I firmly believe that every T-Nation member would be better off if Ron Paul was president. He is a friend of muscle, a friend of supplements, a friend of health freedom, and a defender of your right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not harm anyone else, including unborn babies.
Ron Paul Defends Your Health Freedom By:
Introducing the Health Freedom Protection Act, HR 2117
Introducing the Foods Are Not Drugs Act that would limit the FDA�??s power to censor truthful health claims about natural foods
Supporting the Access to Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 2717
Opposing the FDA Revitalization Bill
Opposing the FDA�??s compliance with very dangerous CODEX ALIMENTARIOUS
Opposing the UN�??s attempt to regulate the U.S. food industry through NAFTA and WTO
Opposing the FDA�??s CAM guidance that would impose severe regulations and restrictions on your health freedom
Opposing the restrictive expansion of DSHEA legislation and any other FDA power expansion
�??The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.�?? Congressman Ron Paul, MD
�??FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements.�??
Congressman Ron Paul, MD
Dr. Ron Paul has always been and remains the foremost defender of American�??s health freedom. Not only does Dr. Paul support health freedom legislation, he creates it and introduces it. No other Presidential candidate comes close to maintaining this flawless, irrefutable record of defending your rights, life, health, and freedom.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Does Paul think the FDA is constitutional?[/quote]
Nope. The FDA censors commercial speech which he thinks is a First Amendment right.
Hey, but what does he know? Bureaucrats know whats best for the American people better than medical doctors.
[center]Protecting Health Freedom
by Ron Paul[/center]
Before the U.S. House of Representatives on May 2, 2007
Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act. This bill restores the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements by codifying the First Amendment standards used by federal courts to strike down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to censor truthful health claims. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) from censoring truthful health care claims.
The American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers’ efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents’ comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumers’ access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four federal court decisions vindicating consumers’ First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
FDA bureaucrats have even refused to abide by the DSHEA section allowing the public to have access to scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against diseases by claiming that every article concerning this topic is evidence of intent to sell a drug.
Because of the FDA’s censorship of truthful health claims, millions of Americans may suffer with diseases and other health care problems they may have avoided by using dietary supplements. For example, the FDA prohibited consumers from learning how folic acid reduces the risk of neural tube defects for four years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended every woman of childbearing age take folic acid supplements to reduce neural tube defects. This FDA action contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable neural tube defects!
The FDA also continues to prohibit consumers from learning about the scientific evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis; that omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of sudden-death heart attack; and that calcium may reduce the risk of bone fractures.
The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal court’s suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease.
This legislation also addresses the FTC’s violations of the First Amendment. Under traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, the federal government bears the burden of proving an advertising statement false before censoring that statement. However, the FTC has reversed the standard in the case of dietary supplements by requiring supplement manufactures to satisfy an unobtainable standard of proof that their statement is true. The FTC’s standards are blocking innovation in the marketplace.
The Health Freedom Protection Act requires the government bear the burden of proving that speech should be censored. This is how it should be in a free, dynamic society. The bill also requires that the FTC warn parties that their advertising is false and give them a chance to correct their mistakes.
Madam Speaker, if we are serious about putting people in charge of their health care, then shouldn’t we stop federal bureaucrats from preventing Americans from learning about simple ways to improve their health. I therefore call on my colleagues to stand up for good health care and the First Amendment by cosponsoring the Health Freedom Protection Act.
It seems Ron Paul would open us up to every dishonest snake oil salesman that comes along. How would he protect us from poor quality products and deceptive marketing or would he say the federal government does not have that responsibility and walk away?
I think the food and supplement industry need redirection and I think corporate lobbying hurts us (jamming soy and corn in all our food etc) but I don’t see Paul giving us an intelligent solution, I just see him swinging the pendulum too far the other way.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It seems Ron Paul would open us up to every dishonest snake oil salesman that comes along. How would he protect us from poor quality products and deceptive marketing or would he say the federal government does not have that responsibility and walk away?
I think the food and supplement industry need redirection and I think corporate lobbying hurts us (jamming soy and corn in all our food etc) but I don’t see Paul giving us an intelligent solution, I just see him swinging the pendulum too far the other way. [/quote]
So, guilty until proven innocent? Do you take supplements? Are you capable of knowing what is good for you or do you need the government to tell you what to do and how to do it? Couldn’t your doctor offer the same service as the government? Are companies like Biotest going to purposefully hurt their customers in the name of profit?
I think no company would offer products that purposefully hurt their customers as it is self defeating. Meanwhile, the FDA protects Big-Pharma from competition and regulates what products can “cure” disease. Is this your idea of freedom? Don’t you think commercial speech is the same as political speech in that the Constitution makes no distinction between the two?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It seems Ron Paul would open us up to every dishonest snake oil salesman that comes along. How would he protect us from poor quality products and deceptive marketing or would he say the federal government does not have that responsibility and walk away?
