Coronavirus

Chat about non-baseball topics. No political discussions!
Post Reply
User avatar
cardinalkarp
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 18723
Joined: May 4 06, 8:44 am

Re: Coronavirus

Post by cardinalkarp »

When you see things like this happening, it probably means NAC works in proactively treating COVID. FDA is beyond captured by big pharma and they will basically do whatever is asked of them, even if it means banning viable treatments.

https://www.nutritionaloutlook.com/vie ... -precedent

Edit: And I’m sorry, if you think supplemental vitamins and things like NAC (which have been used for decades) are more dangerous than the vaccines you been bought in so hard to this nonsense.

Arthur Dent
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 12536
Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
Location: Austin

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Arthur Dent »

The NPA is a business group, just like PhRMA, that lobbies, files lawsuits, etc to help line the pockets of its members’ drug pushing business lines. PhRMA bad but NPA good is a deeply weird view to me.

User avatar
cardinalkarp
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 18723
Joined: May 4 06, 8:44 am

Re: Coronavirus

Post by cardinalkarp »

Arthur Dent wrote: ↑
January 17 22, 3:07 pm
The NPA is a business group, just like PhRMA, that lobbies, files lawsuits, etc to help line the pockets of its members’ drug pushing business lines. PhRMA bad but NPA good is a deeply weird view to me.
I should get to choose who I do business with.

The fact that this is likely the FDA performing a hit job at the behest of big pharma is what I have an issue with.

Arthur Dent
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 12536
Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
Location: Austin

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Arthur Dent »

Just to clarify, how does PhRMA benefit from restricting NAC? Is your view that PhRMA believes less NAC means more COVID, meaning more vaccine and therapeutic drug sales? How big a loss would you say PhRMA companies are taking through people buying NAC instead of PhRMA’s products?

Is it possible that the FDA is instead concerned about following their mandate to prevent sales of drugs not proven safe and effective because it can be dangerous to market unproven drugs? Is it also possible the NPA filed this lawsuit not because of anything to do with the interests of PhRMA but because they are protecting their own profits?

User avatar
cardinalkarp
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 18723
Joined: May 4 06, 8:44 am

Re: Coronavirus

Post by cardinalkarp »

Arthur Dent wrote: ↑
January 17 22, 3:50 pm
Just to clarify, how does PhRMA benefit from restricting NAC? Is your view that PhRMA believes less NAC means more COVID, meaning more vaccine and therapeutic drug sales? How big a loss would you say PhRMA companies are taking through people buying NAC instead of PhRMA’s products?

Is it possible that the FDA is instead concerned about following their mandate to prevent sales of drugs not proven safe and effective because it can be dangerous to market unproven drugs? Is it also possible the NPA filed this lawsuit not because of anything to do with the interests of PhRMA but because they are protecting their own profits?
You didn’t read the article did you?

Arthur Dent
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 12536
Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
Location: Austin

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Arthur Dent »

Because the article answers my question directly in NPA’s own compliant?

”NPA’s members have lost and will continue to lose significant revenue because Amazon, among other online retailers, will no longer allow companies to sell NAC”

But, yes, I read their summary of their legal arguments. Could you share what you think I’ve missed or your perspective on my questions?

User avatar
cardinalkarp
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 18723
Joined: May 4 06, 8:44 am

Re: Coronavirus

Post by cardinalkarp »

Arthur Dent wrote: ↑
January 17 22, 4:22 pm
Because the article answers my question directly in NPA’s own compliant?

”NPA’s members have lost and will continue to lose significant revenue because Amazon, among other online retailers, will no longer allow companies to sell NAC”

But, yes, I read their summary of their legal arguments. Could you share what you think I’ve missed or your perspective on my questions?
NAC is FDA approved (which doesn’t mean jack [expletive] to me at this point), but NAC has been used for over 3 decades and has a high safety profile. This has nothing to do w/ pulling a supplement due to “safety concerns” and everything to do w/ making this drug available via prescription only (and out of the hands of people as a potential OTC COVID therapeutic), so Pfizer and the likes can pimp their $200 a dose COVID therapeutic pills in addition to the vaccine.

User avatar
cardinalkarp
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 18723
Joined: May 4 06, 8:44 am

Re: Coronavirus

Post by cardinalkarp »

And the fact that Amazon, PayPal, and Shopify will not allow purchases of a completely safe and legal supplement is something completely different….and concerning.

Arthur Dent
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 12536
Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
Location: Austin

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Arthur Dent »

Since you mention FDA approval doesn’t mean anything, I think you’re correct that the FDA regulatory process is strange. FDA is supposed to require evidence that a particular drug is safe and effective as evaluated as a treatment for some condition. The safety is evaluated in that context. So, for example, FDA approves chemo drugs as safe and effective for cancer treatment. These drugs are plainly highly toxic, but in the context of cancer, they’re “safe” because untreated cancer is very unsafe.

What’s strange is that once a drug is approved for any condition, it becomes legal to proscribe “off label” for uses where safety and effectiveness has not been evaluated. Companies are supposedly not allowed to market their stuff off label, but they find ways to do this anyway. The idea is to not have an excessively rigid regulatory framework where every doctor’s medication choices must be approved, which makes sense, but the specific version of a (at least theoretically) highly rigid approval process followed by highly loose rules for actual use seems to me like a weird and excessive contrast. Rather than a pure regulation framework, it seems like some kind of policy and guidance framework would make more sense, though how exactly to do that, I have no idea.

Anyway, coming back to NAC, I believe the FDA approval is for the treatment of Tylenol poisoning, and there’s apparently an inhaled version to help clear mucous out of the lungs, which I think is closer to what people have in mind to treat COVID. Apparently, it is safe and effective for those uses. Is it safe to take regularly in tablets? I have no idea. And hard to evaluate how safe it is without the context of measuring the benefit on the other side.

User avatar
IMADreamer
Has an anecdote about a townie he overheard.
Posts: 12890
Joined: December 6 10, 1:09 am
Location: Illinois

Re: Coronavirus

Post by IMADreamer »

I think I will say this about it. I'll look into it. Meaning I'll try and read some research and discuss it with my doctor. I trust my doctor. I grew up with him and he is one of the smartest people I've ever known. I have been taking Vitamin C, Zinc, and a multivitamin since I had covid the first time a year ago. These were per his recommendations. If he gives me the ok to try it I definitely will.

Just an update, I feel pretty good today. Still coughing some. I still ache in my hips. Which for some reason the first time I had covid was a really big spot of aching for me. It's more uncomfortable than anything. Just can't seem to sit still with the way it aches.

Post Reply