Any questions for Dr. Mary J. Ruwart?

[shanek]

I've referenced Dr. Mary J. Ruwart (www.ruwart.com) and particularly her book Healing Our World a number of times on this forum. I'll have a chance to speak with her on Sunday and wondered if anyone here had any questions they would like me to pass on to her. I'll post any answers I get here in this thread.

[Earthborn]

I doubt she would very different answers than you would. Also there is the problem that you will be using your words to ask her and your own words to tell us the answers. So the answer we get may be pretty close to what you would have said yourself.

But anyway, here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42859) is a nice start.

I also like to know why she likes to compare the Free Market with ecosystems, rainforests even. Ecosystems are not free from agression, in fact aggression is what makes them work. Every individual organism takes whatever he wants, usually causing the death of another. Has it occured to her that comparing the Free Market with rainforests plays right in the hands of those who claim that Libertarianism will lead to the Law of the Jungle?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I doubt she would very different answers than you would.

Probably not. But as I've referenced her numerous times, I thought I would make the offer.

Also there is the problem that you will be using your words to ask her

I promise, I will print out this thread and ask her the questions verbatim.

and your own words to tell us the answers.

If you like, I can record the conversation (with her permission) and post it as an mp3.

But anyway, here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42859) is a nice start.

I was actually thinking of specific questions about her references. General questions like that I think are covered very well in Healing Our World (http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/) and Short Answers to Tough Questions (http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/categories_list.php).

I also like to know why she likes to compare the Free Market with ecosystems, rainforests even.

Help me out here: can you reference where she does this?

Ecosystems are not free from agression, in fact aggression is what makes them work. Every individual organism takes whatever he wants, usually causing the death of another. Has it occured to her that comparing the Free Market with rainforests plays right in the hands of those who claim that Libertarianism will lead to the Law of the Jungle?

Interesting question. Help me out with the reference so we'll all know what you're talking about.

[shanek]

To cover the above subjects in the thread you linked to, Earthborn:

Animal Rights:

"I certainly would want to live in a society where animals were not mistreated. In a libertarian society, a person who abused their animals would most likely be visited by concerned neighbors. If the abuser showed no remorse, the neighbors might ostracize the abuser, refusing to associate or do business with him or her.

"If the abuse continued, the neighbors might attempt to rescue the suffering animals. If the abuser sued, a libertarian jury would have to decide if he or she was due compensation.

"If compensation was awarded to the abuser, the rescuers might gladly pay it as a cost of saving the animals. Such compensation might allow the abuser to save face, but the public exposure would likely dissuade him or her from purchasing more animals to abuse.

"Animals 'rights' might evolve in a libertarian society through the failure of juries to award abusers compensation for the rescued animals. Failure to award compensation would essentially be a verdict of 'not property.' Prior to the Civil War, juries acknowledged rights of escaped slaves by returning a verdict of 'not guilty' when they or their rescuers were captured."

Fossil Trade:

I can't find any particular statement from her on this, but I'm confident her answer to "should people be allowed to dig up fossils on their own property or in areas that belong to no one and sell those fossils without being limited by the government? Even if it means potentially destroying a find that may be important to science?" would be an unhesitant "yes."

Archaeology: is a person allowed to do whatever they please with their own land, even if it means destroying any historical evidence that may lie beneath its surface?

Same supposition as above.

Islandification:

"The solution to many environmental problems is, if I understand Libertarians correctly, to divide nature into pieces of property and allow people to profit from these pieces." I think she would agree with me that your understanding is incorrect. Check out this answer:

"If national parks were sold to conservation groups, they'd get much better care than they do now. Government hasn't been a very good steward to our parks, contrary to popular opinion.

"For example, earlier in its history, Yellowstone employees were encouraged to kill wolf, fox, lynx, marten and fisher because visitors enjoyed watching the deer, elk, longhorn sheep, etc. that these species preyed upon. The expanding population of hoofed mammals destroyed the shrubs and berries that fed the bear population. As a result, bears began to invade camp sites, so park rangers had to start removing them. Now wolves are being reintroduced to Yellowstone.

"Yellowstone may yet be saved, but other parks under bureaucratic stewardship haven't fared so well. Ravena Park in Seattle was established by a couple who wanted to protect the giant Douglas firs that grew in that area. Up to 10,000 a day came to visit and attend the nature lectures, walk the trails and admire the majestic trees. The city eventually bought the park and made it public. Within 15 years, all the Douglas firs were gone. The bureaucrats overseeing the park could only profit by selling trees as cordwood, so that's what they did.

"These stories are not unique. People act in the their own selfish interests. When they own a property, they profit most by caring for it. When they simply have bureaucratic oversight, they profit most from exploiting it.

"A libertarian government recognizes this pattern and privatizes the environment. The owners profit when they protect it and lose when they don't. When government doesn't interfere, people do what's right in order to do what's best for themselves."

Tradeable Emission Rights:

"Covenants can permit industrial development by mutual agreement, but not protect companies from their duty to compensate anyone whom they might harm. Any neighbor could successfully sue if noxious chemicals were leached into their soil, water, or air."

[Earthborn]

Help me out here: can you reference where she does this?Sure. Healing Our World, Chapter 2, the section titled 'The Marketplace Ecosystem':The marketplace has many similarities to nature's rainforest and oceanic ecosystems. Left to their own devices, the marketplace and the earth's ecosystems are self-regulating. Neither requires our forceful intervention to establish a holistic balance in which a diversity of complimentary niches can evolve. Aggression in the marketplace or destruction in a natural ecosystem upsets this balance. Some of the niches are destroyed along with their occupants. Diversity is lost.I sure don't see many similarities between what she considers to be a free market and rainforests.

[shanek]

Okay, so how about this as your question for her:

"In Chapter 2 of Healing Our World, you compare the free market to a rainforest ecosystem. But ecosystems are not free from aggression; in fact aggression is what makes them work. Every individual organism takes whatever he wants, usually causing the death of another. Don't you think that comparing the Free Market with rainforests plays right in the hands of those who claim that Libertarianism will lead to the Law of the Jungle?"

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by shanek
I'll have a chance to speak with her on Sunday and wondered if anyone here had any questions they would like me to pass on to her. I'll post any answers I get here in this thread.Originally posted by shanek or maybe Dr. Mary J. Ruwart
When government doesn't interfere, people do what's right in order to do what's best for themselves.

Yes, I have a question, ask her what color is the sky in her world? The above quote is either hopelessly naive or blatantly disingenuous because it's clearly not based in any reality.

[shanek]

Come on, people. Serious questions only, not flames.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
Okay, so how about this as your question for her:

(snip!)Sounds good to me!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
I've referenced Dr. Mary J. Ruwart (www.ruwart.com) and particularly her book Healing Our World a number of times on this forum. I'll have a chance to speak with her on Sunday and wondered if anyone here had any questions they would like me to pass on to her. I'll post any answers I get here in this thread.

Ask her if all banks are forced at gunpoint to belong to the Federal Reserve, as you have posted repeatedly.

Ask her if she thinks government should intervene in the affairs of private companies, as you think they should. Use the CPD as an example.

Ask her if she thinks, in her lifetime, a LP presidential candidate will get more than 0% of the vote.

Ask her if she thinks a LP candidate will ever win a contested election for anything other than dog catcher or water commissioner.

Ask her if she favors private citizens being able to posess personel nuclear devices.

Ask her to pretend that a LP candidate could actually become president. Then ask if she, as that imaginary candidate, would imprison governement employees for doing their previously legal jobs.

Do you want any more?

Note to skeptics: Shanek will consider this a flame, but these are all legitimate questions.

[webfusion]

Ask her if she favors private citizens being able to posess personel nuclear devices.

http://www.tldm.org/News5/suitcase_bomb.jpg








Please forgive me for the source of that picture:
The Last Days Ministries

[shanek]

Okay, so, we have one serious question, and a bunch of long-refuted strawmen posited by bigots who apparently can't think of any real questions to ask her. Nothing about her decades of experience as a pharmaceutical research scientist and her findings about how many preventable deaths have been caused by FDA policies...nothing on her years of experience running low-income housing projects and trying to help poor people against an unfeeling government...nothing about her sister's experience with Dr. Kevorkian...and only one question (albeit a good one) about a 450+ page book that is one of the prominent Libertarian tomes. Apparently, an opportunity to put a prominent Libertarian on the spot with tough questions makes all of these supposedly-legitimate criticisms disappear...

[webfusion]

Shanek, I admit to knowing absolutely next-to-nothing about any of what you are talking about. However, I am curious about one thing, and maybe it falls into her sphere of expertise. I hope she can find out more info if she doesn't know offhand.

Is it true that a massive industrial-hemp effort in America would be worthwhile? (someone said 6% of the USA land area planted with hemp is enough to supply all the biomass energy needs of the country). The only half-way decent source on any of this data is Jack Herer and I can't get a word out of him for more details. (He is the author of "Emperor Wears No Clothes" an in-depth review of the failure of the USA Gov't. to pursue hemp as a solution to our current economic and energy crisis).

That's it. Hope it will be OK to breach that subject with her.

Thanks.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Note to skeptics: Shanek will consider this a flame, but these are all legitimate questions.

Originally posted by shanek
Okay, so, we have one serious question, and a bunch of long-refuted strawmen posited by bigots who apparently can't think of any real questions to ask her.

Do I win the million?

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Apparently, an opportunity to put a prominent Libertarian on the spot with tough questions makes all of these supposedly-legitimate criticisms disappear...

I asked tough questions. Questions you have been unable or unwilling to answer. I thought she might like to take a swing at them.

[shanek]

Originally posted by webfusion
Shanek, I admit to knowing absolutely next-to-nothing about any of what you are talking about.

This is someone I've referenced in several threads. Whenever I have, the attack dogs have come out against her. I thought I'd give them a chance to ask her some serious questions.

Is it true that a massive industrial-hemp effort in America would be worthwhile? (someone said 6% of the USA land area planted with hemp is enough to supply all the biomass energy needs of the country). The only half-way decent source on any of this data is Jack Herer and I can't get a word out of him for more details. (He is the author of "Emperor Wears No Clothes" an in-depth review of the failure of the USA Gov't. to pursue hemp as a solution to our current economic and energy crisis).

I've read it. I haven't seen any kind of in-depth examination of his book, but it seems pretty well founded.

There's an audio presentation "Industrial Hemp: The Hidden Agenda Behind the War on Drugs" by Raymond R. Carr, R.Ph. You can find it here:

http://www.ruwart.com/Pages/Books/

Scroll to the bottom of the page. This is Dr. Ruwart's husband, so it's safe to say she probably agrees with a lot of it. ;)

That's it. Hope it will be OK to breach that subject with her.

That's fine with me, but personally I'd like a more specific question to ask her. Does she think we should legalize industrial hemp? I can already tell you her answer to that: yes. Are you asking her about the practical uses for hemp? Or how feasible it would be to grow and market?

Understand I'll probably only have a few minutes to ask her questions, so I'd like them to be as specific as possible.

[hgc]

Originally posted by shanek
Okay, so, we have one serious question, and a bunch of long-refuted strawmen posited by bigots who apparently can't think of any real questions to ask her. ... Here's a real question: Ask her if she runs around Internet forums screaming, Bigot! Liar! :D

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by hgc
Here's a real question: Ask her if she runs around Internet forums screaming, Bigot! Liar! :D

No, that's BIGOT!!! LIAR!!! PSEUDOSKEPTIC!!!

:dl:

[shanek]

God, what's the f*cking point...

You people get a chance to challenge a prominent Libertarian and you spend the entire thread slamming personal insults. Pathetic.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
God, what's the f*cking point...

You people get a chance to challenge a prominent Libertarian and you spend the entire thread slamming personal insults. Pathetic.

Note to lurkers and newbies: Any question little Shanek can't answer or refuses to answer, is considered a personal insult.

[Earthborn]

Just noticed this (http://www.ruwart.com/consumer.lpn.wpd.html)Certification promotes consumer confidence and encourages expansion. Bottled water, for example, successfully competes with the tap water supplied by many local municipalities. Many consumers are dissatisfied with the taste of water that they get from public utilities or object to the health hazards of added chlorine or fluoride. Vendors obtain third-party inspections to certify that their bottled product is superior to tap water or that supplied by the competition. Reports are usually available on request so that consumers can comparison shop. If we woke up tomorrow to find ourselves in a libertarian world, we'd find a great deal of consumer protection already in place via voluntary certification.Does she know any double blind studies that prove that bottled water actually is superior to tap water?The FDA's tardy approval of propranolol, the first beta blocker for heart disease, needlessly killed an estimated 30,000 Americans during the three years it was available in Europe. The FDA probably killed more people, by delaying this single drug, than it saved during its entire existence. Licensing laws are a cure worse than the disease.I like to know how she figured out the number of people saved by the FDA, and how she can be certain that it is less than the number of people killed.

I also like to know whether she thinks a libertarian society is possible if only a minority of people actually want to be free (free as defined by Libertarians). If the majority of people is able to tolerate authoritarianism, how can authoritarian leaders ever lose their power?

[webfusion]

I kinda hit the nail on the head with that one, it seems. Under the circumstances, she knows a lot about the subject, so formulating a question that provides new insight is going to be difficult.