I think the food and supplement industry need redirection and I think corporate lobbying hurts us (jamming soy and corn in all our food etc) but I don’t see Paul giving us an intelligent solution, I just see him swinging the pendulum too far the other way.
So, guilty until proven innocent? Do you take supplements? Are you capable of knowing what is good for you or do you need the government to tell you what to do and how to do it? Couldn’t your doctor offer the same service as the government? Are companies like Biotest going to purposefully hurt their customers in the name of profit?
I think no company would offer products that purposefully hurt their customers as it is self defeating. Meanwhile, the FDA protects Big-Pharma from competition and regulates what products can “cure” disease. Is this your idea of freedom? Don’t you think commercial speech is the same as political speech in that the Constitution makes no distinction between the two? [/quote]
This country has been down this path. We absolutely know that people will peddle shit and try to pass it off as gold.
In my experience most supplements do not work as claimed and advertised. I also have doubts that many/most supplements have the level of ingredients claimed.
Ron Paul seems to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater in almost every stance he takes.
Many things in our government need to be fixed. The FDA is one of many. Rather than straighten them out and make them do their job correctly he does not want them to do their job at all.
He has made similar statements about the FBI, CIA etc.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It seems Ron Paul would open us up to every dishonest snake oil salesman that comes along. How would he protect us from poor quality products and deceptive marketing or would he say the federal government does not have that responsibility and walk away?
I think the food and supplement industry need redirection and I think corporate lobbying hurts us (jamming soy and corn in all our food etc) but I don’t see Paul giving us an intelligent solution, I just see him swinging the pendulum too far the other way. [/quote]
People still would be held criminally liable if they were putting actively harmful things in your food. I support the idea of full disclosure…making the people tell you honestly what is in your food, but do you need the FDA to do that? Besides, the market would solve this. If someone sells bad food, people will stop buying it. This means the business must correct themselves or go out of business. But there may well be businesses that sell lower quality food…but it would be cheap food, allowing for poorer people to be able to buy more of it.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It seems Ron Paul would open us up to every dishonest snake oil salesman that comes along. How would he protect us from poor quality products and deceptive marketing or would he say the federal government does not have that responsibility and walk away?
I think the food and supplement industry need redirection and I think corporate lobbying hurts us (jamming soy and corn in all our food etc) but I don’t see Paul giving us an intelligent solution, I just see him swinging the pendulum too far the other way.
People still would be held criminally liable if they were putting actively harmful things in your food. I support the idea of full disclosure…making the people tell you honestly what is in your food, but do you need the FDA to do that? Besides, the market would solve this. If someone sells bad food, people will stop buying it. This means the business must correct themselves or go out of business. But there may well be businesses that sell lower quality food…but it would be cheap food, allowing for poorer people to be able to buy more of it.
mike[/quote]
After making a few million most snakeoil salesman will happily go out of business and start over under a different name.
This is well documented. We need the FDA to protect our food and drug supply. The market will not solve it. The market does not fix everything.
I think the supplement industry needs to be more tightly regulated for purity and honesty in what they do but I also think it needs to loosen up and allow prohormones and steroids.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It seems Ron Paul would open us up to every dishonest snake oil salesman that comes along. How would he protect us from poor quality products and deceptive marketing or would he say the federal government does not have that responsibility and walk away?
I think the food and supplement industry need redirection and I think corporate lobbying hurts us (jamming soy and corn in all our food etc) but I don’t see Paul giving us an intelligent solution, I just see him swinging the pendulum too far the other way. [/quote]
People need to know what they are putting in their bodies and as far as I am concerned, the government is little issue to it. Most people survive the booming blackmarket of drugs in this country, why not make it legally available. I do not need, nor want to be protected by the government in this matter. I am smart enough to know better and if I don’t, well I’ll learn the hard way.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It seems Ron Paul would open us up to every dishonest snake oil salesman that comes along. How would he protect us from poor quality products and deceptive marketing or would he say the federal government does not have that responsibility and walk away?
I think the food and supplement industry need redirection and I think corporate lobbying hurts us (jamming soy and corn in all our food etc) but I don’t see Paul giving us an intelligent solution, I just see him swinging the pendulum too far the other way.
People still would be held criminally liable if they were putting actively harmful things in your food. I support the idea of full disclosure…making the people tell you honestly what is in your food, but do you need the FDA to do that? Besides, the market would solve this. If someone sells bad food, people will stop buying it. This means the business must correct themselves or go out of business. But there may well be businesses that sell lower quality food…but it would be cheap food, allowing for poorer people to be able to buy more of it.
mike
After making a few million most snakeoil salesman will happily go out of business and start over under a different name.
