OT..Sort of..Quack Miranda Warning | Arthritis Information

"These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."

This "Quack Miranda Warning" is on every just about every woo-meister's website. I see dozens of patients every day, and I never Mirandize them, so whats the deal?

There are three ways to look at this: the truthful way, the sinister way, and the bat-sh*t insane way.

Truth: Anyone who wants to sell you something that's a load of crap must use this statement to cover themselves legally.

Sinister: Variation of above--someone wants to sell you something that you are supposed to believe is medically useful, but at the same time they tell you in fine print that it is not medically useful. When it doesn't work, they don't get sued. I wonder why anyone would buy something with that disclaimer attatched to it? When I treat someone for a medical problem, I pretty much say that I intend to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent a disease. Why would I say otherwise? It would be a lie. Also, who would go to see a doctor that told you that they didn't intend to diagnose or treat disease. The whole thing is bizarre.

Bat-sh*t insane: The FDA and Big Pharma are in cahoots with the AMA to keep you from learning all the simple ways to treat diseases. They want your money, and they'll do anything they can to get it from you, including suppressing the knowledge that anyone can learn to heal cancer.

I can't really help the people who believe #3, but people who are willing to suspend their paranoia should read #'s 1 and 2 a few times. Unless you're being arrested, no one should be reading you your rights. The Quack Miranda Statement is the red flag that should send you running.

Posted by PalMD at 8:24 AM •

Pip

 

Pip

 

Maybe Lynn believes what she sees????  rather than seeing what she wants to believe... if it's there.. it's believeable...... isn't it?

 

PiP.. IDK about you, but I log in and leave it sometimes.. I'm sure if you give Lynn/aka Nikki Lynn some time, she'll respond........ 

 

Babs - seriously, I know Lynn will respond eventually.  Usually, like GoGo says so colorfully, is that Lynn posts somebody else's piece and never gives her own opinion.  Like just now, instead of answering the question, she just posts another tangent.

 

While I do think there are a lot of Bat---- insane theories out there - I'm not convinced anymore that the AMA/FDA/Pharma-research-industrial complex is clean.  I just want to know if Lynn sees that too.

 

Pip

 

Pip

 

 

 

YOu can post your comments all you want.....  post away..  it's when you feel the need to comment in a nonproductive way toward someone else... THAT isnt' necessary to get your point across unless you never learned socialization beyond 2nd grade..... NOW, I've told you before......... I can be aggressive.. and not passively.

 

this is why I commented to you:

 

[quote]Sorry, Lynn, but I think you're only seeing what you want to believe.[/quote]

 

 

Bromelain - no disclaimer

Milk Thistle - no disclaimer

Hawthorne - disclaimer

CoQ10 - disclaimer

Black Cohosh - no disclaimer

Potasium Asporotate - no disclaimer

 

Don't you think Lynn is a big girl?  She can defend herself.  And from GoGo's post, I don't think she was agressive.  So, why are you defending Lynn who is probably not even upset at the post?

 

Pip

 

Babs - seriously, I know Lynn will respond eventually.  Usually, like GoGo says so colorfully, is that Lynn posts somebody else's piece and never gives her own opinion.  Like just now, instead of answering the question, she just posts another tangent.

 

While I do think there are a lot of Bat---- insane theories out there - I'm not convinced anymore that the AMA/FDA/Pharma-research-industrial complex is clean.  I just want to know if Lynn sees that too.

 

Pip

 

we've all done that... posting a link.. and a portion of a website.. YOu, yourself have..

posting information is not a bad thing........ c'mon.. we all want it.. so post conflicting if you feel the need to respond --- it's not her words.. it's information..

 

 

Don't you think Lynn is a big girl?  She can defend herself.  And from GoGo's post, I don't think she was agressive.  So, why are you defending Lynn who is probably not even upset at the post?

