Is the US government good for our health?

[Truthseeker]

The annoying bureaucratic requirement that the ingredients must be printed on edible products has probably saved my life many times over. The annoying bureaucratic practice of wasting paint on lines down the middle of the road, telling us where our lanes are and when it's safe to pass, has saved many more lives. The years of multilevel testing any drug must undergo to reach the market has usually (but not always) kept the thalidomide types from reaching production. All these insufferable red-tape rules telling us what's poisonous, where first aid is available, how hazardous substances should be handled, and a thousand more, only pile overhead costs onto business, since the sorts of employees who would otherwise be injured are cheap to replace, so they're not so important.

What were your assumptions or worldview when you started that post? Dare I guess that you think the USFG does good and no bad. Or does more good than bad. May I not ask why you think that is a realistic assumption? Perhaps you did extensive research. Have you written it up showing you really have considered everything that is relevant here?

[Truthseeker]

Disclaimer: "Buyer beware!" The government should have made the market a honest place, but that caveat is still necessary. The risks that you decide to take on are solely your responsibility. Whatever advice you take from my posts here has to be treated with due diligence. I cannot guarantee that I will never make a mistake, but your health or that of your dependents is still solely your responsibility.

According to Jenny Thompson of HSI (email October 27), the USFG is not really doing anything about a mystery chemical that is apparently going to be used in popular drinks, such as Pepsi drinks. The chemical is Sweetmyx. Not even the FDA knows much about it. Recently the Sweetmyx maker issued public statements that impled the FDA considers it safe, but the FDA denied that it does. How was the maker able to get away with introducing Sweetmyx into our drinks without safety trials? The maker simply calls it a food additive.

So, it's up to us, the public, to steer clear of all the nasty stuff in the market.

[Sparko]

Disclaimer: "Buyer beware!" The government should have made the market a honest place, but that caveat is still necessary. The risks that you decide to take on are solely your responsibility. Whatever advice you take from my posts here has to be treated with due diligence. I cannot guarantee that I will never make a mistake, but your health or that of your dependents is still solely your responsibility.

According to Jenny Thompson of HSI (email October 27), the USFG is not really doing anything about a mystery chemical that is apparently going to be used in popular drinks, such as Pepsi drinks. The chemical is Sweetmyx. Not even the FDA knows much about it. Recently the Sweetmyx maker issued public statements that impled the FDA considers it safe, but the FDA denied that it does. How was the maker able to get away with introducing Sweetmyx into our drinks without safety trials? The maker simply calls it a food additive.

So, it's up to us, the public, to steer clear of all the nasty stuff in the market.

[Jedidiah]

If you are really concerned about your health you should not be using those "popular drinks, such as Pepsi drinks" in the first place.

[Truthseeker]

[indent]How was the maker able to get away with introducing Sweetmyx into our drinks without safety trials? The maker simply calls it a food additive.

Clarification: I actually don't know whether the maker HAS done any safety trial. Come to think of it, probably. After all nobody wants to sell something that kills within minutes or months. A long time is fine, though. But it does seem as though the maker didn't say anything about its trials.

[Truthseeker]

Disclaimer: "Buyer beware!" The government should have made the market a honest place, but that caveat is still necessary. The risks that you decide to take on are solely your responsibility. Whatever advice you take from my posts here has to be treated with due diligence. I cannot guarantee that I will never make a mistake, but your health or that of your dependents is still solely your responsibility.

Since 2001 the FDA has mandated
that vaccines for children younger
than six years of age be thimerosal
free or contain only trace amounts
of the mercury-based preservative.
Every childhood vaccine that
is EXCEPT for some formulations
of the influenza vaccine! ----Mark Stengler's newsletter

I'd posted about thimersol before, but this is the first time I knew that above.

[Truthseeker]

Disclaimer: "Buyer beware!" The government should have made the market a honest place, but that caveat is still necessary. The risks that you decide to take on are solely your responsibility. Whatever advice you take from my posts here has to be treated with due diligence. I cannot guarantee that I will never make a mistake, but your health or that of your dependents is still solely your responsibility.

James Dale Davidson isn't a doctor nor his sidekick. They are reliable, however, I think. They said the government is lying about one way Ebola can spread through the world. Sneezes are supposed to propel droplets, which can include Ebola particles, only 3 feet. However, they cited a mythbuster episode "How far does a sneeze go?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO3eqDV5sNM That said droplets can go at least 10 feet. And Davidson's sidekick said there was a MIT study that claimed droplets can go at least 17 feet.

And if a surface is cool enough, like the inside of a refrigerator, Ebola particles can survive for up to 50 days on it.

