segnosaur

I believe the "moral" ban on human genetic experiments is as backward as Taliban's view on most modern things. Wait a second... are you talking about the use of embryonic stem cells or other research? They are two totally different issues that are quite independant of each other. Those that are opposed to the use of embryonic stem cells tend to base their opinions on a few ideas: - That the embroys are 'human' and as such we shouldn't be using 'humans' - That using embryonic stem cells might result in women getting abortions specifically for the purpose of harvesting stem cells (something that people may also object to if they considered the embryo as 'human') That's not the same as the concerns over genetic engineering of humans, where the concern seems to be that it somehow belittles people that have various genetic (but non-leathal) diseases.

First of all, you do realize that if you go by the more 'literal' meaning of the word Democracy, minorities wouldn't have any rights? After all, if we truly followed the idea of majority rule, the majority could easily vote to do virtually anything to any group they wanted. (Like I said, that's kind of the 'literal' meaning of democracy. Pretty much all western 'democracies' have various constitutional protections in there to help protect basic rights, which actually run counter to the overall concept of 'democracy' but are generally viewed as being beneficial.) Secondly, you may be right in that the rights of certain voters get ignored in our 'first past the post system'. The alternative may result in them getting power that far exceeds their vote proportion. Neither option is optimal. However, given a choice, it may be better to have the minority vote count for less and have an actual functional parliment, than have the majority vote count for less and have a disfunctional parliment.

First of all, I'm an atheist, and I have no moral objection to embryonic stem cell research. That said, you need to keep something in mind: there are actually 2 sources of stem cells... embryos (the one that causes all the controversy) and so-called 'adult' stem cells. At one point, people thought that embryonic stem cells were the most 'useful', since it was though that 'adult' stem cells were too fixed to provide required variation. However, after years of research, it seems that the 'adult' stem cells have proven to actually be the most useful (actually being used in dozens of actual treatments), whereas embryonic stem cells haven't produced anything that is anywhere near completing even clinical trials. If you read the article you referred to, you'll see a reference to how the stem cells were taken from the patients themselves. This would make them adult stem cells (not embryonic). The problem is, whenever most people hear of 'stem cells', they automatically assume embryonic stem cells, even though its adult stem cells which are probably the ones providing the cure. A quick googling found several stories about paraplegics regaining partial use of their limbs following stem cell treatments... For example: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/28/1943224

I think those statistics have a lot to do with reporting and definitions. Actually, they don't. The figures that the U.N. provided were actually generated by using surveys distributed directly to the population. That way, they bypassed government statistics and any differences in reporting, classification, or even political 'spin' that might be put on the data. It may not be perfect, but it seems to be the best data that we have. Hey, I admit, there are some bad areas in the U.S. There are also many good, safe areas. Hey, I admit, demographics does have a big impact, and an increase in the average age is likely a big factor in the decrease in crime. That's why a comparison with the U.S. can be useful.. similar demographics, but different economic factors.

The US had more violent crime and Canada had more property crime. 1.8 homocides in 100,000 compared to 5.5 in the US. Aggravated assault? More than double in the US. Firearms in robberies? 41% to 16%. Drugs offences, impaired driving and prostitution... Yanks were Gold-medal champions again. But when it came to breaks-ins and motor vehicle thefts, we were number 1, yay! http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-0...185-002-XIE.pdf But sure, it's way more dramatic to throw it all out there and say Canada had more "crime" all together. There may be a problem with the data you provided. When comparing the 'crime rates' in the 2 countries, its possible that certain crimes may be classified differently in one country than another. Thus, what gets counted as an 'assult' in one country doesn't even get counted in another. The reference you provided even has a section (see page 3) where they give differences in the way certain crimes were counted. That's why I prefer the statistics provided by the U.N... it bypasses the government (and any differences in the way crimes are classified) and goes right to the victims.