This is well documented. We need the FDA to protect our food and drug supply. The market will not solve it. The market does not fix everything.
I think the supplement industry needs to be more tightly regulated for purity and honesty in what they do but I also think it needs to loosen up and allow prohormones and steroids.[/quote]
I don’t mind if the FDA protects purity, but it all to often crosses the line of behaviour control. That’s the part I do not want.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It seems Ron Paul would open us up to every dishonest snake oil salesman that comes along. How would he protect us from poor quality products and deceptive marketing or would he say the federal government does not have that responsibility and walk away?
I think the food and supplement industry need redirection and I think corporate lobbying hurts us (jamming soy and corn in all our food etc) but I don’t see Paul giving us an intelligent solution, I just see him swinging the pendulum too far the other way.
So, guilty until proven innocent? Do you take supplements? Are you capable of knowing what is good for you or do you need the government to tell you what to do and how to do it? Couldn’t your doctor offer the same service as the government? Are companies like Biotest going to purposefully hurt their customers in the name of profit?
I think no company would offer products that purposefully hurt their customers as it is self defeating. Meanwhile, the FDA protects Big-Pharma from competition and regulates what products can “cure” disease. Is this your idea of freedom? Don’t you think commercial speech is the same as political speech in that the Constitution makes no distinction between the two?
This country has been down this path. We absolutely know that people will peddle shit and try to pass it off as gold.
In my experience most supplements do not work as claimed and advertised. I also have doubts that many/most supplements have the level of ingredients claimed.
Ron Paul seems to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater in almost every stance he takes.
Many things in our government need to be fixed. The FDA is one of many. Rather than straighten them out and make them do their job correctly he does not want them to do their job at all.
He has made similar statements about the FBI, CIA etc.[/quote]
Do you think the FDA has the right to censor scientific information or commercial speech? The whole idea that government can keep us safe is ridiculous. Look how they keep good products off the shelf and protect Big-Pharma. We have less options and we are not trusted with our own health. I might as well still be in the USMC where all we got was ibuprofen for every ill.
The government has no right to tell ME what I can or cannot take. My doctor is capable of telling me what is good and what is not – or even that he doesn’t know and that he cannot advise me – it then becomes my responsibility to figure it out. The government is not my doctor.
The fact that you think individuals are incapable of figuring this stuff out just shows you how brainwashed the government has made us.
If the number of individuals who are “evil” in society was that great the division of labor and knowledge wouldn’t matter and nothing would get done anyway. It is the fact that humans rely on cooperation and that individuals do look out for their own interests that we can be safe. This does not mean we do not have to be cautious – and we are still held accountable for our actions with a functioning legal system should we behave unscrupulously.
Do you think the FDA has the right to censor scientific information or commercial speech? …[/quote]
I think they have a right to censor commercial speech when the commercial claims are bogus.
I am not aware of them censoring any scientific information so please clarify this for me.
The FDA isn’t perfect. It is flawed. It needs to be fixed. I don’t like what Ron Paul is suggesting to fix the problem because he goes too far in the other direction.
Do you think the FDA has the right to censor scientific information or commercial speech? …
I think they have a right to censor commercial speech when the commercial claims are bogus.
I am not aware of them censoring any scientific information so please clarify this for me.
The FDA isn’t perfect. It is flawed. It needs to be fixed. I don’t like what Ron Paul is suggesting to fix the problem because he goes too far in the other direction.[/quote]
Why is commercial speech treated differently than political speech? Is there a distinction between the two written into the constitution?
Scientific speech is censored. Supplement companies are not allowed to tell people what an item may be good for or not – research into such matters are engaged by private industry yet they are not allowed to submit it as such as are independent institutions. All claims have to be approved by the FDA first.
In the real world I can make claims about anything I want based on science and then that science will be judged by peer review. The FDA has no such process. Once the FDA makes a claim it is a long time before they will reverse it if it is wrong. All it takes is one law suit for a private company to reverse a false claim.
The government does not know any better than the most knowledgeable person in specific fields of science; and I can guarantee those people wouldn’t shill for the government when they can draw a larger paycheck elsewhere.
Do you think the FDA has the right to censor scientific information or commercial speech? …
I think they have a right to censor commercial speech when the commercial claims are bogus.
I am not aware of them censoring any scientific information so please clarify this for me.
The FDA isn’t perfect. It is flawed. It needs to be fixed. I don’t like what Ron Paul is suggesting to fix the problem because he goes too far in the other direction.
Why is commercial speech treated differently than political speech? Is there a distinction between the two written into the constitution?
[/quote]
Does the constitution mention cats? Should we ban them because they are not mentioned?
Totally untrue. Supplement companies constantly tell people what to use their supplements for and refer to scientific studies. All they have to do is post a disclaimer that says it has not been evaluated by the FDA to treat a disease etc.
I don’t know what “real world” you live in and I do not know what claims the FDA makes. The FDA monitors and regulates those that make claims.
[quote]
The government does not know any better than the most knowledgeable person in specific fields of science; and I can guarantee those people wouldn’t shill for the government when they can draw a larger paycheck elsewhere.[/quote]
I am not really sure what you are talking about here. Do you claim that snake oil salesman that peddle shady supplements are the most knowledgeable people in scientific fields?
After making a few million most snakeoil salesman will happily go out of business and start over under a different name.
This is well documented. We need the FDA to protect our food and drug supply. The market will not solve it. The market does not fix everything.
I think the supplement industry needs to be more tightly regulated for purity and honesty in what they do but I also think it needs to loosen up and allow prohormones and steroids.[/quote]
Zap, I put a little bit more thought on this today before responding. As far as snake oil goes, has the FDA prevented all those damn penis enlargement pills from hitting the market? Just like the argument we often make about guns and drugs, criminals don’t follow the law. This leaves us with a black market and regulation only prevents the good guys from doing business.
That’s not my main thought though. I have taken you to be one of the smarter guys on this board and not a partisan hack, so I think you may get this. I think alot of our attitudes today are the unintended consequences of FDR’s nanny state. We find ourselves thinking, “How do we know our food is going to be safe without the gov’t? There may be snake oil salesmen. How do we stop them? I’m afraid of rats in my burgers where is the regulation?” We’ve been brainwashed into thinking that we NEED the government or else we will fall out of orbit. Zap, we’re sovereign beings with certain rights and freedoms. With this in mind I offer two alternatives:
1–How did we survive the 124 years to make it into the 20th century? No one is checking on the quality of the food that went into Thomas Jefferson’s mouth. How did he survive? What about little Ben Franklin when he walked into Philadelphia by himself at the age of 17? How did they do it? How did Dr. Benjamin Rush practice medicine without a license? It’s amazing that we all didn’t just die. Zap, we survived, then and we can survive now. What is so different now then then?
2–If you wish regulation, then why not go to what the Constitution intended: federalism. If Idaho wants to put regulation on their potatoes, then let them. If Iowa wants to leave the corn farmers alone and their corn sucks, then I’ll get mine from Kansas. Why can’t we do that?
After making a few million most snakeoil salesman will happily go out of business and start over under a different name.
This is well documented. We need the FDA to protect our food and drug supply. The market will not solve it. The market does not fix everything.
I think the supplement industry needs to be more tightly regulated for purity and honesty in what they do but I also think it needs to loosen up and allow prohormones and steroids.
Zap, I put a little bit more thought on this today before responding. As far as snake oil goes, has the FDA prevented all those damn penis enlargement pills from hitting the market? Just like the argument we often make about guns and drugs, criminals don’t follow the law. This leaves us with a black market and regulation only prevents the good guys from doing business.
That’s not my main thought though. I have taken you to be one of the smarter guys on this board and not a partisan hack, so I think you may get this. I think alot of our attitudes today are the unintended consequences of FDR’s nanny state. We find ourselves thinking, “How do we know our food is going to be safe without the gov’t? There may be snake oil salesmen. How do we stop them? I’m afraid of rats in my burgers where is the regulation?” We’ve been brainwashed into thinking that we NEED the government or else we will fall out of orbit. Zap, we’re sovereign beings with certain rights and freedoms. With this in mind I offer two alternatives:
1–How did we survive the 124 years to make it into the 20th century? No one is checking on the quality of the food that went into Thomas Jefferson’s mouth. How did he survive? What about little Ben Franklin when he walked into Philadelphia by himself at the age of 17? How did they do it? How did Dr. Benjamin Rush practice medicine without a license? It’s amazing that we all didn’t just die. Zap, we survived, then and we can survive now. What is so different now then then?
2–If you wish regulation, then why not go to what the Constitution intended: federalism. If Idaho wants to put regulation on their potatoes, then let them. If Iowa wants to leave the corn farmers alone and their corn sucks, then I’ll get mine from Kansas. Why can’t we do that?
mike[/quote]
How did we survive then? Many didn’t! Many died because of poor food and poor sanitation. Our government has forced change in both areas.
Government is not good at many things but it is better than business at keeping clean air, clean water, unadulterated food and medicine. Private business has a place in all these things but they must be forced to do it.