[Truthseeker]

Disclaimer: "Buyer beware!" The government should have made the market a honest place, but that caveat is still necessary. The risks that you decide to take on are solely your responsibility. Whatever advice you take from my posts here has to be treated with due diligence. I cannot guarantee that I will never make a mistake, but your health or that of your dependents is still solely your responsibility.

Body-part-replacement devices (hip joints, e.g.) approved in the FDA's 510(k) clearance program are not necessarily safe and effective. There have been far too many recalls and do-overs ("revision surgery") to trust such a program. Johnson & Johnson's DePuy hip replacement system ("the ASR") was marketed as "state of the art" years ago, but . . . look at this http://www.depuy.com/asr-hip-replacement-recall
[thanks Jenny Thompson of HSI]

[Truthseeker]

Does anyone know about this group Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology? www.psrast.org/aboutus.htm

[Truthseeker]

Disclaimer: "Buyer beware!" The government should have made the market a honest place, but that caveat is still necessary. The risks that you decide to take on are solely your responsibility. Whatever advice you take from my posts here has to be treated with due diligence. I cannot guarantee that I will never make a mistake, but your health or that of your dependents is still solely your responsibility.

Health care expert Jud Anglin recommends that people avoid Obamacare open exchanges from now on. One reason is rate increases annually of 15% or the like. Rather, buy a catastrophic insurance policy and invest in a health savings account (HSA). I'm not sure, maybe a few insurance companies offer such a package deal (catastrophic plus HSA).

[Truthseeker]

Disclaimer: "Buyer beware!" The government should have made the market a honest place, but that caveat is still necessary. The risks that you decide to take on are solely your responsibility. Whatever advice you take from my posts here has to be treated with due diligence. I cannot guarantee that I will never make a mistake, but your health or that of your dependents is still solely your responsibility.

Here is a reason to be wary of what the FDA or any pharma company says or do to sell medicine products. http://archinte.jamanetwork.com
Bear in mind what the disclaimer above in the post says.

[Truthseeker]

Disclaimer: "Buyer beware!" The government should have made the market a honest place, but that caveat is still necessary. The risks that you decide to take on are solely your responsibility. Whatever advice you take from my posts here has to be treated with due diligence. I cannot guarantee that I will never make a mistake, but your health or that of your dependents is still solely your responsibility.

Sharyl Attkisson is an investigative reporter who appears to have exposed the medical establishment's bias toward raking in billions of dollars away from taking care of sick people

http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/Headlin.../03/id/604933/

[Truthseeker]

Disclaimer: "Buyer beware!" The government should have made the market a honest place, but that caveat is still necessary. The risks that you decide to take on are solely your responsibility. Whatever advice you take from my posts here has to be treated with due diligence. I cannot guarantee that I will never make a mistake, but your health or that of your dependents is still solely your responsibility.

At first Medicare participants will benefit from Obamacare. They will get freebies such as annual check ups, immunizations, and many routine screenings from Medicare under the Obamacare law. But later on changes are planned that will harm seniors. Cuts are to be made to payouts for Medicare providers, and the Medicare population will double in less than 5 years. Half the service, double the demand. Hundreds of dollars per month more for care that will be worse?

http://www.naturalhealthliberty.com/...-collapse.stml

[Truthseeker]

Disclaimer: "Buyer beware!" The government should have made the market a honest place, but that
caveat is still necessary. The risks that you decide to take on are solely your responsibility. Whatever
advice you take from my posts here has to be treated with due diligence. I cannot guarantee that I will
never make a mistake, but your health or that of your dependents is still solely your responsibility.

(Based on an article by Jenny Thompson [HSI] 2014 12 05) 40 years ago Congress asked the FDA to investigate triclosan, a chemical now used in most hand-pump soaps. Guess when the FDA said that triclosan apparently did no better than plain water and ordinary soap to clean hands [my interpretation of what Jenny wrote]! It was last year. Now there is evidence that it may cause liver cancer. Triclosan may be not only ineffective but unsafe as well. What is the FDA going to do about it? My guess is, nothing, even though manufacturers are removing it on their own.

[Truthseeker]

Disclaimer: "Buyer beware!" The government should have made the market a honest place, but that
caveat is still necessary. The risks that you decide to take on are solely your responsibility. Whatever advice you take from my posts here has to be treated with due diligence. I cannot guarantee that I will never make a mistake, but your health or that of your dependents is still solely your responsibility.

I've discovered an interesting webpage "Five Supplements That Could Help Prevent the Flu"
http://www.cbn.com/health/weightloss...lu_galland.asp
Four references for you to evaluate!
The first reference is about a trail that showed 79% of people given a placebo developed flu symptoms but only 25% of people given a NAC supplement developed flu symptoms. Moreover, they appeared to be more mild. For information on the other supplements, click on the link above.