ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma

[Marypoza]

(01-30-2017, 12:26 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 04:06 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote: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:

The scientific meaning of the word "fact"?  The bit this was in direct response to was your use of the word "correlation".  The correlation between over-the-counter supplements and FDA-approved drugs' what?  I still don't think you know what the word means.

The correlation is the between the levels of oversight ... but then, you know that.

\SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote: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.

Dietary supplements are regulated under the FDA.  So is food, for that matter (between the FDA, the USDA, etc.).  What does this prove?

No, they are not really monitored beyond the standard of doing no harm.  Efficacy is never evaluated.

\SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote: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.

So do hairdressers.  There are certifications available for mechanics as well.  They can also be held liable if poor repair work leads to an accident.    So what?

Again, it's a difference of degree.  Hairdressers are licensed as capable, and expected to know some basic hygiene.  That's it.

\SomeGuy Wrote:

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

This is not a court room.  An opinion that a doctor is or isn't similar to a mechanic is just that, an opinion.  Similar to a mechanic how?

It's not a court room, but it's not a laboratory either.  Preponderance of the evidence is a decent standard for social issues that are not cut-and-dry.  You can disagree if you wish.

And yes, a doctor is not infallible, and a mechanic is held to a standard too.  The two are not equal.  There are three areas where people are unwilling to accept error: life and death, their freedom and liberty, and their money.  So doctors, lawyers and accountants get special scrutiny ... as they should.

-- keep in mind it's called the Art of Medicene 4 a reason....