Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Even if you are against legal abortion, you should not like what is going on with the lawsuit before a Texas judge aimed at revoking FDA approval of the "abortion pill" Misoprostol. When it comes to the scientific debate associated with this case, on the side of the plaintiffs who want approval revoked, we have some small, fringe associations of physicians. On the side of the defense, which wants to maintain approval, we have all of the major medical organizations and the FDA.

See https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/02/10 ... l-lawsuit/ for a description of the situation. On the "revoke approval" side, for example, we have the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians (AAPLOG) and Gynecologists while we have the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) on the "maintain approval" side.

The name and history of the AAPLOG tell us that it has political motivation. It has about 7,000 members. THE ACOG is the pre-eminent association of obstetricians and gynecologists. There is no indication that it has political objectives. It has about 60,000 members.

At https://www.acog.org/news/news-releases ... -effective, you can see that the American Medical Association also is on the "maintain approval" side of the issue. And, of course, the FDA is the world's pre-eminent institution with respect to evaluating the safety and effectiveness of drugs.

This should be a non starter. The judge involved has a Bachelor of Arts Degree and a Juris Doctorate. He is not qualified to independently assess the scientific arguments of each side. And the "credentials" of the "maintain approval" side are clearly overwhelmingly superior. It should be a slam dunk for the "maintain approval" side.

But there is concern that it is not because the Judge is an anti abortion political activist selected by the "revoke approval" side because of his status as such. NOBODY should want that kind of situation. If the "revoke approval" side wins, a horrible precedent with ramifications well beyond the abortion issue will be set; at least initially. You will have science disregarded because one side was able to shop for and obtain a politically-motivated judge. That is NOT good. Even if you think the end is good, the end does not justify the means.

JohnStOnge wrote:Even if you are against legal abortion, you should not like what is going on with the lawsuit before a Texas judge aimed at revoking FDA approval of the "abortion pill" Misoprostol. When it comes to the scientific debate associated with this case, on the side of the plaintiffs who want approval revoked, we have some small, fringe associations of physicians. On the side of the defense, which wants to maintain approval, we have all of the major medical organizations and the FDA.

See https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/02/10 ... l-lawsuit/ for a description of the situation. On the "revoke approval" side, for example, we have the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians (AAPLOG) and Gynecologists while we have the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) on the "maintain approval" side.

The name and history of the AAPLOG tell us that it has political motivation. It has about 7,000 members. THE ACOG is the pre-eminent association of obstetricians and gynecologists. There is no indication that it has political objectives. It has about 60,000 members.

At https://www.acog.org/news/news-releases ... -effective, you can see that the American Medical Association also is on the "maintain approval" side of the issue. And, of course, the FDA is the world's pre-eminent institution with respect to evaluating the safety and effectiveness of drugs.

This should be a non starter. The judge involved has a Bachelor of Arts Degree and a Juris Doctorate. He is not qualified to independently assess the scientific arguments of each side. And the "credentials" of the "maintain approval" side are clearly overwhelmingly superior. It should be a slam dunk for the "maintain approval" side.

But there is concern that it is not because the Judge is an anti abortion political activist selected by the "revoke approval" side because of his status as such. NOBODY should want that kind of situation. If the "revoke approval" side wins, a horrible precedent with ramifications well beyond the abortion issue will be set; at least initially. You will have science disregarded because one side was able to shop for and obtain a politically-motivated judge. That is NOT good. Even if you think the end is good, the end does not justify the means.

I don’t disagree with your larger point but your argument is flawed.

1) Both sides shop for sympathetic judges/juries. It like gerrymandering is not a conservative phenomenon. Criticize everyone or no one when they do it.

2) LOL @ “no indication it has political objectives” is too broad a statement. I’ve worked for 5 professional associations and worked with hundreds of others, they’ve all had political objectives. They might be involved because their leadership believes it’s the right position to take but their involvement is itself a political objective.

As StOnge doesn't understand how the medical community actually works.

Years ago, the company I worked for, came up with a way to look at the genetic sequences found in stool samples. The goal was to find genetic sequences that had sloughed off the intestinal wall as the stool passed through your digestive system. If you found genetic sequences that showed pre colon cancer or colon cancer, the patient was recommended to go get an actual colonoscopy for visual verification and subsequent biopsy. This test was designed for that large percentage of the population that refused to get a screening colonoscopy.

The Gastroenterologists fought and disparaged this test because they thought it would interfere with their revenue stream. Figured they'd lose colonoscopies due to the test, when it actually should have increased colonoscopy due to referrals. Only the money mattered.

The second instance was when ACOG came up with the recommendation that women only needed a pap smear every three years if they had a history of no issues.

You know what the Gynecologists said? "ACOG is full of shit and I don't listen to them". You know why? Those Gynecologists saw a decrease in revenue stream due to only being able to perform a pap smear once every three years instead of every year.

While ACOG made the right recommendation, you can easily see the dollar drives most medical decisions. While my argument shows ACOG did the right thing years ago in regards to pap smear, don't think they are as altruistic as StOnge believes. They'd fuck a person over to suit their monetary/political beliefs in a heartbeat.

Your best bet is to stay as healthy as possible and OUT of the medical community.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 10:08 am

JohnStOnge wrote:Even if you are against legal abortion, you should not like what is going on with the lawsuit before a Texas judge aimed at revoking FDA approval of the "abortion pill" Misoprostol. When it comes to the scientific debate associated with this case, on the side of the plaintiffs who want approval revoked, we have some small, fringe associations of physicians. On the side of the defense, which wants to maintain approval, we have all of the major medical organizations and the FDA.

See https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/02/10 ... l-lawsuit/ for a description of the situation. On the "revoke approval" side, for example, we have the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians (AAPLOG) and Gynecologists while we have the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) on the "maintain approval" side.

The name and history of the AAPLOG tell us that it has political motivation. It has about 7,000 members. THE ACOG is the pre-eminent association of obstetricians and gynecologists. There is no indication that it has political objectives. It has about 60,000 members.

At https://www.acog.org/news/news-releases ... -effective, you can see that the American Medical Association also is on the "maintain approval" side of the issue. And, of course, the FDA is the world's pre-eminent institution with respect to evaluating the safety and effectiveness of drugs.

This should be a non starter. The judge involved has a Bachelor of Arts Degree and a Juris Doctorate. He is not qualified to independently assess the scientific arguments of each side. And the "credentials" of the "maintain approval" side are clearly overwhelmingly superior. It should be a slam dunk for the "maintain approval" side.

But there is concern that it is not because the Judge is an anti abortion political activist selected by the "revoke approval" side because of his status as such. NOBODY should want that kind of situation. If the "revoke approval" side wins, a horrible precedent with ramifications well beyond the abortion issue will be set; at least initially. You will have science disregarded because one side was able to shop for and obtain a politically-motivated judge. That is NOT good. Even if you think the end is good, the end does not justify the means.

I don’t disagree with your larger point but your argument is flawed.

1) Both sides shop for sympathetic judges/juries. It like gerrymandering is not a conservative phenomenon. Criticize everyone or no one when they do it.

2) LOL @ “no indication it has political objectives” is too broad a statement. I’ve worked for 5 professional associations and worked with hundreds of others, they’ve all had political objectives. They might be involved because their leadership believes it’s the right position to take but their involvement is itself a political objective.

Both sides ship for judges they think will maximize their chances but I don't think the left does something like there where the science is so overwhelmingly on the other side so they pick a judge that will ignore that. Maybe you can cite examples where the left did something like this, but i think this is a case where the law or how the law is interpreted is not at issue. The medical science question is at issue. I guess the law is at issue in the sense that the plaintiffs want to say the process wasn't sound and/or the science doesn't support the approval. But it's not like arguing over whether the prohibition on discrimination based on race doesn't apply to affirmative action.

I think your second point is true. Like the major medical organizations are weighing in on a political issue by saying they oppose what the plaintiffs are trying to do in this case. But they are taking that political position because the science says that the plaintiffs' position is bogus. They do not do things like take a position based on religious belief then try to warp the science in order to try to achieve an objective consistent with their religious beliefs.

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 11:14 am As StOnge doesn't understand how the medical community actually works.

Years ago, the company I worked for, came up with a way to look at the genetic sequences found in stool samples. The goal was to find genetic sequences that had sloughed off the intestinal wall as the stool passed through your digestive system. If you found genetic sequences that showed pre colon cancer or colon cancer, the patient was recommended to go get an actual colonoscopy for visual verification and subsequent biopsy. This test was designed for that large percentage of the population that refused to get a screening colonoscopy.