Actually, no... the green party and their supporters only think they're the 'real stewards' of the earth. In reality, they and their policies seem to be totally out to lunch when it comes to dealing with the realities of environmental science and economics. I know people who are green party supporters. However, when it comes to actually having useful knowlege about the environment, they're about as dumb as a bag of hammers. In their case, their knowledge of science and the environment goes no further than knowing what slogans to chant. Granted, I certainly don't think EVERY green party member is scientifically ignorant. And I certaily don't think that the conservatives, Liberals, or NDP are really any better. But then again, those other parties aren't claiming to be 'stewards of the earth'. Given the fact that the green party has an 'environmental' focus, you'd expect them to have a better clue about what they're talking about. Sadly, they don't. I could also point out that the Green party has, as part of their health care platform, plans to push 'alternative medicine'. Since alternative medicine is usually a code word for "stuff that doesn't work", their scientific abilities should be viewed with a lot of skepticism. Here's a suggestion... go buy a copy of the cable TV series Bullsh*t, by Penn and Teller. In one of the episodes, they go to some environmental rally, where they actually get people to sign petitions calling for a ban on Dihydro Monoxide. Granted, that was filmed in the U.S., but the green party in Canada seems to appeal to the same demographics as those that were attending that rally. Here's a suggesion... if you want to actually help the environment, ignore the 'environmental movement'. Instead, get a basic education in science, and try hanging out with skeptics and others who tend to take a more evidence-based view. Ummmm.... just wondering, what exactly do you think will happen to all that 'slave labour' if Canada and the rest of the western world decide to stop buying chinese products? It is true that China is a state with a repressive government, but frankly they were repressive BEFORE they started becoming an industrial powerhouse, and they would likely be repressive AFTER we stopped trading with them. The main difference is that at least the quality of life in China has improved as they have begun trading more.

The U.S. has a greater difference between high and low income earners than Canada has (as measured by the Gini index). Yet the rate of property crime in the U.S. is about the same (or lower) than that of Canada. So much for your claim of 'economic disparity' being the cause. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ields/2172.html Ummm... wait a second... are you refering to Richard Dawkings, Pro-evolutionary speaker/author? If you're somehow making the claim that a lack of 'christian' morals is partly to blame for the breakdown in society, keep in mind that the percentage of athiests in U.S. jails is smaller than the number you'd expect.

Really? Strange... the statistics from the U.N. actually tell a different story. According to the 2004 U.N. Human Development Report, the percentage of people who were victims of crime was around 21% in the U.S. In Canada, it was 24%. And even though there may be more murders in the U.S. than in Canada, Canada has a higher rate for assault and sexual assault. Granted, there ARE a lot more people in jail in the U.S., but a lot of that is due to jailing people over drug possession. (I don't want to ressurect any debate about the wisdom of the 'war on drugs', but for the most part, drug possession is a victimless crime.) (See: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2004/, the complete report, page 215) Perhaps by, you know, getting a job. I do believe that welfare is necessary, but it should only be a stop-gap measure to help those that are truly disadvantaged while they get back on their feet. Why exactly do you think it is necessary to increase welfare payments? Isn't it at least possible that the rates are high enough, and even though they haven't increased lately, no increase is necessary because the rates in the past were actually higher than they needed to be? The rate of 'violent crime' actually peaked in the 90s, and has been relatively stable for the past decade. Property crime has seen a similar stability (or even a decrease) over the past decade. If our 'low' welfare rates are causing problems, then it certainly isn't showing up in the statistics. http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm http://www43.statcan.ca/04/04b/04b_graph/0...aph_002a_2e.htm

Ok, first problem... how exactly would giving access to the gun registry to the principal actually help in that situation? Would he ban students who might own firearms? What about situations where a parent might own firearms? Really, I can't really see any use for giving wider access. Second problem with that idea: There are already concerns by oponents that the gun registry is both an invasion of privacy, and such a database can be used by criminals who wish to find guns to steal. Even if the registry had useful information, shouldn't they restrict it to only key people in order to prevent abuse of the information? Here we have more problems... If you read through the article, it also points out: Ramsay said Gill suffered from psychological problems such as recurring anxiety, hypersensitivity and depression.. So, the problem here was not necessarily a lack of access to the registry or the type of weapon he had access to... this individual shouldn't have access to ANY firearm. On the other hand, the conservatives have, in the past, supported stronger penalties for people who use guns during crimes, safe gun storage laws, and laws targeting smuggling of firearms. Those policies tend to focus more on the real problem individuals, rather than blanket policies which affect guilty and innocent alike. http://canadaonline.about.com/od/conservat...sguncontrol.htm You see, we're never going to have a perfectly safe society. Just like many other risks that exist today, we accept some of the danger because it somehow improves the overall quality of life... We don't ban swimming pools (even though many people drown every year); we don't ban private car ownership (even though many people die in car accidents). Guns should be viewed in the same way; as something that enhances the life of millions of Canadians (many of whom use the gun for practical reasons such as eliminating pests from farms, others who use them for pleasure). The conservative policies put forward in the last election are a pretty good start... punish the people who actually, you know, do things WRONG.

Actually, that's not completely true. Yes, its correct that Alberta will be hardest hit... however, Ontario (with large numbers of coal and oil generating plants) will not necessarily benefit. In fact, Ontario will suffer too. (Quebec and Manitoba, on the other hand, will benefit.) Of course, anything that benefits Quebec will be seen as a 'good thing' to politicians of all parties. What I can't understand is why any Ontario voters would actually accept the liberal green plan. How gullible are we? Do we not recognize that the tax will end up punishing Ontario and provides no benefit?

