In the ceramics industry the dangers of talc are well known, in recent years well-known sources of talc have been closed down due to asbestos contamination. In addition talc-silicosis is a very real concern and we never touch raw talc without an OSHA-approved respirator and dust extraction system.
Article from 1979 about the R. T. Vanderbilt Company's fight to keep talc mines open despite the presence of tremolite:
Possibly they're stricter on small companies because if they mess up, you can't fix the issue with a big class-action lawsuit? If Johnson & Johnson mess up, they're big enough to be able to compensate consumers directly.
Not saying it's an ideal solution but if I were a budget-constrained federal agency trying to minimize harm with limited resources I could see myself making a similar call.
If you believe that, please explain to me why the BBB exists, and what positive social purpose it serves. It is the poster child for a toothless opt-in 'regulator', and it is worse than useless at dealing with malfeasance by its members. (But it's pretty good at collecting membership dues.)
If I don't like the FDA, I can vote for someone who will fix it. I happen to think that they have, overall, done a far better job than most examples of industry self-regulation.
The head of the FDA is appointed by Donald Trump.
>If I don't like the FDA, I can vote for someone who will fix it.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
You're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that if you dislike the FDA you can vote someone in who will fix it? I provided pretty compelling evidence that suggests you cannot.
We're all responding to a story of the FDA allowing a big megacorp give us all cancer for literally decades. I think we have a very different definition of the word "good." You can't vote in a better FDA, but you can fire the BBB by simply ignoring them. No system will be perfect, but a better system is one in which you can choose to ignore an unreliable source of information and aren't forced to fund their production of unreliable information.
All the work involved in capturing the FDA demonstrates that the FDA is not a "mandatory BBB", if they really had no teeth there would be no need to devote all these resources to dupe/intimidate/capture them.
> Section 704 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to conduct inspections of cosmetic firms at reasonable times, in a reasonable manner, and without prior notice in order to assure compliance with the applicable laws and regulations, to determine whether cosmetics are safe and properly labeled, and to identify possible health risks and other violations of the law.
This is a frustration to me because neither the left or the right seem to fight for better government, more just, more fair. The right have this childish dream that no government will magically work, which happens to dovetail into what criminal corporations want. The left protect the government unions and allow them to become dysfunctional.
I think of the mercury used in gold mining in the 1800's as well as this book from the 1960's:
I also read when the USSR came apart the world started to find out the scope of hidden environmental problems.
"Heavy metal pollution near Norilsk is so severe that it has now become economically feasible to mine surface soil, as the soil has acquired such high concentrations of platinum and palladium."
Stories like this erode my faith in...everything.
And don't give up hope. Crooked interests are absolutely counting on voters' cynicism to allow them to operate.
I think you might be greatly surprised by how much influence you personally can have on politics on a very practical level by interacting with politicians of said party in your district on a personal level.
It doesn't matter who gave authority to the regulator, what matters is whether or not they are currently responsible for that regulator, and are doing a good job of it.
There's a congressional committee on pretty much every department under the sun. Follow the chain of command.
> and how can you possibly know that the opposing candidate would do a better job?
"Billy really sucks at doing his job, but we can't fire him because we don't know if we hire someone worse" isn't a good reason to keep Billy employed. Keep sacking the ones that are doing a terrible job, until you find one that does a good one.
Just google "climate change republican party" and you will have a good summary about who should get your vote for the sake of your grand children.
Hint: One of those two parties is fixable, and it can be done through their primaries.
Sounds like a lobbying force-multiplier.
Why the hell is there an AC system that is spewing out asbestos particles?
Quantities / concentrations not specified in the article that I saw at a skim. Both sides talking past the other, sadly.
An easy fix would be for congress to pass a law preventing regulators from working in the industry they regulated, but then the politicians wouldn't also receive those same cushy "jobs".
As a concrete example, my fiance is a lawyer working in environmental policy. She's worked for the EPA and for various environmental justice groups because she went with whatever jobs were available in her field, and that wouldn't be possible with your proposed change.
