The legality of medicine vs. religion for minors.

[Dave Gray]

We need to see this how it is: She's most likely going to kill her child.

The worst case scenario here is that she runs for a long time, the disease gets worse, then she finally comes around or gets caught, and the kid gets treatment, but it's too late.  That will lend credibility to whatever crystal blessing BS she has in mind.

[Sunstroke]

No, if she is smart, she will take him back and get him the medical treatment that he needs.

I think all evidence points to the fact that she ISN'T smart...she's deluded, and her delusion will likely cause the death of her child.

It's equal parts sad, tragic and criminal...

[Dave Gray]

I don't think that she has mal-intent.  I really think that she thinks that vitamins and ionized water is going to cure Hotchkin's disease.  Unfortunately, she's not in a mental state to be making decisions on behalf of the well-being of her child.

[Dphins4me]

You don't know WTF you are talking about.

It took me all of 10 seconds to google "FDA shutdown" and come up with the following:

I did not say anything other than.  Good one.  By the way you posted it sounded like you did not know either.  I'm not impressed with this BTW.  Its one company in how many.  Heck I have a face clock that is broke & its right twice a day.

The defendants have a long history of continued violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The government's initial complaint alleged numerous manufacturing violations documented in four inspections dating back to 2001. FDA later added charges related to Pharmakon's manufacture and distribution of unapproved new drugs, as part of the agency's longstanding policy to seek relief for all legal violations by a firm at the same time.

The government's request for a permanent injunction was based on the  defendants' demonstrated unwillingness to comply with the law.

So its not like they did not get multiple do overs.   Way to crack that whip.

I don't know why you have this insane hard-on for the FDA (particularly when you shout vigorously for less gov't in virtually every other area), but please wake up.

My hard-on has nothing to do with less or more Gov.  Simply do what they were intended to do.   Protect the people & not simply look at the profits of the drug & food industry.

I notice that you failed to answer the question.

Please name any "successful" organization that exists in this country.  If you cannot, then your characterization of the FDA as "failed" is meaningless, since everyone else has also failed.

  Single error?   Besides with all these clinical trails, scientific proof how can there be any errors?   

Please give me an example of a "less healthy food".  Since Cheerios (and even bread!) are not healthy enough to even qualify as food in your book, I am interested in hearing what could possibly qualify as a "less healthy food".
!!!

I posted Cherrios is food.   I simply stated don't expect eating it will help you maintain a healthy body.   To your body, its basically sugar.  Sugar is not healthy for the body & why Type 2 is exploding in America along with their waist line.

This from the person who screams bloody murder if the FDA does not stop every single death from every drug ever made!  Apparently owning up for your own decisions doesn't apply if you are taking pharmaceuticals, or something?

   In the basic sense it is there fault.  The FDA is telling them our drugs are safe & as we know from discussions here.  Some people have physical problems brought on by genetics. 

I find it sadly pathetic that you have no problem with someone dying from using a FDA approved drug.  Even people who were not in danger of dying. 

Make up your mind.  If you are going to play the ultra-libertarian people-who-are-stupid-enough-to-eat-hamburgers-don't-deserve-healthcare card, then you need to stop playing the gov't-should-wield-an-iron-fist-over-the-pharmcos card.

   Again.  Understand the argument. 

Protection of the people over the protection of revenue.

[Dphins4me]

Dphins4me - Please don't break down every 3 words of my reply and whether you agree, disagree, or whether you just feel like talking about it. Please spare me this:

  Rarely is the day I take the time to reply to one of your post.   You are not someone I care to have a discussion with.

Nothing personal though.

[Spider-Dan]

I did not say anything other than.  Good one.  By the way you posted it sounded like you did not know either.  I'm not impressed with this BTW.  Its one company in how many.

10 second google search.  There are many other examples.

Single error?   Besides with all these clinical trails, scientific proof how can there be any errors?

Since when are clinical trials (or anything else) perfect?  The best we can hope for is to make corrections when new data becomes available.  And again, this is in contrast to the number of successful in-depth, peer-reviewed, double-blind clinical trials of treatments like homeopathy (that number being zero).

I posted Cherrios is food.

Direct quote: "I do not think Cheerios is food."
You then attempted to backtrack by saying that it is food in the same sense that poisoned water is water (i.e. it isn't).  Guess what?  When I take "water" and I mix in "poison," we do not refer to the resulting product as "water".  We call it "slightly diluted poison".

To your body, its basically sugar.  Sugar is not healthy for the body & why Type 2 is exploding in America along with their waist line.

Which is why no natural products (you know, your source for Glorious And Perfect All-Health) contain sugars, right?

Quick question: which contains more sugars, Cheerios or an all-natural apple?

I find it sadly pathetic that you have no problem with someone dying from using a FDA approved drug.

I find it bizarre and contradictory that instead of recommending an FDA-approved drug that has gone through hundreds of clinical trials, you instead prefer some untested product based purely on someone's anecdotal say-so.

Again.  Understand the argument.

Protection of the people over the protection of revenue.

And yet somehow, this concept does not apply to using your tax money to provide a healthcare plan for those who are unable to afford one.

Some consistency, please.

[Dphins4me]

10 second google search.  There are many other examples.

I'd say they are all the little guys.  You know the ones without the big time lobbyist.

Since when are clinical trials (or anything else) perfect?  The best we can hope for is to make corrections when new data becomes available.  And again, this is in contrast to the number of successful in-depth, peer-reviewed, double-blind clinical trials of treatments like homeopathy (that number being zero).

The drug has to be pretty dang bad before the FDA rejects it.   The FDA has been rubber stamping drug approval at a higher rate than ever before.  We have more & more reports of contamination in our food chain than ever before.

Direct quote: "I do not think Cheerios is food."
You then attempted to backtrack by saying that it is food in the same sense that poisoned water is water (i.e. it isn't).  Guess what?  When I take "water" and I mix in "poison," we do not refer to the resulting product as "water".  We call it "slightly diluted poison".

  Correct.  I ( Meaning myself ) do not consider it is food.  However, it is technically food & I cannot argue against it, since it can be eaten.   Just as stagnant water is still technically water & still can be drank.  However I do not want to drink it.

Which is why no natural products (you know, your source for Glorious And Perfect All-Health) contain sugars, right?

Quick question: which contains more sugars, Cheerios or an all-natural apple?

   You do realize you are talking two different types of sugars?
There is a huge difference in how they effect your BG level.

I find it bizarre and contradictory that instead of recommending an FDA-approved drug that has gone through hundreds of clinical trials, you instead prefer some untested product based purely on someone's anecdotal say-so.

Might want to backup & punt on that.  All I've ever maintained is there may be more than one way to reach a destination.

And yet somehow, this concept does not apply to using your tax money to provide a healthcare plan for those who are unable to afford one.

Some consistency, please.

Not really sure how you are trying to spin this into HC. 

[Dave Gray]

I was gravedigging today and wondered what happened to this kid.  He got chemo, went into remission and made a full recovery, from all I could tell -- I don't see any updates past 2011, but that was a full 3 years after the original story.  About a year afterward, his father was diagnosed with cancer, decided to forgo traditional methods and treat it with "dietary therapies" and was dead in a year, at 56 years old.