Is the US government good for our health?

[Sparko]

What is the FDA doing with the massive use of antibiotics in the USA, now that The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) has ruled that antibiotic resistance by microbes is a worldwide major threat to public health ( http://www.nrdc.org/food/saving-anti...-documents.asp ) and Denmark is banning the use of antibiotics in its pork industry ( http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...e-animals.aspx )?

Not much. The FDA's December edict has so many serious problems that one would suspect the FDA is once again safeguarding Big Farm's profits even at the expense of public health ( http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...c-overuse.aspx ).

I am all for abusing antibiotics. That way I become immune to the ordinary and even stronger stains of bacteria, while everyone around me dies from exposure to me from my super bugs. Zombie Apocalypse, here I come!!! First on my list to visit: Truthseeker. see ya soon!

[Truthseeker]

Is aspartame safe or not? According to the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/aspartame
it is safe at "current levels," whatever that is. The daily limit (called [i]acceptable daily intake [ADI]) has been set by the Joint FAO/WHO expert committee on food additives (JECFA [ search the article for that ]) as 40mg/kg of body weight.

That is supposed to be safe? I see comments by many skeptics. Controversy yet rages, for example http://naturalsociety.com/toxin-name...me-amino-sweet

Now the FDA has approved a switcheroo, changing "aspartame" to "aminosweet." Why? Why not let people who do not want aspartame in their food or drinks know how much aspartame, sorry, aminosweet there is in this or that food or drink?

[Sparko]

Is aspartame safe or not? According to the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/aspartame
it is safe at "current levels," whatever that is. The daily limit (called [i]acceptable daily intake [ADI]) has been set by the Joint FAO/WHO expert committee on food additives (JECFA [ search the article for that ]) as 40mg/kg of body weight.

That is supposed to be safe? I see comments by many skeptics. Controversy yet rages, for example http://naturalsociety.com/toxin-name...me-amino-sweet

Now the FDA has approved a switcheroo, changing "aspartame" to "aminosweet." Why? Why not let people who do not want aspartame in their food or drinks know how much aspartame, sorry, aminosweet there is in this or that food or drink?

You would have to drink a case of soda every day to reach the "unsafe" limit. Also your second link is so wrong about so much, it is not even worth considering. For example, it makes the claim that eating too much aspartame will cause phenylketonuria. There is no way. phenylketonuria is an inherited genetic disease where a person can't metabolize phenylalanine. IF someone has this disorder, then aspartame is not good for them, but eating aspartame doesn't CAUSE it.

[Truthseeker]

You would have to drink a case of soda every day to reach the "unsafe" limit.

No skepticism regarding that limit? Should it not be way lower? Many people may still need to avoid getting even a drop of soda.

Also your second link is so wrong about so much, it is not even worth considering. For example, it makes the claim that eating too much aspartame will cause phenylketonuria. There is no way. phenylketonuria is an inherited genetic disease where a person can't metabolize phenylalanine. IF someone has this disorder, then aspartame is not good for them, but eating aspartame doesn't CAUSE it.

One can say something caused this or that disorder. As long as a suspectible individual avoids any intake of aspartame he does not suffer any aspartame-realated disorder, whatever his DNA defects may be. But if he eats enough aspartame to suffer some nasty "side effect" it's OK to say aspartame caused his disorder.
Or, may be causing ...

Anything else that's wrong with your claim of errors in the article?

[Sparko]

No skepticism regarding that limit? Should it not be way lower? Many people may still need to avoid getting even a drop of soda.One can say something caused this or that disorder. As long as a suspectible individual avoids any intake of aspartame he does not suffer any aspartame-realated disorder, whatever his DNA defects may be. But if he eats enough aspartame to suffer some nasty "side effect" it's OK to say aspartame caused his disorder.
Or, may be causing ...

Anything else that's wrong with your claim of errors in the article?

Half of your post didn't make a lick of sense above.

You seem to think that everything must either be good or bad for everyone: vaccinations, aspartame, etc.

Well, here in the real world, everyone is not the same. Some people have what we call allergies, or disorders, or reactions that prevent them from using certain things or eating certain foods, and guess what? The food or item is perfectly fine for everyone else!

Amazing isn't it?

It's a shocker, I know.

Welcome to reality.

[Truthseeker]

Oh, you're wrong. I agree some people can get hit with a dart whose tip has been coated with batrachotoxin and yet live! Others if hit with the same dart would die! Or be very sick. But the former people are going to be OK! Isn't that great? What do we need the FDA for anyway?

[Sparko]

Oh, you're wrong. I agree some people can get hit with a dart whose tip has been coated with batrachotoxin and yet live! Others if hit with the same dart would die! Or be very sick. But the former people are going to be OK! Isn't that great? What do we need the FDA for anyway?

The point is, you constantly preach against vaccinations, Flouride, Nutrasweet, etc. and act as if these things are bad for everyone. They are not. A very small percentage of the population might have an adverse reaction to such things - or they might be bad for most people if they overdose on it (like flouride), but that is no reason to ban them outright, or for most people to avoid them. In fact, things like vaccinations actually help a lot more people than they ever harm. And without artificial sweeteners there would be a lot of diabetics that would be in danger from their illness. And flouride does protect teeth and strengthen them. The quantities you find in water and toothpaste are not enough to harm anyone unless they are somehow allergic to it.

The FDA isn't perfect and it does have it's flaws. But it is better than NO regulation at all.

I hope this isn't true... but it seems to me you live a very frightened life, scared of conspiracies, food, additives, drugs, etc.

