FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-11-2013, 09:30 PM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(27-11-2013 09:10 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  Perhaps a more appropriate response to the problem would be to temporarily limit the distribution of information by 23andme

You are correct that 23andme is simply a website for exchanging information, just like Wikipedia. There is nothing tangible (except the plastic tube you spit in). Customers get no food, no drugs, no device, no hardware. 23andme is simply a web site that distributes information, like Wikipedia.

So the FDA is regulating the distribution of information, the dissemination of knowledge. Their claim that a web site with medical information is subject to their regulation and censorship is, to me, shocking. This means I can't even put up a blog with medical theories because the FDA regulates web sites and dissemination of knowledge. It's full government censorship and a repeal of free speech.

Your comment that you feel the government should "limit the distribution of information" is frightening. Should it apply to political debates like this, as well as medical ones? That's effectively the way N. Korea works. How's that working out for them?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 09:39 PM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(27-11-2013 09:30 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-11-2013 09:10 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  Perhaps a more appropriate response to the problem would be to temporarily limit the distribution of information by 23andme

You are correct that 23andme is simply a website for exchanging information, just like Wikipedia. There is nothing tangible (except the plastic tube you spit in). Customers get no food, no drugs, no device, no hardware. 23andme is simply a web site that distributes information, like Wikipedia.

So the FDA is regulating the distribution of information, the dissemination of knowledge. Their claim that a web site with medical information is subject to their regulation and censorship is, to me, shocking. This means I can't even put up a blog with medical theories because the FDA regulates web sites and dissemination of knowledge. It's full government censorship and a repeal of free speech.

Your comment that you feel the government should "limit the distribution of information" is frightening. That's effectively the way N. Korea works. How's that working out for them?

The difference between 23andme and Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is a known open website and 23andme is offering genetic testing and giving out results that the consumer uses as medical advice. That's a role usually filled by a licensed doctor. Wikipedia has no such stake in any information that could affect the health or livelihood of those reading it (unless the person is a dill).

You have the ability to post anything you want on the internet. What you can't do is make up statistics, claim to be a doctor, and then make money off of it. There are procedures in place to ensure that medical advice comes from reliable sources. It's a safety issue, and I'm thankful it's there, even if it does go too far at times.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it- not even if I have said it- unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 10:02 PM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(27-11-2013 09:39 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  The difference between 23andme and Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is a known open website and 23andme is offering genetic testing and giving out results that the consumer uses as medical advice. That's a role usually filled by a licensed doctor. Wikipedia has no such stake in any information that could affect the health or livelihood of those reading it (unless the person is a dill).

I disagree completely. Read the Wikipedia page on Parkinson's Disease. It discusses the known causes, diagnosis and prevention. So people definitely DO look to Wikipedia for medical advice. According to you, anybody who posts medical information on the internet is subject to FDA regulation. This means that the ONLY information that is legal to disseminate is that which the government censors have approved.

(27-11-2013 09:39 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  You have the ability to post anything you want on the internet. What you can't do is make up statistics, claim to be a doctor, and then make money off of it.

Of course, I cannot falsely claim to be a doctor, and trick people. That would be fraud. Even libertarians agree fraud is not allowed. But what does that have to do with 23andme? Nobody there is making false claims about being a doctor, they're not making up statistics.

(27-11-2013 09:39 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  There are procedures in place to ensure that medical advice comes from reliable sources.

By "reliable sources" you mean "government-approved sources". So what you're saying is that you want total government censorship, and only government-approved information can be on the internet. If someone has, say, new unorthodox ideas about the source of cancer, in your opinion, the government should block the dissemination of that information and ONLY allow the official information from the American Cancer Association, right? So our understanding of cancer will never progress, because only the official information is allowed to be disseminated?

