The Good, Well-informed, Medical Doctor

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw[/youtube]

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/ ... nabler.php

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/ ... art_ii.php

One does not have to accept the theory of evolution to be a competent G.P.

ruveyn

Who cares what his personal religious beliefs are? It's a free country and he can believe what he wants. It obviously hasn't effect his ability as a doctor and he isn't going to impose his views on the rest of the rest of the population.

Yes, Ron Paul is very popular among the quack-friendly set, particularly those tending to see a conspiracy between the FDA, FTC, and big pharma to keep them from selling their favorite nostrums. There's good reason for that, given how staunch a supporter of "health freedom" he's been over the years. What a wonderfully Orwellian term! After all, who could be against "health freedom"? If you are, you're against freedom! It's like being against free speech, mom, the flag, and apple pie. In actuality, "health freedom" is nothing more than a clever catch phrase that in effect describes measures that allow quacks the freedom to hawk their wares unfettered by pesky interference from the FDA or FTC. Perhaps the most notorious example of "health freedom" laws that have been passed is the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). This is a law that emasculated the FDA in its ability to protect the public from dangerous supplements by reclassifying supplements as "food" or "nutrition" rather than drugs. Never mind that manufacturers of many supplements make blatantly drug-like claims for their products. The FDA can't do anything about it, as long as the claims are carefully worded so as not to suggest that the product or ingredient is "intended for prevention or treatment of disease." Since the DSHEA, it's been more or less the wild, wild West out there as far as supplements go. Not surprisingly, Ron Paul is very much a supporter of this law, opposing any attempts to weaken its protections for the supplement industry's ability to make dubious health claims for its products.

But that's not all. Ron Paul is also the sponsor of the Foods Are Not Drugs Act (also known as the Consumer Health Free Speech Act), which would add the six words "other than foods, including dietary supplements'' to the statutory definition of "drug,'' allowing food and dietary supplement producers even wider latitude to make drug claims for supplements than they have now--as if the DSHEA didn't provide wide enough latitude already.

Coupled with his general tendency to dismantle public education, ignorance of biology (with at least some evidence that said ignorance is willful and theologically motivated) could damage science in the US. Although I'm sure his gradually slashing of basic scientific research funding will also do a goodly amount of damage.

How will he dismantle public education? Do you think things like "No Child Left Behind" and whatever else the Department Of Education does actually helps education in this country? He wants to return that responsibility to states, not impose from a federal level. I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

Yes, Ron Paul is very popular among the quack-friendly set, particularly those tending to see a conspiracy between the FDA, FTC, and big pharma to keep them from selling their favorite nostrums. There's good reason for that, given how staunch a supporter of "health freedom" he's been over the years. What a wonderfully Orwellian term! After all, who could be against "health freedom"? If you are, you're against freedom! It's like being against free speech, mom, the flag, and apple pie. In actuality, "health freedom" is nothing more than a clever catch phrase that in effect describes measures that allow quacks the freedom to hawk their wares unfettered by pesky interference from the FDA or FTC. Perhaps the most notorious example of "health freedom" laws that have been passed is the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). This is a law that emasculated the FDA in its ability to protect the public from dangerous supplements by reclassifying supplements as "food" or "nutrition" rather than drugs. Never mind that manufacturers of many supplements make blatantly drug-like claims for their products. The FDA can't do anything about it, as long as the claims are carefully worded so as not to suggest that the product or ingredient is "intended for prevention or treatment of disease." Since the DSHEA, it's been more or less the wild, wild West out there as far as supplements go. Not surprisingly, Ron Paul is very much a supporter of this law, opposing any attempts to weaken its protections for the supplement industry's ability to make dubious health claims for its products.

But that's not all. Ron Paul is also the sponsor of the Foods Are Not Drugs Act (also known as the Consumer Health Free Speech Act), which would add the six words "other than foods, including dietary supplements'' to the statutory definition of "drug,'' allowing food and dietary supplement producers even wider latitude to make drug claims for supplements than they have now--as if the DSHEA didn't provide wide enough latitude already. Perhaps Dr. Paul's most notorious contribution to "health freedom" comes in his sponsorship of the Health Freedom Protection Act, which he introduced with a flourish of conspiracy-mongering:

If he's a doctor, he should know that there are differences in races, so why isn't he racist?

Even given the highly decentralized nature of US public education, you don't abolish a department without quite a few systemic shocks.Tax initiatives that make it easier or even incentive the "opting out" of public schools also damages the system.

Why should Paul believe in evolution?