For a very long time, going back to the early 2000s, the FDA has been criticized for being way too SLOW in approving new drugs. While Europeans suffering from the same diseases were using medicines long-ago approved in Europe, Americans with those diseases couldn’t easily access the drugs the FDA had yet to approve.
Do those “consumer advocates” cited in the article advocate for the sick and suffering? (Or are they just another bunch of left wing Trump haters? Wouldn’t surprise me.)
Dinosaurs on the right misunderstanding the actual issues and using any article as an excuse to attack the left say what? Yeah, your trolling mission knows no limits it appears. OK Boomer.
Ignorant children making ignorant comments by pretending they know something when they know nothing about the subject at all.
What I stated was true: the FDA has been criticized by right and left for years for how long it takes to approve drugs. Sick and suffering people in Europe get new treatments much faster.
There is a good reason to applaud faster approvals. (For people who know what they are talking about.)
I find it ignorant that people like Craig make an assertion that is his opinion and not supported by the facts, but then calls other people ignorant. Didn’t you do this yesterday to people who shut you down multiple times?
While I will say that your statement was true that the FDA was criticized for being too slow, the opposite is true and there is good reason to reject the fast paced approval that is currently happening (for those who know what they are talking about).
“While I will say that your statement was true . . .”
“people like Craig make an assertion that is his opinion and not supported by the facts . . ”
Make up your mind. If what I stated was true, then it was supported by the facts.
December 12, 2019 at 1:55 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
5
2
He’s talking about separate incidences, genius. Once again, you just don’t get english, do you? Incidences where you’ve made assertions of opinion not supported by fact: Your claims about marijuana, your claims about climate change, your claims about gun violence. You once in a while accidentally tell the truth, such as your statement on the FDA being criticized for being too slow. Anyone who saw the Dallas Buyers Club gets that, it doesn’t mean their hyper speed approving things now is a better answer.
You’re feigning ignorance to troll semantics, you know exactly what Boomers meant.
December 12, 2019 at 2:47 pm
Boomers? says:
Like or Dislike:
5
2
So you were correct in asserting that politicians have criticized the FDA for being to slow, you were not correct in your assertion that we are behind Europe, my links prove that we are ahead of most other countries in approving new drugs. This is not supported by the facts as I again cited my source and you can click on the link to read about it more.
December 12, 2019 at 9:41 am
Boomers? says:
Like or Dislike:
5
2
Do you believe in patient centered care, because if you do then the FDA is currently on that path and we are actually toward the forefront of the movement for approving new drugs. I posted the links, but I can’t see them right now. I will wait a bit and repost them if I have to.
The issue with your overall generalization Craig is that you are missing out how the FDA has been criticized by multiple groups for being too fast to approve new drugs. This is why we have something called surrogate endpoints If you don’t know what that is, here: A surrogate endpoint is a clinical trial endpoint used as a substitute for a direct measure of how a patient feels, functions, or survives. From one of the studies I linked, surrogate endpoints are 16% less effective than the other treatments we have right now.
Do you agree they have also been criticized for being too quick previously, or no? If not, how come? Again, there are two sides to every story.
In 2016 out of the 22 new drugs that were approved globally to be used by multiple countries, the US was the first in 19 out of 22 of these new drugs. I don’t think that your assertion stands that we are lagging behind. Now if you want to link some research as I did that will show how we are behind currently, I would love to read up on that.
Your ignorance comment is unwarranted, and it can be used towards you now as you are not engaging constructively, and you are being narrow minded in your assessment of this process.
December 12, 2019 at 1:16 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
2
5
Sealioning is one of the most boring responses on the internet. You stated yourself that the FDA has been criticized for being too slow.
They review LOTS of drugs. It is possible to be too slow on some and too fast on others.
But it is true that MANY people have complained about how slow the FDA has been, how cautious, especially for drugs for the terminally ill.
If you don’t believe it, I really don’t care.