But it is way, way easier for me to get a job doing the exact same type of programming I've been doing for the last decade, in the same environment, and I get paid way, way more to do that, because my specific experience makes me so much more valuable.
Unfortunately, they're largely ignored via waivers: https://www.vox.com/2017/6/1/15723994/trump-ethics-waivers
Better would be to prosecute people who conspire to harm others by intentionally distorting policy. That's how literally all the other legal stuff seems to work.
Smart thinking over here.
Yes, that is exactly my solution. Do you have suggestions?
Larger government just creates more regulations to capture.
1973 was a low point for trust of fatcat industry, coinciding with revelation of Watergate abuses. It is hard to believe any new such regulation could be enforced today.
You rarely hear even the small government politicians rail against bureaucrats because being able to use their influence withing the bureaucracy for favors (some more ethical than others) is a source of power for them. They may complain about the priorities of the bureaucracy (e.g "we should be funding X not Y") but they don't lament the existence of the administrative arm of government.
Wow just wow
I remember reading J&J said only a batch in some years contains ultra small amount of some substance and less than certain % of it is safe.
The FDA has posted their latest analysis of J&J talcum powder. Of the 3 samples, 1 had "none detected" and 2 had 0.00002% or less by TEM (electron microscope). We're talking close to limit of detection.
The bigger issue is the link to ovarian cancer. The data is all over the place. This one paper  sums up the data nicely - when looking at talc use there was no correlation with ovarian cancer. Even outside of hygienic use (condoms, gloves), many women had high talc exposure and no ovarian cancer, while others had no talc exposure and ovarian cancer.
"It may be argued that the overall null findings associated with talc-dusted diaphragms and condom use is more convincing evidence for a lack of a carcinogenic effect, especially given the lack of an established correlation between perineal dusting frequency and ovarian tissue talc concentrations and the lack of a consistent dose-response relationship with ovarian cancer risk."
I do a bunch of mining and know the dangers of talc and its contaminants - it only takes ONE PARTICLE of tremolite or actinolite to start you on the road to mesothelioma. You just don't know which specific particle will trigger it.
A completely unhelpful thing to say. Everything starts somewhere, there's nothing special about asbestos. 'It only takes ONE GAMMA RAY PARTICLE to start you on the road to terminal brain cancer' too, but does that mean you shouldn't live in Denver or ever take an airplane flight?
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for asbestos is 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air as an eight-hour time-weighted average (TWA), with an excursion limit (EL) of 1.0 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter over a 30-minute period. The employer must ensure that no one is exposed above these limits.
Perhaps HN readers will understand that once they bother to get a career in surficial mineralogy.
Then of course you find all manner of skeevy companies leveraging that in scare marketing. Ultimately went with hepa vacuum, big fan to do a few air exchanges with the outside and upgraded furnace filters. Nobody’s died yet.
300 parts per million is probably bad. 1 part per trillion is probably cleaner than a random meadow.
“Talc is a clay mineral composed of hydrated magnesium silicate with the chemical formula Mg3Si4O10(OH)2.”
To get actual unscented pure talc I had to find it on Amazon.
Talc is still big business.
A stem cell treatment provider recently lost a court case where they argued they're not subject to FDA approval, claiming it's not a medication, drug, or treatment. That seems like an untenable position to me.
The FDA has considered your own stem cells as a medication to bring it under their control - honestly that claim alone is pretty disingenuous, stem cells and properties of your blood are your body's natural healing mechanisms; with these treatments they're not changing or manipulating the stem cells, which you could more reasonably argue should be classified as a medication.
Another claim big pharma is trying to use is that injecting bone marrow into joints shouldn't be allowed because it's non-homologous - meaning that bone marrow isn't naturally in the joints, so it shouldn't be allowed to be injected - the reason they want to prevent it is because injecting stem cells into joints will clear up the pain caused by osteoarthritis.
> There is almost no regulatory oversight of orthopedic procedures using bone-marrow extracts or platelets, which are regarded as low risk. While the Food and Drug Administration insists that it does have the authority to regulate stem cell treatments, it adopted an industry-friendly approach in 2017 by giving companies a three-year grace period in which to describe their products or treatments so the agency can determine whether they meet the criteria of drugs that would require agency approval. So far, few companies have submitted any information.