You're against the concept of letting all information out there freely, and leaving it up to the readers to decide what they want to believe. You want the government to decide for us what we believe in. So when you say "It's a safety issue, and I'm thankful it's there", what you're saying is that you're not smart enough to decide what you believe and you might hurt yourself, so you're glad the government is there to block information that you feel is damaging to yourself. Right? But what about the rest of us who don't want to read ONLY the governments' official statements? What if we want to read the opposing views? We're all SOL and need to be deprived of information because you're afraid that you can't handle it? How will human civilization ever progress like that? I have a better idea. If _YOU_ feel you cannot handle the free flow of information, rather than using guns and violence to block the rest of us from getting it, why don't you just limit your reading to whatever's published on the FDA's website? Doesn't that still "protect you" from unreliable information, without dragging everybody else down with you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 11:13 PM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(27-11-2013 10:02 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-11-2013 09:39 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  The difference between 23andme and Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is a known open website and 23andme is offering genetic testing and giving out results that the consumer uses as medical advice. That's a role usually filled by a licensed doctor. Wikipedia has no such stake in any information that could affect the health or livelihood of those reading it (unless the person is a dill).

I disagree completely. Read the Wikipedia page on Parkinson's Disease. It discusses the known causes, diagnosis and prevention. So people definitely DO look to Wikipedia for medical advice. According to you, anybody who posts medical information on the internet is subject to FDA regulation. This means that the ONLY information that is legal to disseminate is that which the government censors have approved.

(27-11-2013 09:39 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  You have the ability to post anything you want on the internet. What you can't do is make up statistics, claim to be a doctor, and then make money off of it.

Of course, I cannot falsely claim to be a doctor, and trick people. That would be fraud. Even libertarians agree fraud is not allowed. But what does that have to do with 23andme? Nobody there is making false claims about being a doctor, they're not making up statistics.

(27-11-2013 09:39 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  There are procedures in place to ensure that medical advice comes from reliable sources.

By "reliable sources" you mean "government-approved sources". So what you're saying is that you want total government censorship, and only government-approved information can be on the internet. If someone has, say, new unorthodox ideas about the source of cancer, in your opinion, the government should block the dissemination of that information and ONLY allow the official information from the American Cancer Association, right? So our understanding of cancer will never progress, because only the official information is allowed to be disseminated?

You're against the concept of letting all information out there freely, and leaving it up to the readers to decide what they want to believe. You want the government to decide for us what we believe in. So when you say "It's a safety issue, and I'm thankful it's there", what you're saying is that you're not smart enough to decide what you believe and you might hurt yourself, so you're glad the government is there to block information that you feel is damaging to yourself. Right? But what about the rest of us who don't want to read ONLY the governments' official statements? What if we want to read the opposing views? We're all SOL and need to be deprived of information because you're afraid that you can't handle it? How will human civilization ever progress like that? I have a better idea. If _YOU_ feel you cannot handle the free flow of information, rather than using guns and violence to block the rest of us from getting it, why don't you just limit your reading to whatever's published on the FDA's website? Doesn't that still "protect you" from unreliable information, without dragging everybody else down with you?

Wow, you really took that and ran far away from anything I said. Good job. I'm not even sure how to respond to your post because of the number of sweeping assumptions you're making.
I'll start with this:

(27-11-2013 10:02 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Of course, I cannot falsely claim to be a doctor, and trick people. That would be fraud. Even libertarians agree fraud is not allowed. But what does that have to do with 23andme? Nobody there is making false claims about being a doctor, they're not making up statistics.

You seem to think it's reasonable for some entity to enforce this fraud rule. How do you suppose they do this? Are they just supposed to magically know who is and isn't a doctor? No... they have to provide credentials and fill out the necessary paperwork. This company didn't.

I never said "government-approved." Those are your words, and they don't belong in my mouth. I really don't care who is responsible for quality control of medical industries, but yes, I think someone should be in that position. That someone right now is a government agency. That's just what we have to work with.

I'm absolutely not against the free flow of information. The free flow of information is what leads to new ideas and approaches that often exceed what we currently have. I'm all for it. But if someone is going to come up with a crazy cure for cancer that has never been tested for side effects or efficacy, I'd like to know up front that I'm a guinea pig. That's it. It's all in the way it's presented.

