>> IAN: I was also puzzled by the logic implied in the
>> statement that because it has more chemical agents
>> and because they act together, it is safer. Not
>> logical. But I suspect that rice yeast is safer
>> than Mavcor, albeit not for the reasons cited.
>>
>> But the big issue here revolves around the
>> defining of X as a "drug" and the subsequent
>> and automatic ideation that if X = drug then
>> X must be controlled by the federal Govt.
>
>This is the real issue. I wonder when red rice yeast will become a controlled
>substance. Of course, they haven't made tree bark illegal to chew on, even
>though it contains aspirin....
>
>>
>>
>> To concede that to be true is to loose the
>> case for individual liberty automatically,
>> for the road to serfdom is then a semantics
>> game of saying "If Y is a drug and is Z has
>> effects like Y, then Z is also a drug, and
>> thus the Government gets to control Z/you."
>>
>
>Especially when Z has been in use by people around the world for thousands of
>years with no need for regulation. That company X extracts the active
ingredient
>of Z, figures out how to make a similar chemical that is much more potent,
and
>patents that new compound, but tries some sort of recursive patenting of the
>natural substance through regulation is the most crass mercantilism..
IAN: It was interesting how the left-wing Washington
Post pushed the lager pharmaceutical company Merck's
effort to ban the competition backed with a disinfo
spin from the vitamin-control activists at the so
called "Center for Science in the Public Interest,"
while the right-wing paper, the Washington Times,
made the case for the smaller company that sells
the rice yeast product. The Center of Science in
the Public interest sure serves as an ideal "Oh
what about the children and public interest?" cover
for the promotion of the most "crass mercantilism"!
The left-wing spin would be, "Look at that Washington
Times supporting the profits of this yeast dealer at
the cost of the "Public Interest," when in fact the
left are supporting the very worst example of the
capitalist monopoly they so lament as the great
threat of the free market. I've seen attacks on
the vitamin industry in the media that frame it
up as a "mutlimillion-dollar greed fest," when
all the "Public-Interest People" against vitamins
are in fact pushing the case for the super-mega
wealthy multinational pharmaceutical giants to
the immediate detriment of the public interest.
The pro-Govt case is the inverse of the truth.
I recall seeing left-wing "consumer activist"
Ralph Nader saying on CNN's Crossfire that he
sees no problem with the average time it takes
to approve drugs increase from 10 to 20 years.
How many little companies could afford the costs
of doubling all research expenses? Only giants.
I believe all socialist polices result in higher
prices and/or great scarcities of resources, and
as such hurt most the very population they purport
to be the "beneficiaries" of their social planning,
and consolidate the power of select elite monopolies.
**************************************************************
VISIT IAN WILLIAMS GODDARD --------> http://Ian.Goddard.net
______________________________________________________________
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because
its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows
up that is familiar with the idea from the beginning."
Max Plank - Nobel physicist
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual.
Those who deny individual rights cannot claim
to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand