ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma

[David Horn]

(01-28-2017, 02:03 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:The argument that there is a direct correlation between untested dietary supplements and FDA approved drugs is obviously not true.  The same can be said for the relationship of a customer to a mechanic correlating directly to the relationship between a patient and his doctor.  If it hadn't been detailed earlier (and completely ignored), I might not have been as strident ... nor would Tim.

A correlation in what?  Their efficacy?  Their sales?  Don't use words if you don't know what they mean.

An analogy is not a fact.

If you intend to only use the scientific meaning of the term 'fact', then nothing will measure-up and all discussion will hedged to the point of bland incoherence.  But you asked, so I'll answer:

• Drugs v Dietary Supplements: Testing and approvals for use are required of drugs.  That guarantees noting, but it does force an evidence trail that can be used to sue. Even Big Pharma hates law suits, so there is some degree of self regulation of both efficacy and quality control.  None of that applies to dietary supplements, which are offered for sale as commercial, not medical, items.
  
• Mechanic v. Physician:  The physician has to pass medical boards to practice, and has responsibilities that are enforceable.  That's why they have malpractice insurance.  The same self regulation argument applies here.  A mechanic has none of those.
  

SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:Nothing in the social realm meets the criteria for "proof".  The best we can do is identify a correlation that seems consistent.  I stated the items that triggered the comments, though I didn't restate the entire argument.  Do we have to go there again?

I get it, you're not using facts, you're using "facts".  So if somebody disagrees with your "facts", why, that's just the same as if they were claiming that 2+2=5 or that the Earth is flat.  But, when called on it, well, they're not REALLY facts...

Don't do that.

In the social sphere, and even in some scientific applications, the preponderance of evidence is fully adequate to claim "proof".  Ask any judge.