Wow, that number keeps growing. Uhhh... no, it doesn't. I've provided an accounting for the potental increases in costs several times on this forum, including here... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....mp;#entry324890 Direct carbon taxes will add approximatly $400-500 to my tax bill. Even with potential rebates, I'll still end up out of pocket by around $150 to $200. $200 sounds a lot like 'several hundred' to me.

Actually, it is an 'income redistribution'. The tax cuts are not broad, across the board cuts... for example, there are increases to child benefits. Similarly, not everyone will end up paying the same in tax cuts; those in certain provinces will end up paying more based on how the province generates its electricity. So, basically the Liberal plan involves taking money from single people in Ontario and Alberta and transfering it to poor families in Quebec/Manitoba. Irrelevant... this is a thread about the Liberal green shift, not the Tory plan. Some 'tax cuts' are more focused on 'income redistribution' than others. A broad tax cut that applies to every individual (or every business) equally is not 'income redistribution'. A tax cut that applies more to some people than others is income redistribution, especially when the taxpayer (or corporation) has little say in their ability to reduce their tax burden.

Here's a general rule... if you live in Ontario, Alberta, or any other province that generates a significant portion of its electricity through coal or oil, you will be hurt. On the other hand, if you live in Quebec or Manitoba (where they generate almost all their electricty through hydro electric projects) you will benefit. The reason? While everyone has the potential for receiving tax cuts, the tax cuts will be more than offset by increased costs for electricity and other products in Ontario. But if you live in Quebec/Manitoba, you will end up receiving the tax cuts, but won't have to deal with increased electicity costs (as hydro would not be affected by the carbon tax plan.) You see, that's the major flaw in the green shift program... it punishes people not for how wasteful they are (in fact, someone in Quebec can actually WASTE more gas/oil and still come out ahead under the green shift plan), but on where they live. And sadly, you have no option (as an individual consumer) to change how your power is generated. That makes the Liberal plan pretty much useless. I live in Ottawa, and it will increase my tax burden by several hundred dollars per year. Hey, I'm all for innovation. But for all the claims about how the Green Shift plan will increase R&D, its just not the major focus of the plan. Heck, the plan has almost as much detail about how they'll increase child benefits as they will increase R&D. (And even if increasing child benefits is a good idea, why exactly is it part of an environmental program?)

