Nearly 5 million contact lenses in expanded Avaira recall

http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/15/8820286-nearly-5-million-contact-lenses-in-expanded-avaira-recall?

Note the attempted “quiet” recall to avoid liability for making someone blind!

But then our friends on the right will argue that the the market will correct itself, because the demand for Avaira products will cease “eventually”, once individuals will discover the connection, by medical statistics (who keeps those statistics?). There… problem solved by the free market.

Note the attempted “quiet” recall to avoid liability for making someone blind!

Nothing new about that I’m afraid and not limited to medical appliances or drugs either.

There was a range of gas hot water heaters we sold where I work which were at the centre of a class action lawsuit because the bloody things just refused to work.

So when did we find out about it?

Six months AFTER the case had been settled!!!

Sooooprize soooooprize!!!!!!!!!!

So if the FDA kills more people than is saves, is it worth keeping?

suede - 18 November 2011 01:38 PM

So if the FDA kills more people than is saves, is it worth keeping?

That is incorrect logic !  The FDA does not kill anyone. Sloppy manufacturing (such as outsourcing) does. But when you create an oversight Agency and then underfund it so it cannot function properly is a waste of tax dollars.
To combat that problem you do not get rid of the FDA, you fund it better!! And create a few needed jobs in the process.

Don’t forget that the calls for doing away with government oversight are accompanied by calls to restrict punitive product lawsuits. You see the pattern here?

edited for accuracy.

Suede,
It would help if you filled out your profile, so people can see where you stand. So far you sound like a tea-partier, who has no clue of reality and how unrestricted Capitalism (under the guise of FREEDOM) leads to terrible abuses, just to mkae profits.

Remember Big Tobacco swearing under oath in congressional hearings that cigarettes cause no harm?
Remember the oil spill in Gulf of Mexico, because it was not cost effective to put expensive valves in place?
Need I go on??

Ask yourself, why were these “oversight” agencies put in place to begin with?  Certainly not because Big Business always does the right thing if left without oversight.

Perhaps you have never heard of Love Canal. Read up on it, it will open your eyes to what lengths companies will go to make a profit withour being held accountable.
http://www.answers.com/topic/what-was-love-canal

Write4U - 18 November 2011 01:50 PM

suede - 18 November 2011 01:38 PM

So if the FDA kills more people than is saves, is it worth keeping?

That is incorrect logic !  The FDA does not kill anyone.

It indirectly does by approving things the later becomes obvious it shouldn’t have and has to get pulled and from also blocking life-saving treatments or medicines from legally entering the market.

So my question is, if the FDA kills more people than is saves, is it worth keeping?

But when you create an oversight Agency and then underfund it so it cannot function properly is a waste of tax dollars.
To combat that problem you do not get rid of the FDA, you fund it better!! And create a few needed jobs in the process.

The public education system is basically overfunded and test scores remain flat, so that proves throwing more money at something doesn’t always work.

Don’t forget that the calls for doing away with the FDA are accompanied by calls to restrict punitive product lawsuits. You see the pattern here?

If this are by the same people, please show.

Write4U - 18 November 2011 02:03 PM

Suede,
It would help if you filled out your profile, so people can see where you stand.

I’m for free markets and civil liberties.

So far you sound like a tea-partier, who has no clue of reality and how unrestricted Capitalism (under the guise of FREEDOM) leads to terrible abuses, just to mkae profits.

And you sound like a big-government liberal who is misguided that we’ve actually had free markets and that most abuses is because of government.

Remember Big Tobacco swearing under oath in congressional hearings that cigarettes cause no harm?
Remember the oil spill in Gulf of Mexico, because it was not cost effective to put expensive valves in place?
Need I go on??

Big companies only get big because of restrictive markets and then get bailed out when they F’up.

Certainly not because Big Business always does the right thing if left without oversight.

Big government creates big business and big business wants big government.  Ever notice no big corporations donate to the Libertarian Party?

Perhaps you have never heard of Love Canal. Read up on it, it will open your eyes to what lengths companies will go to make a profit withour being held accountable.
http://www.answers.com/topic/what-was-love-canal

I think what really happened there will open your eyes more (just like it did mine):

http://www.harrybrowne.org/GLO/Environment.htm

I yield the floor…...but reserve the right to reclaim…....this promises to be a long thread…...

suede - 18 November 2011 05:19 PM

Write4U - 18 November 2011 01:50 PM

That is incorrect logic !  The FDA does not kill anyone.

It indirectly does by approving things the later becomes obvious it shouldn’t have and has to get pulled and from also blocking life-saving treatments or medicines from legally entering the market.

So my question is, if the FDA kills more people than is saves, is it worth keeping?

Where is your evidence that it does? What methodology would you suggest to replace it?