 

Pip

 

maybe.......  because I can See, but we experienced that on AF.  Lynn posts items that might be considered anti-natural but NEVER explains her own feelings and beliefs.  Then she gets some sap to defend her 'honor' over 'friendship'.  Then she always looks like the princess of sweetness and light and her defenders look like shrews. Yeah, it's true, Lynn never answers questions. She says she has "a right to her opinons" but I've asked her point blank what her opinion is and she stays mute. That's why I call her passive aggressive,

Babs, I know you've appointed yourself Gogo police because you're obsessed with me, but I'm in a happy heterosexual relationship and frankly, you're icky. Sorry, but we can't be together. It's time for you to move on.

BTW, we can ALL stalk people and constantly editorialise their posts but most of us don't because we have lives and basic social skills. Why don't you try getting one or both? GoGo - I realize you're upset with Babs - but will you answer my question, please. Wow, Pip, we were writing posts at the same time, but I have to say yours pretty much encapsulates Lynn's M.O.I'm not upset, she's just getting tiresome.

I also missed the question. Recap?The whole point of my post on page one was....this guy says we who question the AMA/Pharma-research-industrial-complex being in 'cohoots' are Bat---- and nothing could be further from the truth but we're so blinded by 'natural' that we can't see that.  My question was - how does Lynn (Babs etc.) explain all the conflict of interest stuff coming out over the last few years - in this case I cited the example of the Harvard researchers saying they had no conflict of interest in saying tots and teens needed psych meds and Rep. Grassley investigating and finding out they didn't report over 3M in Pharma fees.  And its not just the Grassley info - it's all over the net on so many things involving the making of our meds.

Gogo. don't flatter yourself.. I wouldn't w' a 10 foot pole... OK?  What do they call someone who makes idiotic comments such as that to deter and distract from the real conversation?  hmm??

These postings about Grassley........ were they in the AP thread?  cause I don't go there often. I probably missed them.. It's just not an option for me, Pip and I probably hadn't read it at all ......

Oh...I got that. I thought you were asking ME the question. I explain it that it's being reported because it's happening. (In fact, I think it was me who originally posted that article. If not that one, one very similar).

Yes, Lynn (and Babs and etc), how do you explain that? [QUOTE=babs10]

Gogo. don't flatter yourself.. I wouldn't w' a 10 foot pole... OK?  What do they call someone who makes idiotic comments such as that to deter and distract from the real conversation?  hmm??

I guess cause I think your stalking of me is idiotic and not worth actually addressing. I don't really care what you think of me, I am aware already what you think of me, but you still need to reiterate it after my every post. Why are you so OBSESSED with me? I can only deduce you have a HUGE FAT LESBIAN CRUSH on me.


Now why are you going on about ME when Pip has asked you a serious question that have been on many threads, not the AP one. You obviously have an opinion on it, according to your vitriolic posts on this very thread.

No, Babs, usually I don't post those in the AP thread as I think it applies to us all vs APer's only.  If you hit the link above you'll get a lot of info on this Senator and what he's uncovered. 

Here is something I saw on AOL just the other day -

 

GoGo and Babs - Questions - the calm and civil is gone and the darkness has returned with her many mirrors of self reflection. thank you, mabus..  I am not. babs102009-01-15 13:33:31Babs, never said you were, I said your obsessive crush on me was. Read my post. Mabus has undeveloped comprehension skills.

Babs - seriously, I am trying to start a serious civil discourse on this subject.  I'm not trying to attack.  I just want to know how the info coming out effects your perception of the 'bat----" theory? 

Pip

I think number 3 encapsulates my opinion quite well

 

Bat-sh*t insane: The FDA and Big Pharma are in cahoots with the AMA to keep you from learning all the simple ways to treat diseases. They want your money, and they'll do anything they can to get it from you, including suppressing the knowledge that anyone can learn to heal cancer.

