creepy....

[truthmatters]

I have supplied links to the process , laws , laws abandoned , Bush appointed FDA head who resigned and was prosicuted for conflict of interest concerning drug cos.

What have you provided except personal insults?

[Said1]

Have you read the thread?

Now you're in generic answer mode.

If you want the truth, I was asking for your proof contridicting Abbey's claim. Given that you missed that, I thought I would be fair and accept what you posted. What you posted and it's relevance to this thread isn't clear, to me. This is the third time in this thread I've asked you to clarify. So again, what did that pretty little chart and all it's arrows prove in relation to this thread?

I have already stated you are arguing semantics with the guy who called you names. Meaning that 'they run' testing isn't the best choice of words, but most knew what he meant. If you are unclear, he means they control the method of testing and interpret the results as they see fit (for starters). So yes, the FDA, Health Canada, KFDA and many other federal Food and Drug organizations/agencies do control testing, to the point of who can be tested and under what circumstances. No one is arguing who administers testing.


Now what is your point?

[truthmatters]

Rather than blaming the drugs and the 'evil' drug companies, it's quite likely that the drugs just delayed the inevitable.

If you look back through the thread you will see the answers. I dont know how many times Im allowed to repost the links.

[truthmatters]

The studies are PAID for by the drug manufacturers but they are RUN by the FDA


That is what he said.

They do not run the tests.

[CockySOB]

If you look back through the thread you will see the answers. I dont know how many times Im allowed to repost the links.

I think the issue here is that most people prefer the poster to not only post links to substantiate their claims or assertions, but also to actually take the time to formulate and post said assertions. You have not yet done so in any coherent, let alone cogent, form. Should any of my students present an argument in the manner you have, I'd be laying into them just as much for their laziness.

Try stating your propositions clearly, and then lead us down the path of logic to reach the conclusion you have reached. That is what we term a "proof" provided you can use proper logic to move from step to step in your process and that we are able to arrive at the same conclusion you seem to have reached. Personally, I'm not holding my breath.

[Said1]

If you look back through the thread you will see the answers. I dont know how many times Im allowed to repost the links.

I don't recall any proof. You posted something subsantial from a recognized medical journal linking random shootings to inadequet testing of psycho meds? Are these same drugs used in other countries?

[Mr. P]

The studies are PAID for by the drug manufacturers but they are RUN by the FDA


That is what he said.

They do not run the tests.

Right they don't. Neither the FDA or the drugs companies run the study. Doctors, researchers and research hospitals do, WITH THE OVERSIGHT of the FDA.

[Said1]

The studies are PAID for by the drug manufacturers but they are RUN by the FDA


That is what he said.

They do not run the tests.

I know what he wrote. Why are you reposting this. I replied to it as well.

[truthmatters]

http://holology.com/shooting.html

There may be a connection


http://h11.protectedsite.net/index.cfm/6421/7749


http://www.behavior.org/journals_BAD...medication.cfm



http://member.melbpc.org.au/~grjallen/8myths.htm

[Said1]

http://holology.com/shooting.html

There may be a connection

What kind of med were they taking?

[Yurt]

I have supplied links to the process , laws , laws abandoned , Bush appointed FDA head who resigned and was prosicuted for conflict of interest concerning drug cos.

What have you provided except personal insults?

not this "proof"



get some real proof

[Kathianne]

I'll go for a moderator to cut this, as it speaks to the topic in frightful ways. It's about Illinois, one of the two most restrictive states already, regarding 2nd amendment rights, that now is looking at how to tighten a law that would already be more restrictive than had been.

The same Illinois that had the campus shooting last week.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080218/...ooting_gun_law

Illinois' new gun law under scrutiny

By MICHAEL TARM, Associated Press WriterMon Feb 18, 4:35 PM ET

Illinois lawmakers moved swiftly after last year's massacre at Virginia Tech to make it harder for anyone with a history of mental illness to buy guns, fortifying what were already some of the nation's toughest weapons laws.

But the new measure does not take effect until June. And whether it would have prevented last week's bloodbath at Northern Illinois University is far from clear.