And based upon the best interests of health, economic interests plus our own economic interests and the strength and power of the administrative system we will make the decisions on what "has the best chance of working." This is where the monopoly lies, in the decision making process of what will and what will not be funded. It is also illegal in Canada to purchase or offer for sale medical services. I would call that a monopoly. There are elements of a monopoly in Canadian health care, but there are also certain elements of freedom. Ultimately though, its irrelevant for this conversation. We aren't dealing with the mechanism for the delivery for health care services. We are dealing with one issue only... how to determine if something works and is safe. So far, the scientific method seems to be the best way to determine what works and is safe. If you want to consider that a 'monopoly', then fine... but the alternative is to accept things which don't work as being equivalent. Probably because a good chunk of it has. Lets see: Homeopathy? Doesn't work. (And homeopaths seem to want to treat every possible disease known to man) http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/138/5/393 Got a cold? A lot of people try Echinacea. But, it may not work. http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005...cea-030905.html Have insomnia/anxiety? Don't try kava or valerian. http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/...fective-4047-1/ What about something serious like Hep C? http://gastroenterology.jwatch.org/cgi/con...tion/2004/811/2 I could go on and on giving example after example of ineffective alternative remedies. Even when there are situations where alternative remedies might have a positive effect they are often misapplied (for example, St. John's wart may help mild depression, but is ineffective against severe depression), or whatever effects are not as good as what can be produced by modern medications. And of course, those are the medicines that they've actually done actual studies on... I'm sure there are dozens if not hundreds of remedies that people are selling with no real clinical trials. First of all its not quite true that the government doesn't spend money on 'alternative' health care. For example, in the past they've funded chiropractic services. Secondly, its more than just government money we should be worried about. Every dollar spent by a patient on 'alternative' health care means one fewer dollar they can spend going out to dinner, going to a movie, investing in their future. (Now, you could argue "if it brings them hope/comfort, then its money well spent", but to me, that's false hope.) Well, as I said, the problem with the market (in this case) is that people are often making decisions based on a position of ignorance. They may not know about double blind studies, control groups, etc., so may select a product based on who has the slickest ad and best 'claim'. No. Only if rolled in butter with spiders that are scientifically proven to be spiders and in proper percentages and dosages. I don't think anyone ever studied that claim for precision. You're right... nobody has studied it. But then, nobody has studied many of the other herbal remedies that are on the market. That's my point. Why should we assume some herbal remedy as effective (even if its never been clinically proven) while assuming butter-spider is ineffective? Sounds like you could use a little understanding of double blind tests as well. In a double blind test both sides of the test would have the patient informed they were receiving treatment. Acupunture is a precision procedure. If you were doing a double blind test you would still use needles, tell the patient you were placing them in precise locations,as it is practiced while the other "doctor" would say the same and just go about sticking them any old place. Then the results would be compared. Problem is, if there is any validity to accupuncture, then its quite possible that using random needle locations might actually provide some effectiveness. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/563382 Ideally, when you do double blind studies, the 'control group' should be given something which is basically innert. Kind of hard to have an inert needle jammed into you (even if its not in the exact spot you'd expect.) And by the way... it is possible that acupuncture may relieve symptoms of some diseases. However, acupuncturists often make claims which are not supported. Heck, even a journal dedicated to acupuncture concluded Thirty years of active acupuncture research have failed to unequivocally demonstrate its clinical efficacy http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000324.html. (Sadly, this is not the original source) WE are finding it harder and harder to find new antibiotics. What you have said here is just aimed at being oppositional. No, I was just trying to address the issue you made about antibiotics becoming 'less effective'. The way you stated it ("antiboitoics are becoming less effective", or whatever) implied that you might not be cured AT ALL by antibiotics, whereas that's not the case. Well, YOU made the claim and provided the evidence... its not my job to do your research for you. By the way, one other problem with using the death rate for measuring the effectiveness of influenza vaccine... the average age of the population is increasing in North America. Even if a vaccine is USUALLY effective, old people would still be harder hit if/when they do get affected. Yes, a spike that I pointed out was 13% shorter than the next tallest spike. If vaccination can prevent 13% of deaths, I say bring it on. And the actual clinical study I provided, that was published in a peer reviewed journal that showed it prevented the spread of influenza form health care staff to patients... do you think that was an imaginary study? I see you are skeptical. Approach anything from the point of view of doubt and your findings will inevitably prove to yourself your suspicions were correct or maximally, you will remain doubtful. Still waiting to hear about your amazing method to determine effectiveness of medications. The way you're avoiding providing any information on your proposed methodology suggests any skepticism I have is justified. What do you imagine is happening? I would say that you imagine nothing - imagining is not scientific and entirely subjective. I know exactly what's happening... under the placebo effect the body is healing itself naturally, while the credit is being given to some inert substance that was given. Yeah, people who eat better, who excercise more likely will get healthier faster when taking placebos... but the point of the placebo effect is not to worry about how a person could normally live better, its to analyze the effect of a drug (or non-drug) based on what a person's healing ability already is.

Morris as much as accused me of trying to kill people, why should I respond to that? He's completely full of shit and he can go screw himself. Problem is, I made the exact same statement... (See post #149... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....t&p=330278) I pointed out the part that CFIA will interpret to mean that I need to fully comply with the act. You said you read the act so you should recall the other part that says “analyst” means an individual designated as an analyst under section 28 or under subsection 13(3) of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act. Yeah, so you need to fully comply with the act... that doesn't mean that all parts of the act actually are relevant to you. Heck, legally, I'm supposed to fallow all the laws regarding gun control, murder/manslaughter, shop lifting, and noise enforcement bylaws. Of course the fact that I don't own a gun, have no intention of killing or stealing, and don't have parties makes those laws easy to follow. Not every part of every law is going to apply to every individual. Take something simple, like the food and drug act... there are parts of the act that refer to product sampling when an item is in liquid form, as opposed to solid. This doesn't mean that farmers have to start selling liquid steaks... it means that they deal only with the sections of the law that actually are relevant and apply to them. So we're left with the question... where in C-51 is it required for you to make medical claims when your stuff is in capsule form? Ah, so now it was not just some single CFIA manager, but now she actually got a team together to actually discuss the issue. (Heck, if my memory serves me correctly, you didn't even say it was a manager when you first made the claim.) You know, this seems to be becoming more and more incredulous the longer you try to discuss it. I could accept you calling CFIA to clarify things (even though I doubt anyone that they would put you through would be qualified to talk about pending legislation). But the more you expound on your story the less believable it becomes. Next thing you know you'll be telling us that Harper called you personally to say "You kelp farmers are screwed.. Ha ha!" Wonder if the CFIA manager also saw bigfoot. Nope, I told you exactly what I want... I want you to go to the actual text of bill C-51, and point to whatever text and section indicates that if you're selling anything in capsule form that you must make some sort of claim. In all the time you've repeated that story about talking to CFIA people, you could have found and posted the relevant section. But, as I predicted, rather than actually doing so, you repeat some statement which you already made before. Why should I address this when, I'M NOT MAKING ANY MEDICINAL CLAIMS? Well, here's the problem with that particular statement... The question of risk-vs-rewards has nothing to do with any medical claims that you may or may not have made. The issue of risk vs rewards was discussed because you specifically pointed out a bunch of dangerous modern medications. This issue of dangerous modern medications as been discussed more than once here. (Believe it or not, there is more than one issue that's currently being discussed in the thread.) The fact that you can't even keep track of the various issues being discussed in the thread is rather, well, inconvenient to put it mildly. Are you doing that on purpose? Not at all because I never said they weren't necesarry. I said that the government has all the existing regulations it needs to govern me. The fact that Smilin' Bob can continue to sell his 'male enhancement' pills by making false claims rather suggests that the government doesn't yet have the ability to eliminate fraud and false claims. I never claimed to be a 'true blue' libertarian. Only that I have certain libertarian ideals. Regardless of what oversight we have over food or drugs, there will always be the chance of something, ahem, unfortunate happening (for the simple reason that its impossible for the government to monitor every single bite we take.) Hardcore libertarians would argue that any government oversite is unneccessary since the producers will already desire to sell a 'good' product. After all, being known as a 'death company' isn't very good for business. (And obviously the fact that some deaths occurred even with government oversight suggests that its possible government oversight is ineffective). I don't subscribe to that though... I believe government action is warranted to ensure the safety of our food and drug supplies (natural and modern), and to ensure that no false claims are made by the health care field. Ummm... the fact that you're not making a claim doesn't necessarily mean that other alternative health care sellers aren't making their own claims. How many times do I have to bring up Smilin' Bob for that little bit of information to sink in? Once again... even though SOME natural product sellers don't make claims, MANY DO!!! I can usually tell the smart people from the dumb one's by the nature of their questions...you know, whether they make sense or not. So, in other words, someone who has fallen for snake oil salesmen in the past, and can recite whatever bunk they've heard, is considered 'informed'. Got it. No, actually, the opposite. Its a big, complex world. There are so many facets of science, biology, medicine, physics, etc. that it is impossible for anyone to be fully versed in everything they may encounter. THAT'S why we need some sort of government regulation for drugs (both natural and modern)... So that the scientific community can use proper controls to ensure effectiveness and safety, so that when we go and buy some "headache reliever" or antibiotic, we know that its more likely to help us than kill us. From the dictionary: person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives Example... claiming someone who claims that government oversight of the drug system is acceptable, but decries similar oversight when dealing with their own products. First of all, what 'questions' have you asked that I've missed? I usually go through great troubles to make sure I address every issue that is raised on a point by point basis. Secondly, why haven't you addressed any question's I've raised? You can start with: Where in C-51 do they suggest you need to make product claims if your food is in capsule form?

To be honest, I have no idea what was going through his mind. Personally, I am against pretty much all hate speech legislation (whether it be against homosexuals or believers in a particular religion), and if its true that Harper favors legislation against one but not the other I would oppose him on this issue. (Do you have some reference to where he actually doe show such a split in views on hate speech?)

Actually, the reason you "can't get anywhere" is that you A: tend to avoid difficult issues that are presented, B: result to dogmatic assertions in the face of evidence or logic contradicting your point of view, and C: appear to not understand the basics of science. some examples of your "debating" style... - You were asked why it was necessary for someone to die from eating kelp, when people had become very sick. You never responded to that. - You were asked to point out the parts of C-51 that required you to make claims for products in capsule form, but instead you simply repeated unsubstantiated claims. - The issue of risk-vs-reward for modern and 'natural' drugs was brought up a long time ago... instead of addressing that issue, you continue dogmatic assertions about how 'evil' modern drugs are without actually dealing with the 'reward' side of things Here's a suggestion... if you actually want to 'get anywhere', try actually, you know, dealing with facts and logic. Please explain your hypocracy. Why do you agree with regulations involving the food and drug industry (which you seem to acknowledge as useful in keeping people 'safe', but seem to feel that such regulations are not needed for kelp farmers and other 'natural' medical people. Are you not being just as paranoid when you suggest we need to make sure farmers don't sell contaminated products or drug companies don't sell dangerous drugs? Of course, this is typical of your 'debating' style... the issue has been brought up multiple times, yet you ignore it, likely because its easier to resort to dogmatics rather than deal with the issue. Which brings up another issue that you've ignored... How exactly do you know they're 'informed'? Do you ask them for their educational credentials? Do you ask them if they clearly understand biochemistry, or double blind studies or peer review, or any one of a dozen other scientific concepts? Rather a lame attempt at a 'humourous' response. But I guess we can't expect too much from someone who can't even deal with such basic concepts such as 'double blind studies' and 'peer review'.

