Posted on 02/19/2005 10:21:23 PM PST by neverdem
agree with your statements. Trial and error.
My neurologist sent me to two of them. I gave them their shot for six months. Then to the chiropractor came into the picture. Guess who is most effective at reducing the need for morphine usage? Yup, the chiropractor. I'll stay with him, thanks.
The error in your reasoning is your premise of illegality--which is not correct. No advertising promotes illegality, but promotes patients asking physicians for a prescription, an odious but legal practice.
A BBC program was devoted to the attempt by some homeopaths to collect the $1 million. They failed to prove their case. Here's the transcript.
Other Amazing Randi links:
interview
http://www.randi.org
Use the homeopathics on your infant, you'll avoid a lot of problems later on. They work much better on children, who aren't as metabolically burdened as adults are.
Explain scientifically how homeopathic medicine, which contains virtually no active ingredients, can possibly be more helpful for teething pain than a placebo, and I'll give it a try.
It's not my chart. It's the graphic that came with the story. I was surprised to see that it didn't reference any source, but in general, its recommendations appear to be cautious.
The following recommendations are from MedlinePlus:
Dosing—
The dose of acetaminophen will be different for different patients. Follow your doctor's orders or the directions on the label. The following information includes only the average doses of acetaminophen. If your dose is different, do not change it unless your doctor tells you to.
The number of capsules, tablets, teaspoonfuls of oral solution or suspension that you take, the amount of oral granules or powders that you take, or the number of suppositories that you use, depends on the strength of the medicine. Also, the number of doses you use each day and the time allowed between doses depend on the strength of the medicine. (If you use a solution or suspension, you must be able to do the arithmetic!)
For oral dosage forms (capsules, granules, powders, solution, suspension, or tablets) and rectal dosage forms (suppositories):
For pain or fever:
Adults and teenagers—325 or 500 milligrams (mg) every three or four hours, 650 mg every four to six hours, or 1000 mg every six hours as needed.The total dose should not be more than 4000 mg (for example, eight 500–mg tablets) a day.
Children—Acetaminophen dose is based on the child's age.
Infants up to 3 months of age: 40 mg every four hours as needed.
Infants 4 to 12 months of age: 80 mg every four hours as needed.
Children 1 to 2 years of age: 120 mg every four hours as needed.
Children 2 to 4 years of age: 160 mg every four hours as needed.
Children 4 to 6 years of age: 240 mg every four hours as needed.
Children 6 to 9 years of age: 320 mg every four hours as needed.
Children 9 to 11 years of age: 320 to 400 mg every four hours as needed.
Children 11 to 12 years of age: 320 to 480 mg every four hours as needed.
Here's the source URL: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/uspdi/202001.html#SXX14
You may want to bookmark the homepage for the site, MedlinePlus, your tax dollars at work for a change.
I wasn't trying to debate. I was simply suggesting how a responsible court could argue for limiting advertising. If I brought up issues that you didn't disagree with me on, fine.
As for illegality, the point wasn't that the ads would be advocating criminal acts, so much as there would be a compelling state interest to deny the use of public airwaves (and subway advertisements, and freeway billboards, etc.).
Okay. As I said in my original post, I could be--and often am--wrong. The older I get, dangus, the more absolutist I am becoming, however, and "compelling state interest" just leaves me cold. If something is compelling (on a federal level, not a state level, I hasten to add), then the right of the government to act on it should be made explicit with an amendment. As the walking anachronism that I am, I believe that is what the forgotten 10th Amendment makes clear.
Relevant sections:
"The Congress shall have power... to regulate commerce ... among the several states, and ... To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "
The commerce clause is insidiously invoked to permit all sorts of enlargements of federal power. For instance Congress says, "we can force the states to apply a 55-MPH speed limit, because highways are used for interstate trucking."
But in this case, the issue is purely one of commerce, not of something else which may tangentially effect commerce, so the commerce clause is justifiably invoked, unless in the unlikely instance of a drug manufacturer deciding to manufacture drugs exclusively within a given state.
Don't be left cold by "compelling state interest." The Constitution nowhere mandates that there be a compelling state interest in regulating interstate commerce. *I* BELIEVE there should always be such a compelling state interest fo interfere with commerce, so I use the phrase. The reason it leaves you cold is it typically cited to override a freedom explicitly reserved for the individual, which is insidious. I use it here, merely to justify government action where there is NO right, explicitly or implicitly granted to the people, other than the general principle that the less government, the better.
Final thing I will say is that "compelling interest" was your phrase (quoting the government in many cases which uses it to do what they damn well please), not mine. I agree with you that there should be one for the government to act--within the bounds of enumerated powers only--at all.
But, your last sentence in wrong, wrong. Reread it. You say rights explicitly or implicitly granted to the people. That's not the Constitution. Rights are unalienable and granted by God. The Constitution tells what powers the government has and, supposedly, limits those powers. Don't ever make the subtle, but common and insidious, mistake of thinking our rights are granted by the Constitution. They ARE NOT. To repeat: our rights are granted by God. The Constitution guarantees that the government does not remove or harm those rights.
A few years ago, the accrediting agencies chose as their "pet project" pain UNDERtreatment. They all claimed it was a tremendous problem all through our health care system...if I remember correctly, they claimed that 65% of patients did not have their pain medication requirements "met".
Now, one half-assed study implicating a slight potential increase in vascular events among an already sick patient population if they take more than the recommended dosage of one medication for too long a period later, the new message is "proceed with caution".
Funny, I think I learned that many years ago in Medical School.
The more things change, the more they remain the same..
lol. It's hard to win, isn't it? Yes, I remember the clamor for and advent of the now ubiquitous pain scales.
Except the trigger points are really called enthesiopathies. T & S's maps are 25 years out of date.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.