Let's try this:

"Given that widespread anti-marijuana sentiment and the vast bureaucratic and legal infrastructure in the USA that currently precludes any legislation offering a potential for major industrial hemp programs to come about, and the obviously slim chances of gaining any support for legalization during the current administration: Do you know of any specific initiative in the scientific community that provides a valid different-species-classification basis for distinguishing hemp from marijuana and thereby allowing removal hemp from schedule one drug prohibition?"

I know there are 10th-Amendment challenges, but these require the states to enact legislation even if the courts (or SCOTUS) agree to allow the 10th to apply for the hemp issue. In the current political climate of red states, this route ain't going to offer a solution. I'm looking to Canada, where it is legal, because it was turned over to the Health Authority to decide!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Does she know any double blind studies that prove that bottled water actually is superior to tap water?

She didn't say it was; she said that they obtain third-party inspections to certify that.

I like to know how she figured out the number of people saved by the FDA, and how she can be certain that it is less than the number of people killed.

I actually have somewhere a recording of her explaining that. I'll try to get it up when I get the answers up.

I also like to know whether she thinks a libertarian society is possible if only a minority of people actually want to be free (free as defined by Libertarians). If the majority of people is able to tolerate authoritarianism, how can authoritarian leaders ever lose their power?

Good question. I'll put that on the list.

[shanek]

Originally posted by webfusion
"Given that widespread anti-marijuana sentiment and the vast bureaucratic and legal infrastructure in the USA that currently precludes any legislation offering a potential for major industrial hemp programs to come about, and the obviously slim chances of gaining any support for legalization during the current administration: Do you know of any specific initiative in the scientific community that provides a valid different-species-classification basis for distinguishing hemp from marijuana and thereby allowing removal hemp from schedule one drug prohibition?"

Wow...I'll ask her that, if I can get all the words out! :p

[webfusion]

"Is there any way in the current political climate to circumvent the legislative process and avoid the SCOTUS by getting the US Agriculture Dep't to officially recognize the low THC-content hemp as NOT marijuana?"

As I see it, only a science-based reclassification is going to get a massive industrial-hemp program moving sometime in this decade in the USA. Who specifically at Agriculture Dep't can we rely on, since we really need a full-blown campaign to engage a governmentally-approved national hemp-based biomass-energy initiative now more than ever!

Or, even shorter:
Dr Ruwart:
Do you know the name of one senior official in the US Agriculture Dept who is willing to stand up in front of media microphones and announce to the President and Congress:
"Hemp is not Marijuana - here's the proof !" ?

[shanek]

Originally posted by webfusion
"Is there any way in the current political climate to circumvent the legislative process and avoid the SCOTUS by getting the US Agriculture Dep't to officially recognize the low THC-content hemp as NOT marijuana?"

I think this is a better question than your second, shorter one. However, I also think the DEA might have something to say about it, too.

[webfusion]

shanek, the concept is to remove the hemp plant from schedule one completely.

It's the only logical step, to do the 'end-around' play and bypass all current drug laws pertaining to marijuana.

Hemp is not marijuana: "The Agriculture Dep't declares it is so!" is a decent plan to get it acknowledged publicly.
All we need now is the name of someone important enough that will be paid attention to by the President and who's willing to stick his (or her) neck out publicly.

There is a lot of precedent for this to happen.

Use science to prove the facts (http://www.lightparty.com/Economic/TimeToLegalizeHemp.html)
and
low levels of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (http://www.dankforest.com/education/hemp/facts.cfm)

etc etc

[shanek]

Okay, so here's the questions I have:

From Earthborn:

"In Chapter 2 of Healing Our World, you compare the free market to a rainforest ecosystem. But ecosystems are not free from aggression; in fact aggression is what makes them work. Every individual organism takes whatever he wants, usually causing the death of another. Don't you think that comparing the Free Market with rainforests plays right in the hands of those who claim that Libertarianism will lead to the Law of the Jungle?"

"On your figures for the deaths caused by the FDA's tardy approval of propranolol, how did you figure out the number of people saved by the FDA, and how can you be certain that it is less than the number of people killed?"

(I'm asking her this in case I can't find the other recording I mentioned; but I'm certain that other recording will be more detailed than the answer she might give me tonight.)

"Do you think a libertarian society is possible if only a minority of people actually want to be free (free as defined by Libertarians)? If the majority of people is able to tolerate authoritarianism, how can authoritarian leaders ever lose their power?"


