Comments for A Small Move Forward at http://www.randi.org/site , comment 1 to 35 out of 20 comments http://www.randi.org/site Tue, 21 May 2013 17:39:15 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/557-a-small-move-forward.html#comment-6294 That chaser guy's not bad, but I think all those women were a little bit turned on by him and were helping him out a bit. That brunette in particular was suppressing a smile behind her serious exterior. ;D BJ - BillyJoe Tue, 19 May 2009 18:49:34 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/557-a-small-move-forward.html#comment-6274 Adavidson, unfortunately the approach you describe would not always result in a slammed door. You might just sell a lot of product. I'm reminded of the Chasers selling people on "Oil of Snake", "Bull candles" (made of 100% pure bull) and "Bollocks" in an Australian market: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPXvR8zMWv4[/url] - patrick767 Tue, 19 May 2009 05:15:49 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/557-a-small-move-forward.html#comment-6249 Please read the article again. James Randi is lambasting the FDA for going after this small insignificant case: "for having [i]dared[/i] to advertise etc etc" "Cheerios at least provide fiber and nourishment" whilst leaving the big guy: "Homeopath...this major scam" "the homeopathic industry has been luring the naïve away from effective life-saving medicines that actually work, while legally selling them pills and drops with ZERO content and ZERO effect" untouched. BillyJoe - BillyJoe Mon, 18 May 2009 02:25:26 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/557-a-small-move-forward.html#comment-6247 The FDA in this case is only telling GM that they need to change the wording. Besides, there have been studies proving the efficacy of soluble fiber in reducing cholesterol. What exactly did GM do wrong? What exactly did "we" win? No high fives warranted in this case. - Careyp74 Mon, 18 May 2009 02:03:07 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/557-a-small-move-forward.html#comment-6235 Oops, sorry missed the quote marks. :( - Mark P Sun, 17 May 2009 16:15:51 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/557-a-small-move-forward.html#comment-6234 Already legalized drugs - i.e. alcohol - are advertised as having all kinds of socially and sexually facilitative properties, all of which are fictitious.[quote][/quote] Do people in the US actually advertise that alcohol will get you sex? Really? Or do they just infer it? And, while it may be unpalatable to accept it, alcohol is notoriously effective at social and sexual facilitation. If a company came out and said: "get some girls sloshed and they are much easier to bed" then it would be unethical. But you would have a hard case proving it to be untrue. - Mark P Sun, 17 May 2009 16:15:08 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/557-a-small-move-forward.html#comment-6202 [quote]When there is a huge glut of information, people tend to think "if it worked for Oprah it must be OK". They make bad choices that way. Every person has made a decision based upon somebody else's recommendation. It is a short cut that can have disastrous results, but it does not mean the person was stupid.[/quote] What does it make them, then? - Steel Rat Sat, 16 May 2009 14:42:18 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/557-a-small-move-forward.html#comment-6201 [quote]Perhaps they should make them Homeopathic Cheerios. [/quote] Homeos? - Steel Rat Sat, 16 May 2009 14:41:29 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/557-a-small-move-forward.html#comment-6192 They are quite separate issues. The question of whether to legalise the sale of drugs in order to remove or reduce the criminal element and thereby reduce the harm is quite a separate issue to the question of whether the sale of homeopathic treatments should be banned because there is no evidence of effectiveness and some evidence of harm. BJ - BillyJoe Sat, 16 May 2009 12:11:36 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/557-a-small-move-forward.html#comment-6190 You can't have it both ways. Already legalized drugs - i.e. alcohol - are advertised as having all kinds of socially and sexually facilitative properties, all of which are fictitious. Only the dimmest among us believe that these claims have any truth in them. This whole issue points out the paramount importance of a person's being skeptical and thinking critically. One simply must think for himself and question EVERYthing - we can't expect the government (another deceitful gang of larcenous rogues, by the way) to do all our food-tasting for us. - bosshog Sat, 16 May 2009 11:52:10 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/557-a-small-move-forward.html#comment-6159 My super sneaky and likely illegal idea: 1. Print up "FDA approved" stickers that are obviously fake (say, have mickey mouse on them or something). 2. Stick these stickers on homeopath bottles, covering price tags or labels. 3. Call the FDA to inquire about these new labels and medicines. 4. Call various news outlets about a potential fraud being investigated by the FDA into the labeling of certain products. 5. Get in lots and lots of trouble legally. Also feel guilty for potentially perpetrating a fraud if all goes not according to plan. 6. Don't actually do this. Please... (I'm not serious, this is a Poe if you're wondering). 