The point of FDA regulation is to verify effectiveness and safety. Any test, however, can only ever be incomplete: testing by its very nature is a statistical enterprise and sometimes there will be error. That error can be in allowing a bad treatment which in fact would not have been allowed with a more thorough or better designed study, or it can be in disallowing a good treatment which in fact would have been allowed with a more thorough or better designed study. The question is if there is some systematic problem in the way the FDA structures studies which should be changed, and if so, how.

Don’t forget that it was the FDA’s requirement for rigorous testing that kept thalidomide from being prescribed in the US, thus saving countless US children from the birth defects that occurred in Europe.

dougsmith - 18 November 2011 07:12 PM

suede - 18 November 2011 05:19 PM

It indirectly does by approving things the later becomes obvious it shouldn’t have and has to get pulled and from also blocking life-saving treatments or medicines from legally entering the market.

So my question is, if the FDA kills more people than is saves, is it worth keeping?

Where is your evidence that it does?

Don’t forget that it was the FDA’s requirement for rigorous testing that kept thalidomide from being prescribed in the US, thus saving countless US children from the birth defects that occurred in Europe.

“Misconception No. 3: “Government regulation saves lives by making medicines safe.”

For true safety, we rely on doctors, research labs, insurance companies and other private agencies to determine what’s appropriate for each individual, not what is politically safe for the regulators. Doctors sometimes make mistakes, but they don’t make decisions on a political basis. “
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23379

What methodology would you suggest to replace it?

Well if I was putting a product out on the market that I wanted people to think of is safe to use, I’d find a reputable company that does safety testing so I could put their stamp of approval on it.  (Essentially that’s what the FDA does, put their stamp of approval on things?)

The point of FDA regulation is to verify effectiveness and safety.

Well yeah, that’s the point.  But what if they suck at it?  What if they are secretly making backroom deals to give some companies favors?  What if they are keeping out competition?  What happens when the FDA’s reputation gets tarnished?  Can they get sued?  Do they go out of business?  No, but a private company would.  For the FDA, politicians will just promise to throw more money at it in hopes to win points for their next election.  Does that sound like how science should operate?

suede - 18 November 2011 01:38 PM

So if the FDA kills more people than is saves, is it worth keeping?

Your response to the topic intro and post#1 is incomprehensible.

First, it was the FDA which compiled the statistics that brought to light the danger of using Avaira contacts, saving lives.
Second, waterheaters are not monitored by the FDA and the FDA had no involvement in the faulty waterheaters.

However, you completely ignored the pertinent points that in order to avoid liability, Avaira tried to quietly recall their faulty product from the market in order to avoid liability claims.
http://www.coopervision.com/recall?evar1=msn|Brand_Avaira_PS|Avaira_-_Broad|avaira|Broad

What they failed to mention:

The move comes after the federal Food and Drug Administration issued a Class I warning about the products and pressured the company last month to increase public notice about the recall of nearly 780,000 Avaira Toric lenses. Class I recalls are the most serious kind and involve problems in which there is a reasonable chance of serious adverse health consequences or death.

Then you ignored that even in light of a settled lawsuit against the waterheater manufacturer, they continued to sell them, placing the consumer at risk and the retailers and contractors at risk of litigation.

So far you’re not doing well in your argument for free market controlling itself.

suede
So if the FDA kills more people than is saves, is it worth keeping?

See above.  The FDA does not kill anyone.

suede
It indirectly does by approving things the later becomes obvious it shouldn’t have and has to get pulled and from also blocking life-saving treatments or medicines from legally entering the market.

And how do drugs “legally” enter the market? Not testing them at all would save a lot of lives??

Then your response to underfunding the FDA:

suede
The public education system is basically overfunded and test scores remain flat, so that proves throwing more money at something doesn’t always work.

No, it doesn’t, but what has that to do with product safety? That is a straw man argument.

Write4U - 18 November 2011
Don’t forget that the calls for doing away with government oversight are accompanied by calls to restrict punitive product lawsuits. You see the pattern here?

suede
If this are by the same people, please show.

From Los Angeles Times

House Panel OKs Criminal Penalties for Auto Makers

September 28, 2000 | RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, TIMES STAFF WRITER

Shrugging off an intense lobbying effort by business groups, a House consumer protection subcommittee Wednesday unanimously approved criminal penalties for auto makers who fail to report dangerous safety defects. The 23-0 vote came in spite of a plea by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—the world’s largest business federation—that Congress postpone action on auto safety legislation, which arose from the deaths of more than 100 people in crashes attributed to failed Firestone tires.

Belated edit: http://www.globalissues.org/article/52/pharmaceutical-corporations-and-medical-research

Write4U
Remember Big Tobacco swearing under oath in congressional hearings that cigarettes cause no harm?
Remember the oil spill in Gulf of Mexico, because it was not cost effective to put expensive valves in place?
Need I go on??

suede
Big companies only get big because of restrictive markets and then get bailed out when they F’up.