Claiming that I claimed this is what's really bogus. Really? Then please explain to me what you meant when you said: Oh my products are tested alright but I've never seen a uniformed customer.. (You made this statement in post 143, approximately 2 days ago.) If you've never seen an uninformed customer, then doesn't that imply that all your customers are informed? What type of semantic gymnastics are you going to use to suggest that you have uninformed customers even though you you've never actually seen any? Do you have a lot of invisible customers? Or was that really a typo, and you really did mean to imply that you've never served anyone wearing a uniform (policy, military, etc.)

Really? Please point to the sections of Canadian law that specifically deal with the issue of false medical claims made by the 'natural medicine' community. Actually, no you won't. The purpose of C-51 is not to make the sellers of natural drugs just like modern drug manufacturers. There may be some additional oversight, but the requirements for product testing, etc. will be far far less stringent. I continue to find it baffling why you are so hypocritical about this. You say you agree with current oversight of drug and food producers, but you don't want similar checks for sellers of 'natural' cures. Do you honestly assume that as a group those people selling 'natural cures' are somehow beyond reproach, that they will never attempt to defraud the public or make mistakes? If you think that people selling 'herbs' are always honest, then how do you feel when you see commercials with Smilin' Bob hawking his all natural Male Enhancement pills? I think the appropriate word in that above sentence is appears. Well, at least to you. Those of use who deal with facts and logic recognize otherwise. How many cases do you think its necessary to show you where 'natural' health products have shown to be ineffective for you to realize that there is an issue? When people selling homeopathic remedies to fight infections can show even a portion of the success as even the most modest modern antibiotic, you can talk. When Smilin' Bob and his Male Enhancement formula, or all those spammers selling herbal viagra can show clinical trials demonstrating their products work, then perhaps you can talk about how good your health care products are compared to modern medicines. Actually, lets correct that... one person at CFIA, who may or may not have been fully versed in the details of C-51, was trying to provide an analysis based on your statements, which, truth be told, were a bit confusing. And of course we're hearing about this supposed analysis third hand, through someone who has a reason to be biased. Think there's a reason to be skeptical? Have you, you know, actually READ bill C-51? I did a search on the bill... the word 'capsule' does not appear anywhere in there. I don't remember reading anything about the need to make a claim, only that any claims require proof. If there is such a need, then please point to the section of Bill C-51 that actually has that requirement, that 'capsules require you to make a claim'. Here's my prediction... instead of, you know, reading C-51 and pointing to the section that actually proves your point, you'll once again resort to A: repeating conversations that we can't verify, B: posting stuff that's irrelevant and/or long discredited, and C: ignoring any and all real evidence. Assessment of what? That you'll have to make a claim just because its in capsule form? Sorry, your 'conversation' with those companies deserves just as much skepticism as your conversation with the CFIA person. Now, they would be accurate if they suggested you'll have to be careful with product labeling (on such things as product composition)... but then, anyone selling any sort of food or drug should be careful over labeling and safety. Ah, there we go... never mind the hypocricy of railing against the 'nanny state' when you've already stated you have no problem with existing food and drug regulations. Never mind actually dealing with facts and, you know, data when empty rhretoric will do. I'm sure Smilin' Bob is quite happy that you consider him and his company such fine upstanding citizens that they should be able to sell their Male Enhancement stuff with no oversight. Perhaps you can complain against the actions of the Nanny State after I hear you've joined the Libertarian party and have started to campaign against public health care, welfare, any health and safety regulations, and gun control.

Ummm... I think they already do have regulations regarding various contaminants, as well as established procedures for random sampling to ensure that those standards are not exceeded. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cr/C....A-gb:s_A_01_050 http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/chem-...ectives-eng.php http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/fssae.shtml