That's pretty much all I'm going to say about this because one of my news years resolutions was not to argue with the nut cases here.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nut_case

 

 

 

That's what I mean, Lynn.  You never have your own opinion - just opinions posted by others before you.  So, from your usual lack of response, I'm assuming you don't think the conflicts of interest apply to us.

 

Babs, any opinion?

 

Anybody have an opinion on how this would effect us?  I mean seriously, this is what moved me from mainstream.  Nobody is saying mainstream is not the answer...just that it makes a few of us question the status quo. 

 

Maybe some people are more comfortable not thinking about this kind of stuff?

 

Pip

I don't even understand this stuff pip! I am seriously not following. I worry about the safety of my meds always.  I read the 'black box' warnings and see all the horrible things MY meds, my meds prescribed by my doctor, and think:  what are the odds, what is not know, how long before I see these side effects.  On the other hand, I also worry  my about supplements.  Whats up with vitimin d?  Did the Zicam my s.o. took distroy his sense of taste and smell?  And I do not complete trust all things government, including the FDA. 

If there is a buck to be made, FDA approved or supplement, there is the possibility for corruption.  Drug companies are powerful lobbiest.  (I see too many drug reps in doctor offices and get too many "disount coupons" for drugs from said doctors to think other wise).  So, (as I inject my Humira and take my vitimin d) I think we should read the articles and discuss the post, after all, that is what the forum is for, information.  What we choose to do with that is up to us.

Waddie
[QUOTE=Lynn49]

"These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."

This "Quack Miranda Warning" is on every just about every woo-meister's website. I see dozens of patients every day, and I never Mirandize them, so whats the deal?

There are three ways to look at this: the truthful way, the sinister way, and the bat-sh*t insane way.

Truth: Anyone who wants to sell you something that's a load of crap must use this statement to cover themselves legally.

Sinister: Variation of above--someone wants to sell you something that you are supposed to believe is medically useful, but at the same time they tell you in fine print that it is not medically useful. When it doesn't work, they don't get sued. I wonder why anyone would buy something with that disclaimer attatched to it? When I treat someone for a medical problem, I pretty much say that I intend to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent a disease. Why would I say otherwise? It would be a lie. Also, who would go to see a doctor that told you that they didn't intend to diagnose or treat disease. The whole thing is bizarre.

Bat-sh*t insane: The FDA and Big Pharma are in cahoots with the AMA to keep you from learning all the simple ways to treat diseases. They want your money, and they'll do anything they can to get it from you, including suppressing the knowledge that anyone can learn to heal cancer.

Hi sTink!

 

We're just trying to figure out where we fall in the 'conflict of interest' timeline.  The AMA etc. says those of us who believe in 'natural' are Bat---- according to this blogger.  Are we?  Or are we just more attuned to what is happening in the news?

 

Get this, the 2nd (I think) post Lynn made not responding to the original question quotes that writer as talking about the nuts at Natural News.  I'm leaning TOWARDS his opinion as they go too far IMHO.  They are one end of the continium and the Pro-Pharma people are the other end of the spectrum. 

 

Where are we on that continium?  Believe it or not, I consider myself right smack dab in the middle.  I use Pharma products and natural supps.  It's the people on the far ends I don't exactly get (or trust???).

 

Pip

oops - sorry Waddie - was addressing you too.[QUOTE=Gimpy-a-gogo]Babs, never said you were, I said your obsessive crush on me was. Read my post. Mabus has undeveloped comprehension skills.

[/QUOTE]

 

I've decided I"m not going to permit myself to be antagonized by, from or with anyone on this board.

Yeah, I don't know what the answer is...  Must listen to your body, I do know that. I've been having problems with my vision, so I haven't read all the links mentioned in this thread, but I do have a response to this statement:

"The FDA and Big Pharma are in cahoots with the AMA to keep you from learning all the simple ways to treat diseases. They want your money, and they'll do anything they can to get it from you, including suppressing the knowledge that anyone can learn to heal cancer."