December 12, 2019 at 1:58 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
Why is it boring, because you prefer goalpost shifting? Or do you just like yelling “sealioning!” because people constantly ask you to provide evidence because you never actually have the evidence or data to back your opinion? Do we need to go down the rabbit hole again of ALL the blatantly false statements you’ve made as fact? I can provide evidence of studies showing THC has no link to lowering IQ, and that THC does not conclusively cause schizophrenia, yet you always claim the opposite without evidence. Then you argue that “correlation isn’t causation” isn’t a legitimate concept. You just like arguing Craig, and for someone that claims to not care you certainly post a TON of garbage.
December 12, 2019 at 1:59 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
Craig – since you ghosted me in another thread, I’m reposting this here in hopes you can reply to ensure you don’t falsely attack my morality again:
So you now comprehend I said multiple times that I’d warn my family about marijuana risks, right? Seriously. That’s sunk in now, correct? Or do I need to list EVERY.SINGLE.RISK that we’ve EVER discussed before you stop saying BS like ‘according to rosenblatts morality, we shouldn’t warn people about pot risks’?
December 12, 2019 at 2:04 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
2
8
Shh. Marijuana doesn’t cause schizophrenia. Pass the word, or I mean, don’t pass the word. Wait until there is so much overwhelming evidence from so many people becoming schizophrenic that you can be the last one to warn people.
P.S. California announced today that pot sellers in California will have to finally put warnings on their products for pregnant women and their children. Scientists concurred this should be done, even though the evidence wasn’t “conclusive”. (So I guess you are off the hook for warning anyone still.)
And who objected to this requirement? NORML. Other Cannabis Trade Groups.
The New Tobacco Industry: pot sellers.
December 12, 2019 at 2:51 pm
Boomers? says:
Like or Dislike:
5
2
I think you are not comprehending English Craig as I read those reports and I can tell you there was conclusive evidence and people agreed pregnant women should refrain from using (ingesting) cannabis .
Now onto your false sealionking assertion. It is not I proved a point contrary to your opinion about us lagging. I asked for you to back up your assertion as that was an opinion of people until you can prove the link. I proved that we are at the forefront and you proved you cannot share you sources.
I understand you don’t care if others believe you because you are a biased person who has proven time and time again you can’t admit your errors. You shift the goalpost and scream foul play. Prove your assertion or shut it.
December 12, 2019 at 3:35 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
Me: “So you now comprehend I said multiple times that I’d warn my family about marijuana risks, right?”
Craig: “So I guess you are off the hook for warning anyone still”
So you now comprehend I said multiple times that I’d warn my family about marijuana risks, right?
December 12, 2019 at 5:35 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
2
6
You have NEVER said you would warn your family about possibly becoming schizophrenic from THC consumption. And THAT was the topic at hand when the subject came up. And YOU made some point about “conclusive” evidence being required first.
So you would now admit that you WOULD specifically mention the possibility of becoming schizophrenic from THC to your family?
(That’s a direct question. How about a direct response.)
December 13, 2019 at 10:40 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
You called out my morality and still haven’t acknowledged you were wrong that I said I would not tell my family about any/all marijuana risks.
(1) I’ve already told you multiple times that I would warn my family about the risks of marijuana.
(1) I’ve already agreed that there’s a risk which associates schizophrenia with marijuana use
Are you REALLY demanding I say “I would warn my family of the risks” and then list EVERY.SINGLE.RISK that we’ve EVER discussed?
Or can you put 1 and 1 together and understand that if I acknowledge there are risks of marijuana use, and that I’d tell my family about the risks of marijuana use, that I’d tell my family about the risks that I’ve acknowledged exist?
December 12, 2019 at 1:34 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
5
3
Craig,
In another article, I proved the FDA has approved CBD oils by evidencing links showing the labels were indeed, FDA approved. You had suggested that isn’t the case. So, now that we have established that fact, my question to you is, did the FDA move too quickly to approve of those CBD oils? After all, Americans with the ailments the FDA approves can be treated by CBD oils couldn’t easily access those drugs…
Guys, we’re missing the real star of the story here: Craig has twice now admitted that he was wrong and marijuana doesn’t cause schizophrenia. He’s still pretending the evidence will one day back him up (it won’t) and he hasn’t actually admitted to being wrong or a liar (he is) but he admitted to SOMETHING! It’s like Christmas day you guys!