7. This last item may actually work: encourage the drug companies to promote FDA approval on some things. Ie, a big publicity/pr campaign for and against selected items. Imagine the following jingle on your tv or radio: "The FDA approved this tylenol/etc {show actual medicine} because it worked succesfully in x% of lab trials against a placebo. Believe it or not, the placebo is for sale as well from {show various samples of homeopathic varieties}. They want you to think it works. Remember Bob, the mind is a powerful thing and a strong suggestion combined with placebo will work in some cases, but for the real thing use {insert name of drug and company here}!" Yeah...I'm liking number seven. Implementing is a pain, but it's a place to start! - iiwo Fri, 15 May 2009 22:16:09 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/557-a-small-move-forward.html#comment-6143 [quote]Can someone explain this to me? It's okay to legalize drugs that definitely have verifiable effects and dangers, but we're outraged that it's legal to sell something that has no effect at all, benign or otherwise, because it's somehow dangerous for people to use?[/quote] People don't smoke pot under the mistaken belief it will cure them of some ailment. Homeopathy is a scam that may causes people to avoid proper treatment based on the belief homeopathy works. - José Fri, 15 May 2009 15:16:11 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/557-a-small-move-forward.html#comment-6142 I'm not a big fan of normal homeopathic medicine, but I really enjoy honey nut homeopathic medicine. - José Fri, 15 May 2009 14:58:34 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/557-a-small-move-forward.html#comment-6141 Yes, I said stoke instead of stroke above! My aura must be off... :D - tjenks Fri, 15 May 2009 12:53:02 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/557-a-small-move-forward.html#comment-6140 Send all members of congress for accupuncture treatments and chiropactric realingment. Then, while they're being treated for hepatitis from dirty needles, and stoke from neck 'adjustments' they can ponder the effects on the general public! - tjenks Fri, 15 May 2009 12:51:23 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/557-a-small-move-forward.html#comment-6138 Homeopathy vs. drug legalization written by Griz, May 15, 2009 "A couple days ago there was a post where the sentiment was legalize drugs and the stupid people will all kill themselves. Today it's save the stupid people from homeopathic remedies that don't do anything. Can someone explain this to me? It's okay to legalize drugs that definitely have verifiable effects and dangers, but we're outraged that it's legal to sell something that has no effect at all, benign or otherwise, because it's somehow dangerous for people to use?" When there is a huge glut of information, people tend to think "if it worked for Oprah it must be OK". They make bad choices that way. Every person has made a decision based upon somebody else's recommendation. It is a short cut that can have disastrous results, but it does not mean the person was stupid. Drug laws have a tendency to cause harm to our wallets and increase violent crimes. Legalizing drugs is more of an effort to curtail the violence that arises from needing to "protect" the merchandise from being confiscated by the law or rivals. It also would eliminate much of the over crowding in our prisons by eliminating many of the nonviolent people incarcerated for possession. - Habenero Fri, 15 May 2009 12:04:39 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/557-a-small-move-forward.html#comment-6137 I can't help but find it hilarious that with all the obvious snake oil on the market that the FDA would jump all over General Mills about Cheerios. They've been making this claim for a while if I'm not mistaken. FDA been dozing? Awoke to a box of Cheerios on the table and read the label? - CasaRojo Fri, 15 May 2009 11:55:30 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/557-a-small-move-forward.html#comment-6136 [quote]Can someone explain this to me? It's okay to legalize drugs that definitely have verifiable effects and dangers, but we're outraged that it's legal to sell something that has no effect at all, benign or otherwise, because it's somehow dangerous for people to use?[/quote] I would imagine that if drugs were legalized they would, de factor, fall under the food and DRUG administration. For legal distribution, this would mean that these drugs would need to meet certain standards of quality, purity, and so on. Currently, homeopathic 'medications' don't fall under the FDA's standards yet are sold legally but with ludicrous claims. One thing to say about heroine or cocaine: noone is promising that these will cure cancer! - Kuroyume Fri, 15 May 2009 11:28:09 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/557-a-small-move-forward.html#comment-6133 I'm thinking you might have enough pull to snag a meeting with your congressman, JR. Start there. - Diverted Chrome Fri, 15 May 2009 11:19:09 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/557-a-small-move-forward.html#comment-6131 We can all hope that this is an indication that the FDA [i][b]is[/i][/b] starting to do its job. Maybe this is just the first product that they will attack. Start with the easy ones, then proceed to the harder ones. We can only hope (or pray if that's your thing). . - GusGus Fri, 15 May 2009 10:55:09 +0100