And I certainly never called you stupid, so I would appreciate the same in return. I said right off the bat I was no expert in this, and have merely thrown out some thoughts on the situation. I never said this thought is the one and only answer and everyone should agree with me. I'm open for friendly debate. You start throwing insults for absolutely no reason, you just lost any bit of credibility your words ever held for me.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it- not even if I have said it- unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 11:28 PM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
@Ohio Sky, remember I take this very seriously because I personally used the website and it revealed a genetic predisposition I didn't know I had, and allowed me to make lifestyle changes now, which I think will probably end up saving my life. And now the FDA is holding a gun to their head and prohibiting them from continuing to offer that life-saving service and, since I'm sure my case wasn't the only one, it's fair to say people will die. I can't say how many. But I'm sure people will die as a result of blocking the FDA blocking this exchange of information. So when you argued that "it's a safety thing", that the government's role is to block me from getting this information that may have saved my life, because maybe I'm too stupid to handle it, and you think they need to swoop in and save me from my stupidity at gunpoint, even if it costs me my life... Yeah, I saw red.

(27-11-2013 11:13 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  
(27-11-2013 10:02 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Of course, I cannot falsely claim to be a doctor, and trick people. That would be fraud. Even libertarians agree fraud is not allowed. But what does that have to do with 23andme? Nobody there is making false claims about being a doctor, they're not making up statistics.

You seem to think it's reasonable for some entity to enforce this fraud rule. How do you suppose they do this? Are they just supposed to magically know who is and isn't a doctor? No... they have to provide credentials and fill out the necessary paperwork. This company didn't.

Huh? A) They're not claiming to be doctors. So how can you accuse them of fraudulently making that claim, if they're not making it? and B) The company DID fled the paperwork with the FDA a couple years ago, but the FDA said they must cease operations until they can prove the predictive power of DNA sequencing--which is impossible to do if if they cease operations.

(27-11-2013 11:13 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  I never said "government-approved." Those are your words, and they don't belong in my mouth. I really don't care who is responsible for quality control of medical industries, but yes, I think someone should be in that position. That someone right now is a government agency. That's just what we have to work with.

You said: "There are procedures in place to ensure that medical advice comes from reliable sources." Who determines what is a "reliable source"? You just said yourself it's a government agency, right? So, therefore, you're saying medical advice needs to be censored so it ONLY comes from government-approved sources (ie sources the government decides are reliable).

(27-11-2013 11:13 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  I'm absolutely not against the free flow of information. The free flow of information is what leads to new ideas and approaches that often exceed what we currently have. I'm all for it. But if someone is going to come up with a crazy cure for cancer that has never been tested for side effects or efficacy, I'd like to know up front that I'm a guinea pig. That's it. It's all in the way it's presented.

Can you copy/paste anything that 23andme in any way misrepresented? I've used the site, and I've got the reports. It's nothing but statistics, data, and links to peer reviewed studies. It's simply a source of information, like Wikipedia. So if you're defending the FDA for shutting it down, I don't see how you can say you're in favor of the free flow of information.

(27-11-2013 11:13 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  And I certainly never called you stupid, so I would appreciate the same in return. I said right off the bat I was no expert in this, and have merely thrown out some thoughts on the situation. I never said this thought is the one and only answer and everyone should agree with me. I'm open for friendly debate. You start throwing insults for absolutely no reason, you just lost any bit of credibility your words ever held for me.

Sorry, not my intention. Again, I just got really pissed off because, for me, I see genetic research as a life-saving service that holds great potential to cure diseases and lengthen and improve our lives, and, frankly, I want to live a long time. So when someone advocates that the research be banned because it's a "safety thing", saving me from myself, preventing me from getting access to information I might misinterpret and hurt myself with... Anyway. I've said all I have to say. I see this genetic research as a breakthrough that could be as big as germ theory, and the Feds are making it illegal, and I'm REALLY genuinely pissed off about it. That's why this thread may come across more as a rant than a debate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 11:59 PM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(27-11-2013 11:28 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Huh? A) They're not claiming to be doctors. So how can you accuse them of fraudulently making that claim, if they're not making it? and B) The company DID fled the paperwork with the FDA a couple years ago, but the FDA said they must cease operations until they can prove the predictive power of DNA sequencing--which is impossible to do if if they cease operations.