December 12, 2019 at 5:37 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
3
5
The reason Planet isn’t responding to you is that his link to the National Academies of Science stated that after reviewing all of the studies, those scientists felt there was “substantial evidence” that THC causes schizophrenia. Welcome to the Land of Truth.
December 12, 2019 at 5:51 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
nap.edu/catalog/24625/the-health-effects-of-cannabis-and-cannabinoids-the-current-state do you mean this report, the same one from 2017 that literally all the lovely sites you posted referenced? Craig don’t tell me you’re backpedalling and now trying to insist marijuana does cause schizophrenia again, because we’ve been down this road. It had made my day to think that for ONCE you might man up and admit you were wrong about something, but I guess that was too much to ask of a boomer huh?
December 12, 2019 at 6:15 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
You got it! See page 5, link below. You’re welcome.
“There is substantial evidence of a statistical link between the use of cannabis and the development of schizophrenia and other psychoses. . .”
I know you’ve seen that one, since you love the new york times. But please, ignore the fact that scientists are divided on the issue. You ignore so much, after all.
December 12, 2019 at 9:11 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
So Jon has moved from “your a LIAR” when I link pot to schizophrenia.
Now he says scientists are “divided”. Yes, progress, Jon, progress. (Does that make you the liar for being a “denier”?)
December 13, 2019 at 10:02 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
7
I’ll trust Craigs’ national academies study over one published by the NYTimes. The NYTimes has been caught many times publishing false info and biased opinions in recent decades…. that lean to the left. Further, note the date of the NYT link.
December 13, 2019 at 10:33 am
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
Polar, you realize Craig has used the NY times multiple times to try and justify his statements about climate change, right? I’m no huge fan of theirs either, but it is relevant to the conversation in that way. I like that you try to chime in to discredit the left, but you don’t understand the issue in the slightest.
Additionally, there have been many studies, and overwhelmingly the evidence points to it only causing schizophrenia when the gene is present. That’s why there are many studies that say so, and only a few that disagree. There are still studies out there that say smoking doesn’t cause cancer. Try to keep up, boomers.
December 13, 2019 at 3:50 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
6
Jon, you must realize that I said I preferred the source Craig used in this instance over the NYTimes, right? So much for your reading comprehension. The sources used by the NYT may be the best available in specific instances. Here, it is not. Carry on with your trolling for the sake of trolling instead of adding to the discussion!
December 16, 2019 at 11:25 am
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
6
2
ahhh right, excuse me. So the NYT is only a valid source when members of the right-wing are using it as the basis of their argument. But if someone else uses them they’re trash. Got it. You know what we call that, right boomer? Maybe my reading comprehension could be improved, but you should probably open a dictionary and look up the word “hypocrisy”. :)
December 17, 2019 at 9:16 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
No, Jon. I said I preferred the source Craig supplied OVER the NYT source because it is unbiased.
December 17, 2019 at 10:47 am
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
No, you said you preferred one over the other than not-so-subtly tried to discredit the NYT as a source entirely. You’re guilty of posting right-wing opinion sites as fact too, Polar. You fox news junkies aren’t exactly the best judges of fair and balanced journalism :P
June 1, 2020 at 9:54 pm
carol Ford says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
After was running around from doctor to doctor before we finally get rid of her PD ,at age 74 my mother noticed that her handwriting was getting smaller and I was writing faster as well. She also noticed a small tremor in her left hand. The doctor went over her different symptoms and he suspected she either had a small stroke or the beginnings of Parkinson ‘s disease. After finding a neurologist and some testing she was diagnosed with the beginning stages of Parkinson’s disease. That was 3 years ago. She take Sinimet four times a day to control the symptoms, which include falling, imbalance, gait problems, swallowing difficulties, and slurring of speech,This year, our family doctor started her on totalcureherbsfoundation com PD Herbal mixture, 15 weeks into treatment she improved dramatically. At the end of the full treatment course, the disease is totally under control. No case of dementia, hallucination, weakness, muscle pain or tremors.PD or any other disease natural organic remedies are always work on acidity treatment, if we maintain diet plan and use total cure herbs foundation then we get fast relief from this problem.