From webfusion:

"As I see it, only a science-based reclassification is going to get a massive industrial-hemp program moving sometime in this decade in the USA. Is there any way in the current political climate to circumvent the legislative process and avoid the SCOTUS by getting the US Agriculture Dep't to officially recognize the low THC-content hemp as NOT marijuana? Do you know the name of one senior official in the US Agriculture Dept who is willing to stand up in front of media microphones and announce to the President and Congress: 'Hemp is not Marijuana - here's the proof!'?"

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
those who claim that Libertarianism will lead to the Law of the Jungle?"

That's not a claim. That's a given.

Originally posted by shanek
"On your figures for the deaths caused by the FDA's tardy approval of propranolol, how did you figure out the number of people saved by the FDA, and how can you be certain that it is less than the number of people killed?"

Ehhhh.....you might not want to ask that question, given that you claim that the FDA has committed a genocide comparable to the Holocaust...

Originally posted by shanek
"Do you think a libertarian society is possible if only a minority of people actually want to be free (free as defined by Libertarians)? If the majority of people is able to tolerate authoritarianism, how can authoritarian leaders ever lose their power?"

That is a very condescending question. It is actually possible for someone wanting to be free and not be a Libertarian.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
Okay, so here's the questions I have:

From Earthborn:

"In Chapter 2 of Healing Our World, you compare the free market to a rainforest ecosystem. But ecosystems are not free from aggression; in fact aggression is what makes them work. Every individual organism takes whatever he wants, usually causing the death of another. Don't you think that comparing the Free Market with rainforests plays right in the hands of those who claim that Libertarianism will lead to the Law of the Jungle?"

"On your figures for the deaths caused by the FDA's tardy approval of propranolol, how did you figure out the number of people saved by the FDA, and how can you be certain that it is less than the number of people killed?"

(I'm asking her this in case I can't find the other recording I mentioned; but I'm certain that other recording will be more detailed than the answer she might give me tonight.)

"Do you think a libertarian society is possible if only a minority of people actually want to be free (free as defined by Libertarians)? If the majority of people is able to tolerate authoritarianism, how can authoritarian leaders ever lose their power?"


From webfusion:

"As I see it, only a science-based reclassification is going to get a massive industrial-hemp program moving sometime in this decade in the USA. Is there any way in the current political climate to circumvent the legislative process and avoid the SCOTUS by getting the US Agriculture Dep't to officially recognize the low THC-content hemp as NOT marijuana? Do you know the name of one senior official in the US Agriculture Dept who is willing to stand up in front of media microphones and announce to the President and Congress: 'Hemp is not Marijuana - here's the proof!'?"

What about my questions? Will she dodge them like you do?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
What about my questions? Will she dodge them like you do?

You forgot:

"Will it be OK for destitute people to sell themselves into slavery?"

[shanek]

Well, we ended up having a really nice chat for about 20 minutes. She's always been very approachable, and she was very excited tonight to talk into my recorder to a bunch of faceless people on an internet board.

So, here's the link. It's about a 2.4MB .mp3 file:

www.shanekillian.org/files/ruwart-qa.mp3

Here's the link to the .pdf file she mentions:

http://www.ruwart.com/AAPS.pdf

If there are any other serious questions (as opposed to "What color is the sky in your world?"), or if anyone has any followup questions to what we discussed, I should have another chance to do this in a couple of months. I'll post another thread at that time.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, we ended up having a really nice chat for about 20 minutes. She's always been very approachable, and she was very excited tonight to talk into my recorder to a bunch of faceless people on an internet board.

So, here's the link. It's about a 2.4MB .mp3 file:

www.shanekillian.org/files/ruwart-qa.mp3

Here's the link to the .pdf file she mentions:

http://www.ruwart.com/AAPS.pdf

If there are any other serious questions (as opposed to "What color is the sky in your world?"), or if anyone has any followup questions to what we discussed, I should have another chance to do this in a couple of months. I'll post another thread at that time.

I was going to watch the Oscars tonight, but instead, I will spend the evening reading and listening to what "Dr." Mary Woowart...err....Ruwart has to say!



NOT!!!

[webfusion]

shanek, without a doubt, your efforts were exactly on-target and made my day. delightful.
Good idea you had to do that interview and present it.
That's without a doubt the very reason the internet exists and functions as it does. Some people think Chris Rock makes for great entertainment, and some might wish to spend a few minutes listening to a thoughtful and insightful interview with Mary.
I chose the latter. And am a better man for it.

Thanks Shanek, peace.


[[edited to add: I am going to try and contact the new US Sec'y of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, who is a dirt-kicker from Nebraska. His office is 1/2-hour away and if I get lucky, his door is open.]]

[shanek]

No, thank you for the kind words, webfusion.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, we ended up having a really nice chat for about 20 minutes.

And therein lies the problem. When you interview someone, you don't sit down for a really nice chat. You try to find out what the person's views are - and not just ask the easy questions. You explore boundaries. You ask the tough, real life questions that need to be asked.

Not sit down for a nice cuppa tea. That's what we in Denmark call "microphone-holder journalism". It's not being an interviewer, it's being a lapdog.

Originally posted by shanek
If there are any other serious questions (as opposed to "What color is the sky in your world?"), or if anyone has any followup questions to what we discussed, I should have another chance to do this in a couple of months. I'll post another thread at that time.

Why should people bother to suggest questions, if you merely censor those you don't like yourself?

It's OK if you can't come up with something to ask her. But if you ask for people's input, you have to respect what they suggest. Not based on whom you like, but based on the validity of the questions themselves.

[Vortex]

Mary Ruwart rocks! :) I'm sure glad I'm a Libertarian and not a (gulp) Social Democrat or something... lol.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Vortex
Mary Ruwart rocks! :) I'm sure glad I'm a Libertarian and not a (gulp) Social Democrat or something... lol.


...........why?

[Vortex]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
...........why?
Why?? LOL. Is that just rhetorical? :)

[Vortex]

Here is a question I'd like asked of Mary Ruwart, shanek. I asked it of her years ago but never received a reply (I think it was on a site of hers or something that I asked it.)

In a Libertarian society can I be compelled to serve on a jury if I don't wish to?

Seems to me there are always going to be enough volunteers (civic pride and all that) to fit the bill, so I feel I need not be bothered. :) To me it's like any other form of coercion.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Vortex
Here is a question I'd like asked of Mary Ruwart, shanek. I asked it of her years ago but never received a reply (I think it was on a site of hers or something that I asked it.)

In a Libertarian society can I be compelled to serve on a jury if I don't wish to?

Seems to me there are always going to be enough volunteers (civic pride and all that) to fit the bill, so I feel I need not be bothered. :) To me it's like any other form of coercion.

I may have a chance to do this again in a couple of months. I'll start a new thread when I know for sure. I'll try to remember to include this one, but to be sure you might want to remember to repost this in the new thread when I make it.

My feeling is, the government should be summoning people at random to appear, because there just isn't any other fair way to do it. But the person should not be compelled under threat of force to serve. That smacks to me of involuntary servitude. Plus, if I'm fighting for my life or liberty, I'm not so sure I'd want a jury full of people who didn't want to be there.

But personally, I'm far more concerned about the practice of excusing jurors who are aware of the jury's power of nullification.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Vortex
Why?? LOL. Is that just rhetorical? :)

No.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
Here's the link to the .pdf file she mentions:

http://www.ruwart.com/AAPS.pdf

If there are any other serious questions (as opposed to "What color is the sky in your world?"), or if anyone has any followup questions to what we discussed, I should have another chance to do this in a couple of months. I'll post another thread at that time.
I am not sure if this is the right thread for this, but I have some concerns with the way that pdf is structured. For example, in dealing with the number of deaths stated to be prevented by the regulations, she seems to take a straight line calculation of deaths before regulation and deaths after regulation. This ignores some very important elements, which are also contained in her chart.

First, she ignores the fact that the number of NCE's has greatly expanded since the sixties. More drugs on the market means more drugs that can potentially harm people. She makes no adjustment to her figures for the greater harm potential. She does take the greater number into account when assessing the costs of regulations, so the underlying assumption is that NCEs cure but do not harm. Without testing, there is no way to determine this.

Second, she seems to ignore the fact that the increased costs, etc. of drugs probably led to a decrease in the number of NCEs introduced into the market. Again, she uses this fact in calculating costs (as above) but ignores it in calculating benefits. With less regulation, more drugs would hit the market with less testing. This is completely ignored in her benefit analysis.

In short, I think that her benefit numbers are low and her cost numbers are high.

[shanek]

Thanz: did your post get cut off, or was that just an editing glitch? Please continue if you have more to say.

It's times like this I wish I had a good grounding in statistics. As it is, all I can do is muddle through.

First, she ignores the fact that the number of NCE's has greatly expanded since the sixties. More drugs on the market means more drugs that can potentially harm people.

More drugs, proportionally? Nominally, sure, but if there wouldn't be a greater percentage of drugs introduced that would be dangerous I don't see how this would throw off the calculations.

Second, she seems to ignore the fact that the increased costs, etc. of drugs probably led to a decrease in the number of NCEs introduced into the market.

Perhaps, but again, would it have caused a greater proportion of them to be dangerous? If not, I don't see how it would skew the numbers.

With less regulation, more drugs would hit the market with less testing. This is completely ignored in her benefit analysis.

I think you're missing the point. You can't just look at "less regulation;" you have to look at the kind of regulation she's talking about. She's looking at what would happen if the testing and requirements for efficacy were eliminated but the safety testing were still in place. So theoretically the drugs that hit the market should be as safe as they are now.

Would you mind going through it and showing your calculations, taking into account the factors you mentioned?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
Thanz: did your post get cut off, or was that just an editing glitch? Please continue if you have more to say.
Glitch. It's times like this I wish I had a good grounding in statistics. As it is, all I can do is muddle through. I feel your pain. More drugs, proportionally? Nominally, sure, but if there wouldn't be a greater percentage of drugs introduced that would be dangerous I don't see how this would throw off the calculations. The numbers she gives are nominal numbers though. She says that at most, 7000 people were saved. She fails to take into account tons of relevant information in getting that number, including what I have already mentioned and any proportional increase in drug use over time. She includes a population adjustment, but does not seem to include any adjustment for the number of people who are taking drugs: did the proportion increase, decrease, stay the same? Given the vastly increased supply (at least in terms of variety) I think it is a safe assumption that the proportion of people taking medications has increased. Perhaps, but again, would it have caused a greater proportion of them to be dangerous? If not, I don't see how it would skew the numbers. I think it probably would cause a greater proportion to be dangerous. The drugs that are dropped would be the ones with the most problems - either in safety or efficacy, which are both problems. I think you're missing the point. You can't just look at "less regulation;" you have to look at the kind of regulation she's talking about. She's looking at what would happen if the testing and requirements for efficacy were eliminated but the safety testing were still in place. So theoretically the drugs that hit the market should be as safe as they are now. But not as effective? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that preventing drugs from hitting the market kills people by denying them access to treatment and then ignore that the same thing would happen if people are given ineffective treatment. Getting pill A, which doesn't work, instead of pill B which does can be just as damaging to the patient as getting no pill - which is the damage that she is complaining about. Would you mind going through it and showing your calculations, taking into account the factors you mentioned? I wish I could. I don't have the data for the factors I mention, nor do I have the expertise. Alas, all I can really do is use logic and reason to point out some flaws. I cannot, with all honesty, present you with a well researched alternative set of numbers. I would just be guessing.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
The numbers she gives are nominal numbers though. She says that at most, 7000 people were saved.

That's not nominal; it's population-adjusted. 4,825 is the nominal number.

She includes a population adjustment, but does not seem to include any adjustment for the number of people who are taking drugs: did the proportion increase, decrease, stay the same?

All right, I can see that criticism.

Given the vastly increased supply (at least in terms of variety) I think it is a safe assumption that the proportion of people taking medications has increased.

I don't know how safe it is, but it is certainly something that needs to be accounted for. Unless it already is with the 4,825 number.

I think it probably would cause a greater proportion to be dangerous. The drugs that are dropped would be the ones with the most problems - either in safety or efficacy, which are both problems.

How do you know that?

But not as effective?

It's not about efficacy. Besides, the market has proven it's remarkably efficient at proving efficacy. Look at how many drugs are successfully prescribed for purposes other than which the FDA approved them.

You cannot claim that preventing drugs from hitting the market kills people by denying them access to treatment and then ignore that the same thing would happen if people are given ineffective treatment.

That isn't what's happening. That data is taken from Lichtenburg; you'd have to examine his data to make sure that is the case here. Assuming he's made the proper adjustment, Dr. Ruwart (and we) shouldn't have to.

I wish I could. I don't have the data for the factors I mention, nor do I have the expertise. Alas, all I can really do is use logic and reason to point out some flaws.

I understand. You do bring up some good points. Maybe someone else here can help us with the math and statistics.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
I don't know how safe it is, but it is certainly something that needs to be accounted for. Unless it already is with the 4,825 number. It is not accounted for in the 4825 number - that is just a straight line multiplication from pre-regulation deaths. As for the assumption (that there are more people taking drugs) I think it is quite logical. I don't know if there are any diseases or conditions that have been wiped out since the 60's, but there have certainly been new ones that have appeared, such as AIDS. With new diseases come new drug therapies. And new drug therapies for long standing conditions. Even if the same number of people are taking medications (which I don't think is true) the sheer number of available drugs seems to indicate that more drugs are being taken as a whole. Which means more chances for bad consequences. I don't think that the drug industry has just been dividing up the same size pie - I think that they have grown that pie beyond mere population growth. How do you know that? Well, I don't actually KNOW, but it seems logical. If spending money on drugs is expensive, and as a company you need to decide which ones to kepp researching and which ones to drop, you drop the ones that are least likely to make you money. Those are either the ones that have significant problems in safety and/or efficacy, or they are for conditions where the market is too small to get a return (not enough sick people). Either way, if you believe that comapnies generally make rational decisions (and I know you do) the impact is that the drugs lost are the ones that would either do more harm than good, or little good, or would help a small number of people. I don't see this addressed in her analysis. It's not about efficacy. Besides, the market has proven it's remarkably efficient at proving efficacy. Look at how many drugs are successfully prescribed for purposes other than which the FDA aproved them. If you are talking about how many lives would be saved by new drugs, it HAS to be about efficacy. People who need treatment can't allways wait for the market to stumble onto a solution - especially if in the mean time they are taking a drug marketed as a treatment for X, but really as little or no effect. I don't see this incorporated anywhere. That isn't what's happening. That data is taken from Lichtenburg; you'd have to examine his data to make sure that is the case here. Assuming he's made the proper adjustment, Dr. Ruwart (and we) shouldn't have to. I don't know if that is reflected in the other data or not. It certainly isn't included in the section on the "benefits" of the regulation - and I think it should be.
I understand. You do bring up some good points. Maybe someone else here can help us with the math and statistics. That may help us with some number crunching - I just don't know if we have all the data or where to get it, unfortunately.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
It is not accounted for in the 4825 number - that is just a straight line multiplication from pre-regulation deaths.

I see that. You're right.

As for the assumption (that there are more people taking drugs) I think it is quite logical. I don't know if there are any diseases or conditions that have been wiped out since the 60's, but there have certainly been new ones that have appeared, such as AIDS.

Well, it wouldn't be necessary to wipe out a disease. Just come up with treatments that involve fewer drugs.

For example: last year my uncle had a heart attack. After he recovered from the attack, they put him on heart medication and also started him in rehab. Now, he continues the rehab, but he's recovered to the point where he doesn't need heart medication anymore.

20 or 30 years ago, they would have given him the heart medication for the rest of his life and told him not to exert himself.

We're seeing successful treatments of cancers with laser and other new kinds of surgery, removing the person's need to take drugs. In fact, we're seeing lots of new non-drug types of treatments for all sorts of ailments.

Which one wins out, I couldn't say. I intuit that you are correct, we're probably taking a lot more drugs now, but I'm uncomfortable speculating as to how much more. I'd want to see some solid numbers on this.

Well, I don't actually KNOW, but it seems logical. If spending money on drugs is expensive, and as a company you need to decide which ones to kepp researching and which ones to drop, you drop the ones that are least likely to make you money. Those are either the ones that have significant problems in safety and/or efficacy, or they are for conditions where the market is too small to get a return (not enough sick people).

Or they're ones like Dr. Ruwart was speaking of in one talk, where they had to pass on developing a promising drug for liver disease because a) the testing required would have been much greater than normal since, at least at that time, no one had successfully treated liver disease before, and b) because the drug's patent would have expired after all that testing was done and so there would have been no way they could have made all of their money back.

If you are talking about how many lives would be saved by new drugs, it HAS to be about efficacy.

But that's a separate calculation. There are two calculations here: one is the safety calculation, based on drug casualty data from Gierenger and which deals solely with drug toxicity, and the lives saved calculation, based on efficacy data from Lichtenberg and the National Research Council. You don't need to consider efficacy when doing the safety calculations any more than you need to consider safety when doing the lives saved calculations.

Besides, she's not extrapolating efficacy data from the pre-1963 data like she is with casualty data.

People who need treatment can't allways wait for the market to stumble onto a solution

They certainly can if they can wait for the government bureaucrats to approve it! It takes an extra ten years to test drugs for efficacy; look at how quickly the market is able to find new uses for existing drugs. Much less than ten years.

I don't know if that is reflected in the other data or not. It certainly isn't included in the section on the "benefits" of the regulation - and I think it should be.

It's a fair question. I'll have to see if I can dig up the Lichtenberg source.

That may help us with some number crunching - I just don't know if we have all the data or where to get it, unfortunately.

Presumably, all the data is there in her cited sources. The only thing we might be lacking is what I think is your biggest criticism: that we don't know what proportion of the population is taking drugs now as compared to <1963. To be honest, I wouldn't have a clue where to go to dig up that information.