Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

How can we trust the FDA when there is a conflict of interest in many cases?

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

Your going to have to be more specific than that.

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

We don't get the truth about the risks of many treatments, only the benefits. Why is that? How can anyone make an informed choice without being given the absolute truth? 😥

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

Let's talk about lasik surgery. Look at the advertising. Get back to me after you look up the complications that have ruined people's lives.

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

Your going to need to be more specific than that.
How is the FDA connected to lasik? What side effects or complications did they hide from consumers?

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

Ari I don't have to prove anything to you okay? You ignored every concern with vaccines. You're probably a doctor who feeds off of the ignorant public. 😞

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

Wow, peacegirl, that is some really dishonest defensive denial thing you've got going there!

Ari may well try to put you to proving something you've said, but so far all he is doing is pointing out that you haven't said much and what you have said doesn't seem to join up.

Here you've talked about the FDA concealing from the public the risks involved in some treatments, and you've given lasik treatment as an example.

How is the FDA connected to lasik? What side effects or complications do you think they have hidden from consumers?

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

Our ability to ind information about lasik complications is somehow evidence that the FDA is withholding it? :chin:

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

.
Obviously you have not seen the deception on their advertising and their interviews. Be forewarned. These are the only eyes you will ever get and if they are destroyed you won't get a new set. Just something to think about before going through a risky laser procedure. 😞

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

I officially nominate this thread for the coveted "Freethought Talk Forum and Chat Emporium Thread of the Year Award".

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

How is this connected to the FDA, look up Morris Waxler who approved this procedure and now is trying to get it banned due to ruined lives.

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

Thank you for the nomination! 👍

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

I recommend that anyone interested in this topic get ahold of a copy of each of the following:

White Coat, Black Hat: Adventures on the Dark Side of Medicine by Carl Elliot.

Watch Your Back!: How the Back Pain Industry Is Costing Us More and Giving Us Less by Richard A. Deyo

Huge federal regulatory agencies are not particularly good sources for consumer information, as they are subject to the governance from executive and legislative interests which answer to the influence of the pharmaceutical and medical devices lobbys. The direction of regulatory agencies is done by those either waiting to enter the well-paid ranks of executives in the for-profit 'health care' industry, or have recently left the regulated industry to join the ranks of the regulators. It is a revolving door in the worst possible way.

For those seeking a bit more reliable information on new pharmaceuticals or therapies, I recommend checking with the following two sources:

Cochrane Collaboration reviews...accessible online through the Cochrane Library.

US Preventive Task Force Reports....also available online.

These organizations are at the forefront of the emerging 'Evidence-Based Medicine' paradigm.

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

Can you share the information on which you base your assertion that the FDA is hiding information about potential complications from prospective patients on?

I am not exactly au courant on American goverment institutions, but is it even their job to inform patients? Is it not their job to make sure treatments meet certain standards, and is it not up to the referring MD to go into the risks?

According to their own website:

Seems they are taking the trouble to get people to properly inform themselves quite thoroughly.

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

Don't know if it was intentional. The man who approved this procedure believed he was tricked, which indicates culpability by those who did not fully disclose the horrible conplications that can arise.

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

peacegirl, can I just commend you on this thread title? I like the

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

Thanks for the info! ��

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

When I posted the title I didn't see the words at the end. Is that what you're referring to?

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

Most of the information given by doctors tells the patient lies. They say the dry eyes and halos are temporary, which they are not in most cases. They also give false statistics saying the success rate is 95% which is another lie based on the satisfaction rate on questionnaires. The lifelong pain and dissatisfaction over this elective surgery speaks for itself. It is more like 20 to 30%, not 5% of dissatisfied patients who only wished they were given the true risks involved. Scary considering these are our only set of eyes. The results cannot be undone.

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

Too late! :panic:

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

The lies usually start with the patient, like your grandmother who lied to the doctor to get a prescription that she didn't need, and dumped down the drain when she got it. A doctor can only diagnose a patient by what he can see and what the patient tells him, if the patient is lying, the diagnosis will be wrong. I have yet to get a procedure where I wasn't painstakingly informed of the risks along with the benefits, and the information always checked out when compared with reliable sources.

Just curious, where did you get the statistics, was it one of your anti-medicine web sites?

This is probably wrong, the body has an amazing ability to heal. When My wife had back surgery, she went to a surgeon who specialized in fixing what other surgeons had done wrong. And now they are developing eye transplants, so if the worst happens, the eye can be replaced.

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

I suppose the choice is the FDA and the medical professionals, or Peacegirls loon anti-medicine sites. I think I'll go with the FDA who's only conflict is balancing the cost / benefit ratio and making sure the procedures are as safe as possible for people. What Peacegirl fails to understand is that almost every procedure has some risk involved. Few, if any, will come up to her standards of 100% safe.

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

It's the #1 elective procedure in the world. I hope you're one of the lucky ones.

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

That's total crap. Many of these botched eye surgeries cannot be corrected to presurgical sight.

Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm
 

We're talking about the only pair of eyes we will ever have. People are not given the truth about the long term risks!