[Truthseeker]

A "groundbreaking" study shows that nearly 1/2 of adverse drug reactions by children were vaccine-related. Will the FDA act in a timely manner to declare vaccinations unsafe? "It is up to you to decide whether the risks are
worth taking." References cited by Dr. Joseph Mercola:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2792646/
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/46/8/1172.full

The same article that discussed the studies cited above
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar..._rid=500686738
attacked the notions of herd immunity and vaccine-boosted immunity, mainstays of arguments for vaccinations pushed forward by the CDC. For example, there is now a herpes zoster (shingles) epidemic among adults, in addition to the whooping cough epidemic.

[Sparko]

A "groundbreaking" study shows that nearly 1/2 of adverse drug reactions by children were vaccine-related. Will the FDA act in a timely manner to declare vaccinations unsafe? "It is up to you to decide whether the risks are
worth taking." References cited by Dr. Joseph Mercola:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2792646/
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/46/8/1172.full

The same article that discussed the studies cited above
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar..._rid=500686738
attacked the notions of herd immunity and vaccine-boosted immunity, mainstays of arguments for vaccinations pushed forward by the CDC. For example, there is now a herpes zoster (shingles) epidemic among adults, in addition to the whooping cough epidemic.

Where does the "groundbreaking study" say that nearly 1/2 of adverse drug reactions by children were vaccine related? I checked but that is not what the page says that I can see. In fact if you read the study, it is talking about drugs given to the pregnant mothers that cause the most adverse reactions in infants. The second link just says that maybe the mumps vaccine becomes less effective as time goes on. It's still better than NO vaccine.

[Truthseeker]

The NY Times reported that in 2012 (I think) ~3,300 ophthalmologists made about a million bucks each off Medicare. The biggest trick was to prescribe a particular expensive drug frequently, even though there was a much cheaper alternative. But is that really a reason to think that we'd be better off without the Medicare bureucracy? How about this: The USA spends a bigger % of the national income on medicine than the rest of the world, yet suffer poor health (obesity for one thing).

[Truthseeker]

Where does the "groundbreaking study" say that nearly 1/2 of adverse drug reactions by children were vaccine related? I checked but that is not what the page says that I can see. In fact if you read the study, it is talking about drugs given to the pregnant mothers that cause the most adverse reactions in infants. The second link just says that maybe the mumps vaccine becomes less effective as time goes on. It's still better than NO vaccine.

Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. The reference appears to be #9 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3933652/ I do not know why the Mercola article buried that so deep. Sloppy editorial work? I certainly am guilty of not checking things out carefully. My bad. My apologies.

eta: "Groundbreaking" may only refer to the lack of medical data in China. Thus the study mentioned above would be a first of sorts for China.

[Sparko]

Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. The reference appears to be #9 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3933652/ I do not know why the Mercola article buried that so deep. Sloppy editorial work? I certainly am guilty of not checking things out carefully. My bad. My apologies.

eta: "Groundbreaking" may only refer to the lack of medical data in China. Thus the study mentioned above would be a first of sorts for China.

Yeah it is about China. And it still doesn't mention vaccines. Just Adverse Drug Reactions, including accidental and deliberate misuse of the drugs. The FDA doesn't work in China, you know. Basically it is saying that China doesn't give a crap about it's children and will even sometimes deliberately poison their children with overdoses and such. I think the Mercola article "buried it so deep" because it didn't actually say what they wanted it to say, so they just made up a conclusion and stuck in a non-relevant link to a non-relevant study to make themselves appear more "scientific" hoping their fans would not bother to check out the sources. Which you didn't.

If there are any conspiracies going on, it looks like Mercola is behind them. They want to discredit the medical profession, the government, and create fear and paranoia in the populace.

[Truthseeker]

And it still doesn't mention vaccines.

Vaccines ARE drugs; they ARE included in the study.

Just Adverse Drug Reactions, including accidental and deliberate misuse of the drugs.

No! You're guilty of not reading the paper well.

The FDA doesn't work in China, you know.

We need to know the quality of the FDA's performance. If foreign nations are having problems with stuff similar to stuff here, surely that is relevant.

Basically it is saying that China doesn't give a crap about it's children and will even sometimes deliberately poison their children with overdoses and such. I think the Mercola article "buried it so deep" because it didn't actually say what they wanted it to say, so they just made up a conclusion and stuck in a non-relevant link to a non-relevant study to make themselves appear more "scientific" hoping their fans would not bother to check out the sources. Which you didn't.

If there are any conspiracies going on, it looks like Mercola is behind them. They want to discredit the medical profession, the government, and create fear and paranoia in the populace.

I am puzzled. You seem so sensible in other ways, for example the climate change thing. The posts that you make about it seem to be that you do believe in a conspiracy, at least the climate change thing.

[Sparko]

Vaccines ARE drugs; they ARE included in the study.

um.... no. Vaccines are dead (or sometimes live but weakened) forms of the disease-causing virus. It is biological. Drugs are chemicals. If you don't even know what a vaccine is, then you probably shouldn't be going around spewing conspiracy theories about them.

No! You're guilty of not reading the paper well.We need to know the quality of the FDA's performance. If foreign nations are having problems with stuff similar to stuff here, surely that is relevant.

HOW???? In what twisted way does your mind even connect something like that? Does that mean because Nazi's gassed Jews that our government is doing that too?

I am puzzled. You seem so sensible in other ways,

I wish I could say the same about you.

[Truthseeker]

At last, a study finding a link between a class of drugs and autism spectrum disorder. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0415153735.htm I am hopeful there will be soon a study that comes up with showing a link between vaccines and autism spectrum disorder.