Steven Kazmierczak, the 27-year-old grad student who bought an arsenal of guns in recent months and used them to kill five people and commit suicide, had been on medication and was said to have spent time in a psychiatric center as a teen in the late 1990s.

But state Sen. Dan Kotowski, a sponsor of the law that will require more detailed reporting to state officials about those who have received mental health treatment, said the sketchy information about Kazmierczak's medical history makes it impossible to know if he would have fallen under the law.

"This law is more comprehensive than most," the Democrat said Monday. "But everything needs to be evaluated and reviewed to address the problem so that something like this never happens again. This is the promise we have to make." Is he implying that when the legislature gets done with this, we have a 'guarantee' that no longer will this be able to happen?

The measure, when it takes effect, will require health professionals to inform state authorities about patients who display violent, suicidal or threatening behavior. Right now, such information is reported to state officials only on people who have been institutionalized, not on those who receive only outpatient treatment.

Illinois adopted the law last June, and the governor signed it in August.

Virginia lawmakers, meanwhile, still are considering a package of bills to reform that state's mental health system in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy, including one that would make it easier to have people involuntarily committed.

The proposals are attempts to reform a mental health system that came under increased scrutiny since a mentally disturbed student, Seung-Hui Cho, killed 32 people and himself at Virginia Tech in April.

Unlike Cho, Kazmierczak showed few outward signs of trouble. He passed repeated criminal background checks and had a state firearm owner's identification card, which requires applicants to answer a series questions, including whether they have been in a mental hospital in the preceding five years. Authorities say they verify what the applicants put down.

A former employee at a Chicago psychiatric treatment center said last week that Kazmierczak was placed there after high school by his parents. She said he used to cut himself and had resisted taking medications. And Kazmierczak's girlfriend, Jessica Baty, told CNN on Sunday that he had been on an antidepressant but had stopped taking it about three weeks ago because "it made him feel like a zombie."

But even under Illinois' new law, it's not clear whether Kazmierczak said or did anything that would have triggered the reporting requirement and made him ineligible to buy guns.

Some argue the more stringent reporting rules could make it even harder to identify people who might be about to snap.
BINGO!

Gary Slutkin of the Chicago Project for Violence Prevention at the University of Illinois said the rules could have the unintended consequences of discouraging people from seeking help out of fear of being reported. He said that might be especially likely to happen in the case of someone fantasizing about going on a killing spree.

"If you have these ideas, you might be less likely to get help because you know for sure you'll be reported," he said.

Pro-gun forces also expressed skepticism such laws would have done any good in stopping someone like Kazmierczak.

John Boch, like many other gun-rights activists in Illinois, said the answer is for the state to loosen its gun laws, not tighten them, so that students could have been able to shoot back during the NIU attack. Illinois is one of only two states with an outright ban on carrying concealed weapons. Wisconsin is the other.

"This guy at NIU committed murder, for god's sake," Boch said. "What are a few more gun laws going to do to protect human life? There are a lot of laws he violated in killing those kids, but one more law won't make a difference to guys like that."

[AFbombloader]

"The studies are PAID for by the drug manufacturers but they are RUN by the FDA"


No they are run by the companies

Run, as in controlled, or dictated. The standards that the tests are compared to are set by the FDA. So they are in control of the test. I.E. They are running things.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Run

76. to manage or conduct: to run a business; to run one's own life. (replace business with test)


AF

[AFbombloader]

Come on Said!

I was right and you guys know it.

The companies pay for and preform the testing and then the FDA reads it and desides what step to take.

They can order more testing , flat deny it, or approve the drug for use.

The FDA does not do the testing and he was wrong.

man people

Context! That is where the issue is. You were correct in discribing the process. But wrong in thinking that the companies are in control. Do you honestly think if Merc gave a halfassed study or one that the FDA felt was not done properly they would approve the drug?
These companies have to follow guidelines and regulations. There are many industries that do the same thing. If it is a safety issue they have to have everything in order or the federal government will not approve.

AF

(no derogatory names or slurs were used in the writing of this post)