I think we all are aware of the corrupting influence of power and money.  The pharmaceutical industry has a powerful lobbying group.  The outgoing Administration has probusiness leanings which led to policies that adversely affected consumers.  A former Bush appointed FDA director was a major lobbyist for the drug industry.

Senator Grassley I believe is the senior ranking Republican member on the congressional committee with jurisdiction over health care issues, and has investigated several cases of conflict of interest, where prominent, influential physicians, of teaching institutions, have received and not declared money received from drug companies -- coincidentally, these doctors  promoted the use of their drugs.

I think we all are aware of the VIOXX case, an arthritis drug that was pulled off the market after the death of several people from heart attacks.  In the course of a lawsuit, data was discovered that showed risk for heart disease -- data that had not been disclosed to the FDA.

So, if there is a wariness or skepticim of the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, it has come about in part as a result of an increased awareness by the public, consumers, of some of the drug companies questionable, if not unethical or illegal practices.

[QUOTE=Joie]I've been having problems with my vision, so I haven't read all the links mentioned in this thread, but I do have a response to this statement:

"The FDA and Big Pharma are in cahoots with the AMA to keep you from learning all the simple ways to treat diseases. They want your money, and they'll do anything they can to get it from you, including suppressing the knowledge that anyone can learn to heal cancer."

I think we all are aware of the corrupting influence of power and money.  The pharmaceutical industry has a powerful lobbying group.  The outgoing Administration has probusiness leanings which led to policies that adversely affected consumers.  A former Bush appointed FDA director was a major lobbyist for the drug industry.

Senator Grassley I believe is the senior ranking Republican member on the congressional committee with jurisdiction over health care issues, and has investigated several cases of conflict of interest, where prominent, influential physicians, of teaching institutions, have received and not declared money received from drug companies -- coincidentally, these doctors  promoted the use of their drugs.

I think we all are aware of the VIOXX case, an arthritis drug that was pulled off the market after the death of several people from heart attacks.  In the course of a lawsuit, data was discovered that showed risk for heart disease -- data that had not been disclosed to the FDA.

So, if there is a wariness or skepticim of the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, it has come about in part as a result of an increased awareness by the public, consumers, of some of the drug companies questionable, if not unethical or illegal practices.

[/QUOTE]

 

 

Joy,

 

I respect your opinion but do you really think that the FDA, Big Pharm and physicians are actually have a conspiracy to suppress the knowledge that anyone can learm to heal cancer??????

 

I find that rather far fetched and a little shocking.   Especially after having a child that had cancer........

Lynn492009-01-15 15:04:54

Lynn, where are the severe refractory RA studies involving Mino?   Why did that guy, with no training and NOT a doc, discover that pie-plan anti-cancer machine they're pumping all the money into now?  Statins and cholesterol meds have been implicated in GETTING these diseases. 

Most of us believe that intuitively our bodies know what it needs to heal.  I think a lot of us give up before we figure it out.  I mean, really, how long can we last with an RA flare before we say 'I don't care, give me the damn drugs'?

Pip

Yes, but if we believe, due to overwhelming evidence, that some pharmaceutical corporations, doctors, and FDA agents are suseptible to corruption and information suppression, does it really follow that then we all believe ""The FDA and Big Pharma are in cahoots with the AMA to keep you from learning all the simple ways to treat diseases. They want your money, and they'll do anything they can to get it from you, including suppressing the knowledge that anyone can learn to heal cancer."?

Isn't that what is known as a Straw Dog argument? IE: OVERSTATING your opponents position theerby making it easier to "knock down" that position. In short, the position that YOU attribute to THEM, but one that they do not actually hold.

So sorry about your child, Lynn, but because he/she had cancer does not preclude corruption in the professional medical world.

[/QUOTE]

 

this would mean that ALL pharmaceuticals would be involved in the corruption to the deepest level.. and ALL scientists who work the cures would also be involved... and that no one would seep out one little word of data that they are all in cahoots.....    no.. that is someone's twisted reality.....  and nearly impossible..   I would be there would have been a book written or at the least a movie made about it...    Nope.. and I have a little more faith in  human kindness and ethics than to believe this.. opinionated enough?

 

and.. OK.. I"m going back on my word already.. because I just can't believe my eyes... I 'm shocked..

 

but I shouldn't be......

 

I really should have seen this coming........

 

straw dog.........  wow... who'da thunk???

[QUOTE=Lynn49][QUOTE=Joie]I've been having problems with my vision, so I haven't read all the links mentioned in this thread, but I do have a response to this statement:

"The FDA and Big Pharma are in cahoots with the AMA to keep you from learning all the simple ways to treat diseases. They want your money, and they'll do anything they can to get it from you, including suppressing the knowledge that anyone can learn to heal cancer."

I think we all are aware of the corrupting influence of power and money.  The pharmaceutical industry has a powerful lobbying group.  The outgoing Administration has probusiness leanings which led to policies that adversely affected consumers.  A former Bush appointed FDA director was a major lobbyist for the drug industry.

Senator Grassley I believe is the senior ranking Republican member on the congressional committee with jurisdiction over health care issues, and has investigated several cases of conflict of interest, where prominent, influential physicians, of teaching institutions, have received and not declared money received from drug companies -- coincidentally, these doctors  promoted the use of their drugs.

I think we all are aware of the VIOXX case, an arthritis drug that was pulled off the market after the death of several people from heart attacks.  In the course of a lawsuit, data was discovered that showed risk for heart disease -- data that had not been disclosed to the FDA.

So, if there is a wariness or skepticim of the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, it has come about in part as a result of an increased awareness by the public, consumers, of some of the drug companies questionable, if not unethical or illegal practices.

[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Joie]
]With my vision problem, I probably didn't take the time to more clearly express myself.  I did not say I agreed with this statement, my comments were actually in response to the writer who included this "far fetched" viewpoint in his article.I do not believe there is a conspiracy to suppress the knowledge of how to cure cancer.  There are thousands and thousands of dedicated and ethical people within the fda, drug industry and medical practice, but there have been well publicized instances of unethical practices by the drug companies, doctors and government officials, and as a result, there is wariness and questioning, a distrust, by the consumer.I am not critical of the entire drug industry, I've had RA for 31 yrs, and I have used many drugs to try and manage RA, but I am critical of some marketing practices, and the high cost of some meds, that add to the skyrocketing cost of health care and the inability of some to afford needed meds.   [/QUOTE]

Thanks Joie, it's nice to see that not all people can only see things in terms of absolutes. [QUOTE=babs10] [QUOTE=Gimpy-a-gogo]Yes, but if we believe, due to overwhelming evidence, that some pharmaceutical corporations, doctors, and FDA agents are suseptible to corruption and information suppression, does it really follow that then we all believe ""The FDA and Big Pharma are in cahoots with the AMA to keep you from learning all the simple ways to treat diseases. They want your money, and they'll do anything they can to get it from you, including suppressing the knowledge that anyone can learn to heal cancer."? Isn't that what is known as a Straw Dog argument? IE: OVERSTATING your opponents position theerby making it easier to "knock down" that position. In short, the position that YOU attribute to THEM, but one that they do not actually hold. So sorry about your child, Lynn, but because he/she had cancer does not preclude corruption in the professional medical world. [/QUOTE]









[/QUOTE]


????

I can safely say your post is completely garbled.

My point is that just because someone recognises that SOME medical professionals are corrupt, it doesn't follow that they believe there is a big conspiracy to suppress a cure for cancer. So by Lynn implying that that is so, she has created a straw dog argument.

From what I can tell from your (to me completely unintelligible) post, that went over your head.PS---so much for not antagonising, or at least attempting to. Babs, I thought I already couldn't respect you less, but in this case you've proven me wrong. [QUOTE=Gimpy-a-gogo] [QUOTE=babs10]

Gogo. don't flatter yourself.. I wouldn't w' a 10 foot pole... OK?  What do they call someone who makes idiotic comments such as that to deter and distract from the real conversation?  hmm??

I guess cause I think your stalking of me is idiotic and not worth actually addressing. I don't really care what you think of me, I am aware already what you think of me, but you still need to reiterate it after my every post. Why are you so OBSESSED with me? I can only deduce you have a HUGE FAT LESBIAN CRUSH on me.


Now why are you going on about ME when Pip has asked you a serious question that have been on many threads, not the AP one. You obviously have an opinion on it, according to your vitriolic posts on this very thread.[/QUOTE]

Seems to me that gimp was the first one to hurl out the uber-PC "big fat lesbian" insult today.
I don't consider a huge fat lesbian crush an insult.

Although the way Babs tries to get my attention by trying to fight with me everyday is sort of grade school. I know she can't help but be in love with me.Well, Babs, I'm a bit concerned about that letter those scientists sent Obama.  That implies there is a lot more to be concerned about than just a few.  Let's say it's only 10% that are falsifying studies - what's gonna help us now that the current administration has allowed pre-emption to be the doctrine that the FDA is held accountable under.  I certainly don't favor lawsuits without merit, but if that is taken away from us, how do we find out 'which' meds had falsified info that we used to protect our own lives with.

 

Does this make sense?

 

Pip

[QUOTE=Gimpy-a-gogo]I don't consider a huge fat lesbian crush an insult.

Although the way Babs tries to get my attention by trying to fight with me everyday is sort of grade school. I know she can't help but be in love with me.[/QUOTE]

 

So I guess that means you must be enraptured with me....LMAO

So, Jasmine, you're really smart, or so you think, and tied into big pharma, although you don't use their products. What do you think of the actual discussion here (PS---actual diswcussion=not your opinion of me, and whose "side" you're on, but Lynn's post)?Good question. [QUOTE=Gimpy-a-gogo]So, Jasmine, you're really smart, or so you think, and tied into big pharma, although you don't use their products. What do you think of the actual discussion here (PS---actual diswcussion=not your opinion of me, and whose "side" you're on, but Lynn's post)?[/QUOTE]

I do use "big pharma" products; I've said repeatedly how thankful I am for Big Pharma, for it is their drugs that have kept my husband alive after his heart attack.

I don't think big pharma is perfect, by any means. Anyone who can read a newspaper knows that. 

I've also often said how I don't take "new" drugs, and neither does the husband.  I prefer drugs that have had some real-world experience.  I'm not going to take something that's just been on the market for a couple of years.  Our physicians tend to follow along those lines for the most part as well.  We can more than afford the brand-new top-tier drugs, but we go with the tried-and-true.
JR, well, that's interesting, but it doesn't really address the question of what you think of this post and the subsequent conversation on corruption in the professional medical world. Any thoughts you'd like to share?


[QUOTE=Lynn49] <DIV =entry id=entry-99552>
<H2>
<P =categories>

"These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."</H2>

This "Quack Miranda Warning" is on every just about every woo-meister's website. I see dozens of patients every day, and I never Mirandize them, so whats the deal?

There are three ways to look at this: the truthful way, the sinister way, and the bat-sh*t insane way.

Truth: Anyone who wants to sell you something that's a load of crap must use this statement to cover themselves legally.

Sinister: Variation of above--someone wants to sell you something that you are supposed to believe is medically useful, but at the same time they tell you in fine print that it is not medically useful. When it doesn't work, they don't get sued. I wonder why anyone would buy something with that disclaimer attatched to it? When I treat someone for a medical problem, I pretty much say that I intend to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent a disease. Why would I say otherwise? It would be a lie. Also, who would go to see a doctor that told you that they didn't intend to diagnose or treat disease. The whole thing is bizarre.

Bat-sh*t insane: The FDA and Big Pharma are in cahoots with the AMA to keep you from learning all the simple ways to treat diseases. They want your money, and they'll do anything they can to get it from you, including suppressing the knowledge that anyone can learn to heal cancer.

I can't really help the people who believe #3, but people who are willing to suspend their paranoia should read #'s 1 and 2 a few times. Unless you're being arrested, no one should be reading you your rights. The Quack Miranda Statement is the red flag that should send you running.

<P =entry>Posted by PalMD[/COLOR"> at 8:24 AM •

Oh and BTW - I am really smart in some areas... other areas, not so much.  Just like anyone else - nothing special. oh Jas, I find you smart and you write with mental clarity, levelheadedness and self control. unlike the one that has altered mental perceptions maybe due to one of her supplements like MJ.  "I wear my sunglasses at night"You know, that's the kind of crap that really seems so unfair.  Why do some people constantly bring up the MJ unless it's to discredit?  We've had posts about this and others on this board use MJ for pain...go pick on them.  Wait...you like them.  So, this petty stuff is just for people you don't like.  Not exactly the shining example of fairness, is it?  Maybe it's an example of "mental clarity, levelheadedness and self control. "

 

NOT!

Its so strange when Pip states she wants to talk seriously and yet seems to be the abritrator of who is "fair" and unfair. Same with Gimpy-first out with the insults and yet we are supposed to take you serious?

Pip, look at all the pills you are taking. You must take 20 pills a day, while I take 3. Since they are all generic, big pharma is saving me big time. Ok, I take 2 shots too. One MTX, cheap and one Humira. Still, I shoveled 8 inches of snow, worked 8 hours and made dinner.   I did not spend 15 hours here fighting with people. Now I get to go out in 5 degree weather and pick up my husband at the station.   

You need a hobby or a a job or something. Look at all your wrote today, gosh. Don't you have anything else to do? Hey Bird Girrl, I am not taking sides in the argument going on here but I do take exception to this;

[QUOTE=Bird Girrl
You need a hobby or a a job or something. Look at all your wrote today, gosh. Don't you have anything else to do?[/QUOTE]

There are lots of us that are on and off here through out the day, posting articles, doing research and engaging with others on the forum.  I am in and out during the day, and, obviously, at night too.  I don't have a job because I am disabled (RA).  It kind of felt like you are saying that those of us participating in the forum in such a way are, well, worthless.  I have lots to do but my body won't always allow me to do it.  It may be sad, but some days this forum is really the only contact I have with other people (except my SO who works).  I am thankful people like Pip and Lynn are here posting most days. 

Tonight I am here because I can't sleep.  Thanks for listening.

Waddie
I'm up too...I think it has to do with too much caffeine I hate these sleepless nights... For the record, I take 11 pills a day and 2 liquid supps.  The only prescribed meds I take are 2 Mino on MWF, 1 Zith on TTh, 1 Naproxen, and one Folic Acid.  Cost per month is negligible.  I don't have to deal with shots.

 

Anna/Birdgirrl - to attack people because you don't like them is irresponsible.  You might consider that.  Good luck with the snow shoveling...I don't have to deal with that either.  It's always sunny in LA.

 

Pip

Like You do to LEV, gosh do you guys read your own words . [QUOTE=Lynn49]

"These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."

This "Quack Miranda Warning" is on every just about every woo-meister's website. I see dozens of patients every day, and I never Mirandize them, so whats the deal?

The “Woo (or Quack) Miranda Warning”:

“These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.“

If you see this, run."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/health/research/30tria.html?_r=1&ref=health [QUOTE=Lynn49]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/health/research/30tria.html?_r=1&ref=health[/QUOTE]

I read it.  Was there a particular part you wanted discuss?  Nothing struck me as on topic, but maybe I missed something.
buyers beware?  or is it .. use this product at your own risk? 
Copyright ArthritisInsight.com