For a very long time, going back to the early 2000s, the FDA has been criticized for being way too SLOW in approving new drugs. While Europeans suffering from the same diseases were using medicines long-ago approved in Europe, Americans with those diseases couldn’t easily access the drugs the FDA had yet to approve.
Do those “consumer advocates” cited in the article advocate for the sick and suffering? (Or are they just another bunch of left wing Trump haters? Wouldn’t surprise me.)
Dinosaurs on the right misunderstanding the actual issues and using any article as an excuse to attack the left say what? Yeah, your trolling mission knows no limits it appears. OK Boomer.
Ignorant children making ignorant comments by pretending they know something when they know nothing about the subject at all.
What I stated was true: the FDA has been criticized by right and left for years for how long it takes to approve drugs. Sick and suffering people in Europe get new treatments much faster.
There is a good reason to applaud faster approvals. (For people who know what they are talking about.)
Here goes an article contrary to Craig: https://medshadow.org/fda-slow-approval/
The FDA has also been deemed too fast by research groups and here is a link showing that: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2733561
I find it ignorant that people like Craig make an assertion that is his opinion and not supported by the facts, but then calls other people ignorant. Didn’t you do this yesterday to people who shut you down multiple times?
While I will say that your statement was true that the FDA was criticized for being too slow, the opposite is true and there is good reason to reject the fast paced approval that is currently happening (for those who know what they are talking about).
“While I will say that your statement was true . . .”
“people like Craig make an assertion that is his opinion and not supported by the facts . . ”
Make up your mind. If what I stated was true, then it was supported by the facts.
He’s talking about separate incidences, genius. Once again, you just don’t get english, do you? Incidences where you’ve made assertions of opinion not supported by fact: Your claims about marijuana, your claims about climate change, your claims about gun violence. You once in a while accidentally tell the truth, such as your statement on the FDA being criticized for being too slow. Anyone who saw the Dallas Buyers Club gets that, it doesn’t mean their hyper speed approving things now is a better answer.
You’re feigning ignorance to troll semantics, you know exactly what Boomers meant.
So you were correct in asserting that politicians have criticized the FDA for being to slow, you were not correct in your assertion that we are behind Europe, my links prove that we are ahead of most other countries in approving new drugs. This is not supported by the facts as I again cited my source and you can click on the link to read about it more.
Do you believe in patient centered care, because if you do then the FDA is currently on that path and we are actually toward the forefront of the movement for approving new drugs. I posted the links, but I can’t see them right now. I will wait a bit and repost them if I have to.
The issue with your overall generalization Craig is that you are missing out how the FDA has been criticized by multiple groups for being too fast to approve new drugs. This is why we have something called surrogate endpoints If you don’t know what that is, here: A surrogate endpoint is a clinical trial endpoint used as a substitute for a direct measure of how a patient feels, functions, or survives. From one of the studies I linked, surrogate endpoints are 16% less effective than the other treatments we have right now.
Do you agree they have also been criticized for being too quick previously, or no? If not, how come? Again, there are two sides to every story.
In 2016 out of the 22 new drugs that were approved globally to be used by multiple countries, the US was the first in 19 out of 22 of these new drugs. I don’t think that your assertion stands that we are lagging behind. Now if you want to link some research as I did that will show how we are behind currently, I would love to read up on that.
Your ignorance comment is unwarranted, and it can be used towards you now as you are not engaging constructively, and you are being narrow minded in your assessment of this process.
Sealioning is one of the most boring responses on the internet. You stated yourself that the FDA has been criticized for being too slow.
They review LOTS of drugs. It is possible to be too slow on some and too fast on others.
But it is true that MANY people have complained about how slow the FDA has been, how cautious, especially for drugs for the terminally ill.
If you don’t believe it, I really don’t care.
Why is it boring, because you prefer goalpost shifting? Or do you just like yelling “sealioning!” because people constantly ask you to provide evidence because you never actually have the evidence or data to back your opinion? Do we need to go down the rabbit hole again of ALL the blatantly false statements you’ve made as fact? I can provide evidence of studies showing THC has no link to lowering IQ, and that THC does not conclusively cause schizophrenia, yet you always claim the opposite without evidence. Then you argue that “correlation isn’t causation” isn’t a legitimate concept. You just like arguing Craig, and for someone that claims to not care you certainly post a TON of garbage.
Craig – since you ghosted me in another thread, I’m reposting this here in hopes you can reply to ensure you don’t falsely attack my morality again:
So you now comprehend I said multiple times that I’d warn my family about marijuana risks, right? Seriously. That’s sunk in now, correct? Or do I need to list EVERY.SINGLE.RISK that we’ve EVER discussed before you stop saying BS like ‘according to rosenblatts morality, we shouldn’t warn people about pot risks’?
Shh. Marijuana doesn’t cause schizophrenia. Pass the word, or I mean, don’t pass the word. Wait until there is so much overwhelming evidence from so many people becoming schizophrenic that you can be the last one to warn people.
P.S. California announced today that pot sellers in California will have to finally put warnings on their products for pregnant women and their children. Scientists concurred this should be done, even though the evidence wasn’t “conclusive”. (So I guess you are off the hook for warning anyone still.)
And who objected to this requirement? NORML. Other Cannabis Trade Groups.
The New Tobacco Industry: pot sellers.
I think you are not comprehending English Craig as I read those reports and I can tell you there was conclusive evidence and people agreed pregnant women should refrain from using (ingesting) cannabis .
Now onto your false sealionking assertion. It is not I proved a point contrary to your opinion about us lagging. I asked for you to back up your assertion as that was an opinion of people until you can prove the link. I proved that we are at the forefront and you proved you cannot share you sources.
I understand you don’t care if others believe you because you are a biased person who has proven time and time again you can’t admit your errors. You shift the goalpost and scream foul play. Prove your assertion or shut it.
Me: “So you now comprehend I said multiple times that I’d warn my family about marijuana risks, right?”
Craig: “So I guess you are off the hook for warning anyone still”
So you now comprehend I said multiple times that I’d warn my family about marijuana risks, right?
You have NEVER said you would warn your family about possibly becoming schizophrenic from THC consumption. And THAT was the topic at hand when the subject came up. And YOU made some point about “conclusive” evidence being required first.
So you would now admit that you WOULD specifically mention the possibility of becoming schizophrenic from THC to your family?
(That’s a direct question. How about a direct response.)
You called out my morality and still haven’t acknowledged you were wrong that I said I would not tell my family about any/all marijuana risks.
(1) I’ve already told you multiple times that I would warn my family about the risks of marijuana.
(1) I’ve already agreed that there’s a risk which associates schizophrenia with marijuana use
Are you REALLY demanding I say “I would warn my family of the risks” and then list EVERY.SINGLE.RISK that we’ve EVER discussed?
Or can you put 1 and 1 together and understand that if I acknowledge there are risks of marijuana use, and that I’d tell my family about the risks of marijuana use, that I’d tell my family about the risks that I’ve acknowledged exist?
Craig,
In another article, I proved the FDA has approved CBD oils by evidencing links showing the labels were indeed, FDA approved. You had suggested that isn’t the case. So, now that we have established that fact, my question to you is, did the FDA move too quickly to approve of those CBD oils? After all, Americans with the ailments the FDA approves can be treated by CBD oils couldn’t easily access those drugs…
Remember, consistency matters.
The hobgoblin of a feeble mind.
Don’t talk about yourself like that bud. Have more confidence in yourself, but learn to admit your mistakes.
DECEMBER 11, 2019 AT 4:19 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
2
Thanks for judging me personally without knowing anything at all.
Reply
Guys, we’re missing the real star of the story here: Craig has twice now admitted that he was wrong and marijuana doesn’t cause schizophrenia. He’s still pretending the evidence will one day back him up (it won’t) and he hasn’t actually admitted to being wrong or a liar (he is) but he admitted to SOMETHING! It’s like Christmas day you guys!
The reason Planet isn’t responding to you is that his link to the National Academies of Science stated that after reviewing all of the studies, those scientists felt there was “substantial evidence” that THC causes schizophrenia. Welcome to the Land of Truth.
nap.edu/catalog/24625/the-health-effects-of-cannabis-and-cannabinoids-the-current-state do you mean this report, the same one from 2017 that literally all the lovely sites you posted referenced? Craig don’t tell me you’re backpedalling and now trying to insist marijuana does cause schizophrenia again, because we’ve been down this road. It had made my day to think that for ONCE you might man up and admit you were wrong about something, but I guess that was too much to ask of a boomer huh?
You got it! See page 5, link below. You’re welcome.
“There is substantial evidence of a statistical link between the use of cannabis and the development of schizophrenia and other psychoses. . .”
Smoke UP!
http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2017/health-effects-of-cannabis-and-cannabinoids.aspx
nytimes.com/2019/01/17/health/cannabis-marijuana-schizophrenia.html
I know you’ve seen that one, since you love the new york times. But please, ignore the fact that scientists are divided on the issue. You ignore so much, after all.
So Jon has moved from “your a LIAR” when I link pot to schizophrenia.
Now he says scientists are “divided”. Yes, progress, Jon, progress. (Does that make you the liar for being a “denier”?)
I’ll trust Craigs’ national academies study over one published by the NYTimes. The NYTimes has been caught many times publishing false info and biased opinions in recent decades…. that lean to the left. Further, note the date of the NYT link.
Polar, you realize Craig has used the NY times multiple times to try and justify his statements about climate change, right? I’m no huge fan of theirs either, but it is relevant to the conversation in that way. I like that you try to chime in to discredit the left, but you don’t understand the issue in the slightest.
Additionally, there have been many studies, and overwhelmingly the evidence points to it only causing schizophrenia when the gene is present. That’s why there are many studies that say so, and only a few that disagree. There are still studies out there that say smoking doesn’t cause cancer. Try to keep up, boomers.
Jon, you must realize that I said I preferred the source Craig used in this instance over the NYTimes, right? So much for your reading comprehension. The sources used by the NYT may be the best available in specific instances. Here, it is not. Carry on with your trolling for the sake of trolling instead of adding to the discussion!
ahhh right, excuse me. So the NYT is only a valid source when members of the right-wing are using it as the basis of their argument. But if someone else uses them they’re trash. Got it. You know what we call that, right boomer? Maybe my reading comprehension could be improved, but you should probably open a dictionary and look up the word “hypocrisy”. :)
No, Jon. I said I preferred the source Craig supplied OVER the NYT source because it is unbiased.
No, you said you preferred one over the other than not-so-subtly tried to discredit the NYT as a source entirely. You’re guilty of posting right-wing opinion sites as fact too, Polar. You fox news junkies aren’t exactly the best judges of fair and balanced journalism :P
After was running around from doctor to doctor before we finally get rid of her PD ,at age 74 my mother noticed that her handwriting was getting smaller and I was writing faster as well. She also noticed a small tremor in her left hand. The doctor went over her different symptoms and he suspected she either had a small stroke or the beginnings of Parkinson ‘s disease. After finding a neurologist and some testing she was diagnosed with the beginning stages of Parkinson’s disease. That was 3 years ago. She take Sinimet four times a day to control the symptoms, which include falling, imbalance, gait problems, swallowing difficulties, and slurring of speech,This year, our family doctor started her on totalcureherbsfoundation com PD Herbal mixture, 15 weeks into treatment she improved dramatically. At the end of the full treatment course, the disease is totally under control. No case of dementia, hallucination, weakness, muscle pain or tremors.PD or any other disease natural organic remedies are always work on acidity treatment, if we maintain diet plan and use total cure herbs foundation then we get fast relief from this problem.