other camp say's its not acceptable to prey on people who are desperate....or try and get kids used to smoking at school...

Its not so simple as right and wrong.... but I think one has to admit that self regulation rarely works because each company is competing with others... selling snake oil to the cancer victim ... well presumably people will not buy what doesn't work but then morphine probably does make them feel better... its also addictive... so apart from todays illegality would it be a problem? My personal feeling is that it is if it stops them getting real treatment might actually save their lives.... hard line capitalists would say it doesn't matter... they die and the market shrinks... hence automatic self regualtion.???

I'm not really of the opinion this is what Adam Smith meant by market self-regulation ....

I think the biggest problem and its more acute in the US perhaps is the issue of lobbying...

What used to be issues such as the ability of a state to transport a food crop elsewhere has now been completely changed because the issues have changed... we are talking about things the senators can't understand like pharmacutical products you need to be an expert to understand... so what it being presented is easily twisted ...

Its a tough call, look at medical lobbying.... should a doctor endorse a product they beleive is ineffective if the company offer to donate a expensive machine to the hospital? That machine might save dozens of lives... so is it ethical for a MD to turn it down because they have doubts over the efficincy of some pharmacutical product?

Its a mine field.... if we ban practicing MD's from endorsing product perhaps some good ones won't get used?

[RiceGuy]

Where this gets complex is who should regulate? This is pretty much divided between the market regulating itself and someone presumably government or elected bodies...

I think the biggest problem and its more acute in the US perhaps is the issue of lobbying...

Yeah. Just take Open Original Shared Link for example. The FDA keeps companies from using it in any food products, and even raided a company's facility, confiscating a product which was being made with Stevia as an ingredient. Yet at the same time we get artificial crud like aspartame, which to this day is still legal despite all the actual medical evidence proving it is harmful. Heck, it's well known Aspartame becomes even more toxic when heated, but I'd bet there are lots of people baking with it anyway. It's just too easy to misuse, as it can't serve as a replacement for sugar in what is probably the majority of things the consumer would do with sugar. How is this benefiting us as consumers? They don't have any evidence showing Stevia to be harmful, and dozens of studies have been done all over the world showing it's safe. Not to mention is has been in use for centuries, and no side effects have ever been seen. Even ordinary sugar has side effect, such as tooth decay just to name one. So if you want a conspiracy theory, look at the Open Original Shared Link issue. Thank goodness it can be obtained as a supplement, but manufacturers are prohibited from saying anything about it being a sugar substitute on the package. They can't even say it's sweet! So the consumer won't know what to do with it unless they know from elsewhere. Ask yourself why there hasn't been any major news media bring this to public attention...

So that's what happens when the government and big business get involved in such things. When there's profit involved, there's corruption. And we the consumers pay the price several times over.