Is that your answer???

suede
Big government creates big business and big business wants big government.  Ever notice no big corporations donate to the Libertarian Party?

So your point is that Big Business likes Big Government, with lots Safety restrictions? Wow!!

Write4U
Perhaps you have never heard of Love Canal. Read up on it, it will open your eyes to what lengths companies will go to make a profit withour being held accountable.
http://www.answers.com/topic/what-was-love-canal

suede
I think what really happened there will open your eyes more (just like it did mine):
http://www.harrybrowne.org/GLO/Environment.htm

Seems the GLO has blinded your eyes.

edited for accuracy.

suede
“Misconception No. 3: “Government regulation saves lives by making medicines safe.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has routinely kept life-saving medicines off the market for years until its administrators were positive they couldn’t be held responsible for a single death.

Robert Goldberg of Brandeis University has estimated that FDA delays in approving drugs already used safely in other countries have cost at least 200,000 American lives over the past 30 years. These delays killed Alzheimer patients who weren’t allowed to take THA, people with high blood pressure who couldn’t get beta-blockers, kidney-cancer patients deprived of Interleukin-2, and AIDS patients who died waiting for AZT.

This may be true and the FDA may have been overly prudent in some cases and individuals in decision making positions may have possibly been influenced (bribed) by American Big Pharma lobbyist in some cases. How is it that one can buy American drugs cheaper in Canada than in the US?

But then there is this:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/52/pharmaceutical-corporations-and-medical-research

suede
For true safety, we rely on (snip) research labs, insurance companies and other private agencies to determine what’s appropriate for each individual, not what is politically safe for the regulators. (snip)

False, none of these have any “hands on” experience with patients and cannot possibly determine what is appropriate for each individual. And Insurance companies are notorious for “selective” claim approvals (death panels). Moreover, what makes you think that “independent” testers are immune to bribery?

Doctors sometimes make mistakes, but they don’t make decisions on a political basis

We are in general agreement here, although rarely, some make decisions based on Big Pharma “incentives”.

In conclusion, your entire argument (confused as it is) is based on the assumption that government by its very nature and in principle is corrupt and only functions to repress individual freedoms. This is a false assumption. In principle US Government is a non-profit organization, functioning for the welfare of all persons which it serves, guided in principle by the Constitution and BOR.

In a Democracy, where government consists of elected representatives of the people, the only danger comes from for-profit businesses which seek to exploit the nation’s resources and who can spend unlimited amounts of money to bribe individual representatives to forsake their oath of office.

Greed, under the guise of Liberty and Unrestricted Capitalism (a term not included in the Constitution or BOR) has, is, and always will be a corrupting influence in any social service organization, be it Federal, State, County, or City government. To reduce oversight on greedy practices does not serve the people, it harms them.

I am an advocate for taking the vulgar amounts of money out of government elections and lobbying. Let each present their case on the merits, not how much money they can raise. Corporations are not “people” and money is not “free speech”, it is a means of exchange, or “Quid Pro Quo”.

A little aside from the topic, but worthy of note.

From one of the GLO links provided by suede

No, there is no shortage of sites for landfills. Roy E. Cordato has noted:
If all the solid waste for the next thousand years were put into a single space, it would take up 44 square miles of landfill, a mere .01% of the U.S. land space

This man needs to get a rudimentary lesson in the exponential function, a very misunderstood aspect of the consequences of steady growth

http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_video1.html

suede - 18 November 2011 07:58 PM

“Misconception No. 3: “Government regulation saves lives by making medicines safe.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has routinely kept life-saving medicines off the market for years until its administrators were positive they couldn’t be held responsible for a single death.

Robert Goldberg of Brandeis University has estimated that FDA delays in approving drugs already used safely in other countries have cost at least 200,000 American lives over the past 30 years. These delays killed Alzheimer patients who weren’t allowed to take THA, people with high blood pressure who couldn’t get beta-blockers, kidney-cancer patients deprived of Interleukin-2, and AIDS patients who died waiting for AZT.

For true safety, we rely on doctors, research labs, insurance companies and other private agencies to determine what’s appropriate for each individual, not what is politically safe for the regulators. Doctors sometimes make mistakes, but they don’t make decisions on a political basis. “
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23379

This doesn’t establish your above claim, which is that “the FDA kills more people than is saves”. Further, the site you are using to find your “expert” is a well known wingnut site. I’d suggest looking for reputable evidence elsewhere.

suede - 18 November 2011 07:58 PM

Well if I was putting a product out on the market that I wanted people to think of is safe to use, I’d find a reputable company that does safety testing so I could put their stamp of approval on it.  (Essentially that’s what the FDA does, put their stamp of approval on things?)

And who is going to tell you who the reputable testing companies are?