> In the meantime, rogue clinics offering other kinds of procedures have flourished, accused of blinding people by injecting cells into their eyes, mixing stem cells with smallpox vaccine to treat cancer or causing severe infections by administering contaminated blood from umbilical cords into patients’ joints or spines. In some of the worst cases, patients had already been harmed before the agency took any action, and the patients took legal steps themselves, suing the clinics that injured them.
I've spent nearly $100,000 over the last 3 years on stem cell treatments because they permanently heal injuries. I researched doctors and clinics first, felt them out along with their knowledge, and then have done plenty more than a single treatment with them because they proved to know what they were doing. Certainly that doesn't negate bad actors who will take advantage and don't have enough knowledge or proper protocol to maximize outcome, however once again, you shouldn't be so pessimistically dismissive nor confounding issues when trying to argue a point.
One person's "proven" is an anecdote. Scientific clinical trials are how we actually demonstrate efficacy (versus the very real placebo effect), safety, etc. Plus, there's the bonus of actually proven procedures being easier to get insurance to cover, which should be appealing to someone who's shelled out six figures.
Whatever organization has oversight of that doctors should have oversight - that doesn't negate the challenges of regulatory capture that is occurring.
That you're completely dismissing my own personal experience, that I'm willing to spend $100k of money I'd much rather spend elsewhere, shows just how dismissive you are. I didn't argue my own experience as part of the data that does exist relating to stem cell treatments either, like you're seeming to counter argue with.
You should probably dive into the existing research, and not depend on using whatever mainstream sources you've used to develop your narrative and arguments - seems you're falling into the narrative mainstream media wants you to follow.
Look, people have "personal experience" that prayer cured their cancer, that essential oils fixed their bipolar disorder, that aliens anally probed them, etc.
Having invested large amounts of money can make one susceptible to sunk cost fallacies, too.
"I say it works" is worthless by itself. Sometimes, worse than worthless - actively harmful. The FDA approval process may not be perfect, but some sort of scientifically rigorous "does this work and is it safe?" is necessary.
You realize that there are, and you can see, before and after imagery - whether ultrasound, x-ray, or MRI - that is used to see the physical trauma of the area being treated, treating it, and then seeing the healing that's occurred with imagery afterward, right? I'm guessing your limited sources don't actually share that information with you based on your lack of investigating any of this while being so dismissive, and counter arguing points I've not been making.
What I was warning of is regulatory capture that I've learned about directly from the legitimate doctors (not all are I'm sure) that are at the forefront of regenerative medicine, some who have been doing research on using stem cell for 18+ years now already.
I understand your skepticism - maybe dive in deeper into different sources and have just a little bit of curiosity as to the legitimacy of what I'm saying.
I asked you for sources at the very top of this thread. Instead I got a bunch of defensiveness, which is itself illuminating.
Surely this sort of imagery you're talking about is available somewhere, with clear examples from both the experimental group and the control group, demonstrating better results in the experimental? These clinics should present that to the FDA, get the procedures approved, and rake in enormous amounts of cash from health insurance from their arthritis cures.
There aren't many regenerative medicine doctors at the moment and the public isn't educated enough to push back against the regulatory capture that's currently developing. The doctors themselves are adapting to provide certain treatments outside the jurisdiction of the US, otherwise they will continue to provide treatment - knowing that the centralization efforts of big pharma will increase costs to consumers by 2x; people who are in pain of course are arguably the most desperate and whether a treatment that works costs $5,000 or $10,000 - they will pay it.
So far you've only cited doctors and clinics that directly benefit from promoting stem-cell research, and no unbiased (i.e., academic) studies showing any sort of statistical benefit.
One of these articles even noted that stem cell treatment appeared to be more dangerous than chemotherapy with respect to cancer treatment...
So yes, thanks for the cites but you still haven't provided any cites that support the notion that stem cell treatment is either safe or effective in humans.