First of all, I assume you mean 'uninformed'. Unless of course you're claiming that you haven't seen any cops or soldiers buying your product (which would probably be more accurate.) Secondly, how exactly do you know how informed your customers are? Do you ask them if they have a degree in biology or chemistry? Do you ask them where they get their information on nutrition? Your product is on the web... just how much information can you get on a customer's knowledge based on that? Frankly, claiming that your customers are all 'informed' is a rather bogus statement. Perhaps we have different concepts about what it means to be 'informed'. You see, when I think of someone being 'informed', I assume that they have examined data, applied logic and reason to filter out sources that were less than reputable, and come to an appropriate deduction about what is most likely true based on the quality and quantity of data provided. It seems that your definition of 'informed' is "Someone who has read and believes anything written, even if the person doing the writing is either a fraud, or less knowledgable than the reader, as long as they are gullible enough to fall for it." Ummm... why exactly is it necessary for the person to have died from eating kelp? Earlier on you were provided with a reference to an individual who was made very sick from eating kelp. Is it not enough that they became severely ill from it? Are you assuming any side effects are OK, as long as the patient doesn't eventually die? Severe vomiting? Limbs falling off? Severe brain damage? Patient in a coma? No problem... they're still alive... no problem because they're still breathing. A totally irrelevant statement. It is true that some arsenic-containing compounds are safer than others. However, That doesn't mean that a person eating kelp or seaweed (or any other 'natural' product) isn't consuming the more dangerous form. In fact, the link you provided even points out that some species of seaweed have high levels of inorganic arsenic and should be avoided. However, without proper controls, how is the consumer to know that whomever was harvesting the seaweed did not accidentally use the wrong type? So tell me... if C-51 becomes enacted, and the world doesn't collapse, and you continue to sell your little 'capsules', are you going to admit that you were wrong? You know, since you claim to be quite careful about your product, I'm kind of surprised you'd be so upset about C-51. After all, even you should recognize that there are at least some scam artists in the 'natural health' field... you should be happy that people are taking action to get rid if the bad apples in the field. Ok... first of all, you really need to look up the definition of 'snake oil salesman'. The term (in modern usage) applies to people selling stuff that is either a fraud, or simply does not work. The drugs in your list likely did work. (Admittedly I'm not a doctor so I don't recognize all the drugs on the list, but I did recognize a few to know their history.) The basis of the law suit is not that the drugs didn't work, its that they had unexpected side effects. In fact, many of the drugs on the list are still safe and effective for the majority of people taking them, but it was simply necessary to update the list of potential side effects or recommendations for usage. Most people, if they were told "take this pill and we're 99% sure you'll feel better/live longer, but there is a tiny (<0.1%) chance you'll die" would agree that that risk is acceptable. That's the nature of modern pharmeceuticals. On the other hand, with natural medicine, if you're told "take this pill... it won't actually do anything for you, but there is a tiny chance you'll die", people would consider that unacceptable. A large potential benefit justifies a small risk. A total lack of benefits (as with many 'natural' remedies, although not with all), does not justify any risk. You know, I've already brought this issue of risk vs. effectiveness up before. Heck, I myself even mentioned drugs on that list in this very thread. I've admitted the potential failings of the scientific approach, and pointed out why its still the best method. Do you really think it enhances your case to bring up stuff that's been handled and debunked before? What does it say about how 'informed' you are if you can't even remember stuff that's been mentioned in this thread? Secondly... keep in mind that this list is from a law firm (not from some reputable medical group) that earns its income (or at least some of it) from lawsuits... They're trying to drum up business, but even they can't claim that any lawsuit launched as a result of their web site will actually result in the drug company being considered guilty. Heck, even some of the information in their web site admits that some of the drugs they've considered as 'dangerous' have never actually been proven to be dangerous. Lastly, you may think your list looks impressive. I estimate that there are a couple of hundred drugs on the list. However, the fact is that there are thousands of drugs available, and this list of 'risky' drugs represents only a small percentage of the total number of drugs available. I did a bit of searching and found a list of medicines available through webmd. While your list has approximately 200 names on the list, I found that there were over 3 times that number available that just started with the letter A. And in most cases, the number of people adversely affected was often a small minority of those taking the drugs (with many more people helped than harmed). So, you have a tiny minority of people taking a tiny minority of drugs that can be considered "at risk". For the billions of people actually helped by modern pharmecuticals, that seems to be a pretty reasonable risk for the potential rewards.

I've already dealt with that issue in a previous post. Yes, many people have died through using "western" medicine (maybe even more that have died from taking 'natural health' cures.) But then, the list of people who have actually been helped by western medicine is actually longer than those helped by 'natural' cures. Modern drugs work, and they usually work quite well. Most 'natural' health treatments do not work, and we have example after example of various herbs, homeopathic concoctions, and other 'treatments' that have no effect. I see... So, does that mean that any large drug company can start selling any drugs they want in Canada, even if it hasn't even been tried in animal tests before? After all, if we assume everything is 'good' until its been proven 'bad', then Pfiser or Merc can actually use Canada as a testing ground for all their drugs that haven't even been tried in other countries. So does that mean you favor getting rid of all regulations for food safety? For drug safety? And how do you define 'some kind of threat'? We know, for example (through various double blind studies) that many 'natural' cures just don't work. (Not just that the stuff is untested, but that its actually been shown to have no effect.) Yet many sellers of natural remedies continue to sell their merchandise while making false claims. Isn't that actually fraud? And isn't fraud something that we should protect Canadians against? Once again, the government is not prohibiting the sale of sea kelp capsules. What they will be preventing is people selling sea kelp capsules claiming they have some medical properties if they don't. And if you think people should be allowed to use products until proven dangerous, why should the government prohibit the sale of assault rifles to me? After all, if you think that we should be assuming things are safe until proven otherwise, then shouldn't they assume that I'm going to handle that assault rifle safely, and it should be up to the government to prove that I won't be handling it safely? Well, here's the problem... people do have an unprecidented amount of access to information these days. If people wanted to, they could find accurate information on pretty much any subject. However, what we as a society have failed to do is install any sort of logical or reasoning ability in people during their education. As a result, when they read something, they may not have the proper ability to judge a source on its merits. As a result, they will accept bogus claims on some idiot's web site as having the same legitimacy as a properly peer-reviewed article involving double blind studies. Or they will listen to inaccurate analysis rather than dealing with actual data. In short, we need to teach people to be proper skeptics. You yourself are a prime example of this... early on you were making multiple false claims about C-51. The source of your 'information' were people who actually sell natural medicine. Given the fact that your 'source' was someone who had reason persuade people against supporting C-51, you should have been suspicious. A 30 second google search would have given you the actual text of C-51, where you could have seen that the claims against C-51 were false. So, with all the potential for accurate information on C-51, why did you decide to believe in someone who would have reason to be biased?

Ok, after reviewing your site, I have not found where you actually make claims. (Well, other than perhaps the problem with the component listing I mentioned earlier.) But that does not mean that C-51 is a bad bill... what it means is that you would probably not be affected by the sections dealing with product labeling, etc. I had suggested this as a possibility earlier... that whomever you talked to with the Canadian government may have thought that you were making claims. Like I said, you are in the minority... most sellers of 'natural health' products do make claims.... they state that "this product is good for insomnia", or "this is good for helping your immune system". And how often have we received spam email for 'herbal viagra'? How many times have we seen "Smilin' Bob" in those cheesy late night commercials for "Male Enhancement"? It is those type of claims that will require proof. You're not making claims, you won't be subject to the same provisions of C-51 that others are. Assuming that I'm correct (and that you won't be affected by the labeling requirements of C-51), then what exactly is wrong with making sure people who do make claims about their products are actually valid in their claims?

Because telling people to take 2 capsules is a dosage, even if you don't want to refer to it as such. Are you telling people that? If so, aren't you now making a claim? Ok, first of all... you still haven't said why exactly you have to have that particular amount of kelp. Yes, you're trying to link the amount of your capsules to what you'd get for a serving of 'kelp', but what exactly is one 'serving' of kelp good for? Again, I don't have actually information about how you're actually advertising or packaging your product. Why is a 'serving' of kelp is a good thing? Why should people eat kelp to begin with? Secondly... lets look at your claims of the components of kelp.... you do know that the chemical makeup of plants can change, depending on the time of year it was harvested, the weather conditions, whether it was a different hybrid, etc. I know you claim to have had tests done, but if someone was trying to 'treat' themselves using your percentages as a guidelines they may find themselves under or over affected. Hey, maybe you are being 100% honest when you say you don't make any 'claims'. In that case, the person with the government may have actually given you wrong information. But if you really didn't make any such claims, then you'd probably be in the minority. I did a quick search of online 'natural' pharmacies... every one of them that I came across had at least one false claim on their site. (Even if that 'claim' involves simply giving the disease/symptoms the stuff is supposed to handle). The difference is, the people who grow and market cabbage are not necessarily making claims as to the percentage of any particular components. (The figures you gave were estimates by the FDA, they weren't requirments, minimums, or maximums.) If some farmer wanted to slap a label on his cabbage to show how much protien, fiber, etc. was in his product, then he should be responsible for doing the tests to show his label is accurate.

Wait a second.... something here just doesn't make sense.... Earlier on, you stated that you said you recommended people "take 2 capsules" of whatever your hawking. And, you've complained that the government is now expecting you to say why. But if you're not claiming anything, then why tell them to take 2 capsules? Why not 1? Why not 4? When I go to the grocery store, I don't see any instructions on my hamburger patties to "Eat 2 burgers". If what you're doing is supposed to be 'food', then why would you need to give a recommended dosage? I rather suspect that there is something you're not telling us or that you're leaving out. I rather suspect that you are making a claim, but you just aren't acknowledging it as such. Without actually seeing your product, or advertising, or product placement, or web site, its hard to form an argument. Hypocrisy noted.