Once again- from my understanding (and again, I claim no expertise), the issue is not with the predictive ability of the data they are collecting. It is with the fact that they are selling a product, for money, that attempts to use medical information that is not established as credible. It sounds like the information is credible, but the paperwork just hasn't been filed properly. If I'm wrong please point to me to a source that explains how this is related to predictive results. Everything I've read, including the actual letter sent to 23andme from the FDA, states that the concern lies in the possibility of faulty screening results because the criteria for the screening results they are already giving out isn't established. All the company needs to do is fill out a report citing the research they are using to select the genetic markers they are looking for in their screenings. It's just red tape. I'm as fed up as everyone else with red tape (especially living in California) but it is what it is. I'm still not sure what this has to do with the ACA.

(27-11-2013 11:28 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You said: "There are procedures in place to ensure that medical advice comes from reliable sources." Who determines what is a "reliable source"? You just said yourself it's a government agency, right? So, therefore, you're saying medical advice needs to be censored so it ONLY comes from government-approved sources (ie sources the government decides are reliable).
I would be happy to see an independent agency in place for this purpose but that's just not the way things are. I don't agree with how heavily involved the government is in our lives. The boards that conduct the tests that grant just about every certification imaginable are government-run, so if you have ever been to a doctor, you have also sought help from only government-approved sources. They decide what training goes into most professions, how much time you have to spend in school, what you need to know to be proficient in your profession. It's insane. I know. But if it weren't for political and religious meddling and outright greed, the government would probably be an impressive source of unbiased information and fair laws. It isn't, but no other agency exists to fill this spot either, so... Dodgy

(27-11-2013 11:28 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Can you copy/paste anything that 23andme in any way misrepresented? I've used the site, and I've got the reports. It's nothing but statistics, data, and links to peer reviewed studies. It's simply a source of information, like Wikipedia. So if you're defending the FDA for shutting it down, I don't see how you can say you're in favor of the free flow of information.
It's not that they misrepresented anything. It's that it wasn't represented at all. They simply didn't give the FDA what it requested. And the reason it was requested is to prevent misrepresentation. I didn't really set out to defend the FDA. I don't really have much stake in this whole argument or know that much about the company. I just posted with a few thoughts outside of what you were providing because I think it's important to have both sides; you kinda painted me with the rest.

(27-11-2013 11:28 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Sorry, not my intention. Again, I just got really pissed off because, for me, I see genetic research as a life-saving service that holds great potential to cure diseases and lengthen and improve our lives, and, frankly, I want to live a long time. So when someone advocates that the research be banned because it's a "safety thing", saving me from myself, preventing me from getting access to information I might misinterpret and hurt myself with... Anyway. I've said all I have to say. I see this genetic research as a breakthrough that could be as big as germ theory, and the Feds are making it illegal, and I'm REALLY genuinely pissed off about it. That's why this thread may come across more as a rant than a debate.

A half-assed apology, but I suppose it'll work. Tongue
I'm with you. I think this is valuable research and I hope they are able to clear up whatever issues exist and continue with their work. The amount of information about human genetics and diseases that we still have yet to even begin to understand is huge. We can all benefit from it, and I have little doubt that 23andme will continue their work, or someone else will be there to pick it up. This kind of testing is being done in one way or another in many studies and laboratories across America, though. It's hardly being illegalized.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it- not even if I have said it- unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2013, 02:05 AM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
"I disagree completely. Read the Wikipedia page on Parkinson's Disease. It discusses the known causes, diagnosis and prevention. So people definitely DO look to Wikipedia for medical advice. According to you, anybody who posts medical information on the internet is subject to FDA regulation. This means that the ONLY information that is legal to disseminate is that which the government censors have approved."

I am sure many would prefer that the information is factual, safe and effective. I believe that is one of the missions of the FDA from a historical point.

as for obamacare. Those who dislike obamacare will come up with something else. It just been nothing but a wave ofter wave of attacks. Honestly, they have no other solution to put fourth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2013, 09:44 AM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(28-11-2013 02:05 AM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  I am sure many would prefer that the information is factual, safe and effective. I believe that is one of the missions of the FDA from a historical point.