The Gastroenterologists fought and disparaged this test because they thought it would interfere with their revenue stream. Figured they'd lose colonoscopies due to the test, when it actually should have increased colonoscopy due to referrals. Only the money mattered.

The second instance was when ACOG came up with the recommendation that women only needed a pap smear every three years if they had a history of no issues.

You know what the Gynecologists said? "ACOG is full of shit and I don't listen to them". You know why? Those Gynecologists saw a decrease in revenue stream due to only being able to perform a pap smear once every three years instead of every year.

While ACOG made the right recommendation, you can easily see the dollar drives most medical decisions. While my argument shows ACOG did the right thing years ago in regards to pap smear, don't think they are as altruistic as StOnge believes. They'd fuck a person over to suit their monetary/political beliefs in a heartbeat.

Your best bet is to stay as healthy as possible and OUT of the medical community.

i think that is conspiracy theory stuff. Not that I don't think the profit motive never has an impact. Take this for instance: https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-manag ... gher-costs. I think it's reasonable to think profit motive plays a role there.

But it is not all about profit motive. And, if you are smart, you are going to go in for regular medical exams in order to try to catch problems early on before they cause you more serious problems. You are going to do things like get colonoscopies to monitor for colon cancer. You are going to have your cholesterol and PSA monitored. You're going to get prostate exams (as unpleasant as they are).

Also, I am familiar with the general nature of the drug approval process. I have worked closely with a number of FDA statisticians and know the culture. I also have worked with FDA people who monitor clinical trials. It is a very robust, sound process. If someone believes a fringe group of physicians that names itself in a way that demonstrates it exists for political/philosophical objectives over the FDA with respect to whether or not a drug is safe and effective, that someone is foolish. It's just not a rational belief.

JohnStOnge wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 11:40 am

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 11:14 am As StOnge doesn't understand how the medical community actually works.

Years ago, the company I worked for, came up with a way to look at the genetic sequences found in stool samples. The goal was to find genetic sequences that had sloughed off the intestinal wall as the stool passed through your digestive system. If you found genetic sequences that showed pre colon cancer or colon cancer, the patient was recommended to go get an actual colonoscopy for visual verification and subsequent biopsy. This test was designed for that large percentage of the population that refused to get a screening colonoscopy.

The Gastroenterologists fought and disparaged this test because they thought it would interfere with their revenue stream. Figured they'd lose colonoscopies due to the test, when it actually should have increased colonoscopy due to referrals. Only the money mattered.

The second instance was when ACOG came up with the recommendation that women only needed a pap smear every three years if they had a history of no issues.

You know what the Gynecologists said? "ACOG is full of shit and I don't listen to them". You know why? Those Gynecologists saw a decrease in revenue stream due to only being able to perform a pap smear once every three years instead of every year.

While ACOG made the right recommendation, you can easily see the dollar drives most medical decisions. While my argument shows ACOG did the right thing years ago in regards to pap smear, don't think they are as altruistic as StOnge believes. They'd fuck a person over to suit their monetary/political beliefs in a heartbeat.

Your best bet is to stay as healthy as possible and OUT of the medical community.

i think that is conspiracy theory stuff. Not that I don't think the profit motive never has an impact. Take this for instance: https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-manag ... gher-costs. I think it's reasonable to think profit motive plays a role there.

But it is not all about profit motive. And, if you are smart, you are going to go in for regular medical exams in order to try to catch problems early on before they cause you more serious problems. You are going to do things like get colonoscopies to monitor for colon cancer. You are going to have your cholesterol and PSA monitored. You're going to get prostate exams (as unpleasant as they are).

Also, I am familiar with the general nature of the drug approval process. I have worked closely with a number of FDA statisticians and know the culture. I also have worked with FDA people who monitor clinical trials. It is a very robust, sound process. If someone believes a fringe group of physicians that names itself in a way that demonstrates it exists for political/philosophical objectives over the FDA with respect to whether or not a drug is safe and effective, that someone is foolish. It's just not a rational belief.

I'm glad you said this, because I certainly didn't mean this aspect. I agree that getting your check ups is a great thing. My point about being healthy is common sense. Stay as healthy as possible so you don't have to fix a condition you could have prevented AND get your check ups.

In regards to you believing my actual real life stories are conspiracy, you once again show you have never had a doctor as a customer. When you, the patient are the doctors customer, they of course will treat you well, but when you provide them lab services and they are your customer, you see a big difference in how they treat people and act.