Here's the problem. "Factual, safe and effective" according to whom? Remember not that long ago the consensus of the medical community was that boring a hole in the skull and draining blood was the safe and effective treatment for disease. The notion that tiny little creatures (germs) were swarming in our body carrying on warfare sounded preposterous--just like IandI's post that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

I, like 99.9%, saw IandI's post as inaccurate and dangerous, and I would recommend anybody with HIV to ignore Dr. IandI's advice and seek mainstream treatment. BUT, does that mean we should use force to prevent people like IandI from being able to dispense such bad information? 99% of the time we'd be doing the public favor by blocking such harmless misinformation. _BUT_ 1% of the time, we'd be blocking some radical, crazy-sounding notion that ultimately would prove to be correct.

Therefore, it's not possible to restrict information to that which is "factual, safe and effective" without also restricting scientific advancement. However, despite the pragmatic argument, I'm opposed to it on moral grounds because those violent neanderthals in the FDA are initiating force. They're not making "strong recommendations", but rather threatening legal action that will make resistance futile since continued resistance will ultimately lead to lethal force. Such use of violence is, imo, the barbaric, ancient way of dealing with problems and has no place in a modern society.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2013, 09:46 AM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(28-11-2013 02:05 AM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  as for obamacare. Those who dislike obamacare will come up with something else. It just been nothing but a wave ofter wave of attacks. Honestly, they have no other solution to put fourth.

I'm still confused at to how this scenario has fuck to do with Obamacare, but yeah. It's not a great law. It's got good and bad in it, and the bad will most likely be hashed out and changed through trial and error. No one else has really put forth any reasonable alternatives.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it- not even if I have said it- unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2013, 10:44 AM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(28-11-2013 09:46 AM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  I'm still confused at to how this scenario has fuck to do with Obamacare

Follow the money trail. The FDA's stated concern is "the risk that a direct-to-consumer test result may be used by a patient to self-manage". Well EVEN IF 23andme's test was wrong in telling me I had a risk of diabetes what's the risk? 23andme isn't giving me dangerous drugs to take. The "risk" is that I may want unnecessary tests, blood work, MRI's, etc.

But why is this bad? Haven't all Keynesian economists said that what we need to jump start the economy is for consumers to spend and consume more? Doesn't the government WANT us to spend more and offer incentives to buy homes, cars, and other stuff? So why is it "good" if I go out and buy unnecessary accessories on my car, and "bad" if I go out and buy unnecessary MRI's? Either way I'm spending money and it's growing the economy. So is it bad to waste money on medical tests, but good to waste money on other products?

Seriously, think about that. Here's my answer. Tell me if you disagree:

_IF_ there was no health insurance, and we all paid for medical expenses out of our pocket ourselves, _THEN_ the government would be thrilled if we spent boatloads of money on unnecessary medical tests because, like all other frivolous expenditures, it's just pumping money into the economy. If I get an MRI every day, I'm not hurting you. In fact I'm helping you because then they'll more MRI machines and open more clinics and they'll have more money to spend on r&d.

_BUT_ the problem is that we have managed health care, where health insurance companies pick up the tab and the cost of my unnecessary tests is not borne by me alone, but rather is shouldered by everybody else who has to pay a higher premium to cover my expenses. Now if I get unnecessary MRI's, suddenly it DOES become your business, because YOU are paying for them.

See, using insurance, which is supposed to be a "managed risk pool", for something that's not intended and makes no financial sense, like paying for planned, routine expenses, has thrown a wrinkle into the system and changed the whole dynamics.

23andme, by encouraging possibly unnecessary tests, is driving up health care costs for everybody--not just for the person getting the tests. And the reason for this is the screwed up health insurance system, which Obamacare has mandated everybody participate in.

So, I agree this isn't all about Obamacare; the FDA's been after genetic testing companies for a long time. BUT, Obamacare makes the problem worse because, before Obamacare, 23andme users like myself paid for those unnecessary tests ourselves out of pocket and it never hurt anybody. Now, thanks to Obamacare, I'm no longer allowed to self-manage my healthcare; I am forced against my will to buy a comprehensive healthcare package that will pay for the MRI's. So Obamacare has shifted the cost of my MRI's from my own pocket, to the pockets of everyone else. Even without Obamacare the FDA probably would have shut down 23andme anyway, but Obamacare just strengthened the incentive to do so, especially since voters in 2014 are going to be watching very closely how much their insurance premiums go up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: