Skip to content

Evil and Wickedness

Monday, May 26, 2008

It is difficult to define “wickedness” without a sound definition for “evil”, and without a standard of value, “evil” becomes a relatively meaningless term. The problem is further complicated when individuals attempt to describe nature as having inherent evils- nature sans man.

For example, is a flood evil? Why? Does it choose to be evil, or is it simply a consequence of naturally occurring events? Is it- instead- the result of that flood (destroyed property, death, etc) that brings about fear? A flood which does no damage is not considered evil; it’s simply a flood- and doesn’t deserve our attention.

Evil is an emotional term which can be used to arouse feelings in an attempt to circumvent the process of reasoning. Evil is a term which is largely understood to be in the category of “bad things”- and invoking its name should therefore associate any concepts attached to it as “bad things” as well. Indicating that a person is “evil” or that an event was “evil” ends the discussion in most cases since most individuals will feel there’s no reason to define the term or its application.

However, we do a great disservice to any meaningful discussion when we attribute something as being “evil” when it has no choice or option. There simply is no other reason to define evil existing in nature sans man, but to avoid a clear and objective definition of it. The only reason to avoid a clear and objective definition is to embrace subjectivity and fluid definitions. If one appeals to the audiences emotions in using ambiguous terms, one will find more supporters- at the expense of a meaningful discussion.

Even the appearance of defining terms can often be just as deceitful. For example, how would you define- or more accurately, describe the concept of- evil? That which is bad? Well, what is bad- and how do you know? The concepts of good and bad, right and wrong, evil and virtuous belong to the branch of philosophy known as ethics. Though a majority of the population simply rolls their eyes at a discussion of philosophy- it is inescapable: you cannot live without concepts, without thinking- and without the concept of right and wrong, one could not function. Whether you choose to examine them or discuss them is certainly a choice- but to live without thinking simply is not an option. To cease to think would not only be a thought and a choice, but it would result in death.

Without spending too much time on it- the only rational standard of value would be one’s life. To put anything above one’s life would mean death or suicide and one who is dead cannot think or talk about philosophy or roll their eyes at a discussion of it. Life as the standard of value means that anything which furthers life would be good and anything which hinders or prevents it would be bad. There, we’re done with good and bad, let’s move on to evil and then wickedness.

Although there are many definitions of the word evil- only one can possibly apply to a philosophical discussion as a concept. Discussing evil without discussing the effect on humanity is quite a boring discussion, so let’s concede that evil is a choice- and this is important for two reasons: 1) if it’s not a choice then there’s no purpose to it, it’s unavoidable and nothing can be gained from a discussion of it, and 2) describing something as evil which has no effect on humanity is to abandon the concept from the beginning and also has no meaningful discussion possible.

When we understand that evil is a concept that applies specifically to choice- we can now see that we are talking about when people make choices which may affect themselves or other people. Since the standard of value previously established is man’s life qua man, evil then becomes any choice which hinders or seeks to end that value. A tornado- although destructive to, and perhaps even a threat to man’s life- has no cognitive abilities and cannot act on principles of ethics. It does not apply to the concept of evil. A mugger, on the other hand, has made a conscious choice to do harm in both the life and property of another human being and is irrefutably regarded as evil. However, those who still choose to claim that man’s life is not the standard of value will claim that a mugger who redistributes the ill-gotten wealth of his crime is not immoral at all, but is a “Robin Hood” figure who acts with great virtue. The contradiction here is quite clear: these individuals believe that any act which results in the satisfaction of someone else’s values is the good- regardless of what those values are- and with complete disregard of any standard of value. This system of altruism bypasses ethics altogether and states without any authority that the standard of value is irrelevant, but it’s the receiver of value (anyone but oneself) which is what makes the act virtuous. The entire system is self-defeating since it demands that each person act towards their own destruction. Altruism, quite clearly, is evil.

Wickedness carries a connotation of an individual who acts with a consistent goal of evil- an individual with clear intent or malice. The term is an extension of evil, specifically applying to a mindset of unbroken evil actions or thoughts. A person acting on wickedness is an individual without concern or thought of the proper course- in complete defiance of doing what is right. As previously stated, right is that which furthers life- therefore, any individual who consistently acts in a manner which destroys or hinders the life of other individuals is wicked.

The distinction between evil and wickedness is rather moot, except when it is pointed out that wickedness is usually a word used in a highly emotional argument. That is not to say that the concept of wickedness cannot be explored without emotions, but when conclusions are suggested about what must be done in regards to wickedness, one should pause for concern and consider that the terms are unambiguous and not simply floating abstractions.

Filed in Ethics, Objectivism, Philosophy | Comments (3)

Flight 93 and the Conspiracist Narrative

Monday, January 21, 2008

In a previous post I suggested that the conspiracist position on Flight 93 is a contradiction when combined with the “controlled demolition” of the WTC towers. User tanabear believes this needs further explanation: “I fail to see why those claims contradict one another. The Twin Towers were brought down via explosive charges and a plane was shot down. Where is the contradiction?”

First, it’s important to point out that in the 6 years I have been investigating the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11- I have yet to see a coherent explanation for the events- the closest any conspiracist has ever come to trying to explain the “shoot down” of Flight 93 would be Eric Hufschmid in his Penn and Teller interview for the Bullshit episode on conspiracy theories. According to Hufschmid, Flight 93 was some sort of an anomaly with the pre-determined attack. For some inexplicable reason, the pilots of Flight 93 deviated from the attack plan and the military decided that they had to end the attack… for some reason. This obviously makes no sense- but to abandon a conspiracy theory that does not make any sense would be devastating to the entire movement, so they tend to just roll with it. Although Hufschmid has moved down in the ranks of conspiracist movement leaders- his explanation still stands out in a crowd of individuals who are largely silent on the motivation behind a “shoot down” of Flight 93.

To put it simply, why would the military shoot down a plane that it had put there intentionally? More to the point- why would the government then “lie” about this shoot down and claim that they had nothing to do with it? It makes no sense. Had the plane actually been shot down and the government actually took responsibility for it, then it would be consistent with a terrorist attack, and a speedy- if not heroic- response to the impending doom. It does not help the governments case at all to “hide” the shoot down, nor does it help the conspiracists position.

A shoot down of Flight 93, therefore, would have been a legitimate response to the attack on the United States, which contradicts the controlled demolition claim- since a controlled demolition would necessarily have to be an inside job. It’s not necessarily the supposed “shoot down” of Flight 93 that presents a contradiction to the conspiracist narrative, but the supposed cover-up of that “shoot down” that has no coherent purpose. To cover-up a legitimate response contradicts the claim of a cover-up in the first place. This would be no different than if the conspiracists had tried to claim that the government was covering up the terrorist attack and instead claiming that it was individuals who worked inside the Twin Towers- that the planes were some kind of government hologram (a claim that some conspiracists try to make, regardless).

A question I have often posed to conspiracists in regards to this event would be something along the lines of: Why would the government cover-up a shoot-down of Flight 93? What purpose would it serve?

The attempt to answer this question and still keep it some kind of a conspiracy theory often falls apart. For example, the answer of claiming that the appearance of a take over by the passengers is some kind a patriotic ruse still contradicts a conspiracy theory. Real passengers? Real hijackers? The government not taking responsibility for saving us all?

Likewise an answer to the question above which seeks to resolve the contradiction by avoiding anything but the government taking responsibility for a quick response in a troubling ethical situation contradicts the claim of a Big Evil Government in the first place: Big Evil Government could care less about the murder of 3,000 innocent victims, but has trouble justifying a shoot down order? Consistency is a problem that infects most conspiracy theories, but one that most conspiracists do not regard as important. For the reasons that have already been outlined, a contradiction inherent in a theory should be the first cause of concern.

Filed in 9/11 Conspiracies, Conspiracy Theories | Comments (8)

Poking Holes in the C-Ring

Monday, January 21, 2008

Conspiracists often try to claim that the “official story” contains contradictions, or has “omissions” which- they believe- makes it suspect, and therefore impossible- and then try to insert their own ridiculous assertions to try and replace the void left by removing the scientific and widely accepted theory. As is often the case- they fail to properly check their premises in these cases.

For example, tanabear, in a comment to the “Casualties of War” post believes that the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon is a contradiction to the “official story”. This belief- in itself- rests on several premises which are clearly fallacious:

  1. That the “official story” is whatever conspiracists disagree with or do not like- whatever contradicts the conspiracists version of the events. In reality, the “official story” is the widely-accepted scientific version of the events. This means that it not only conforms to the available evidence, but that it does not simply rely on whatever some official says, regardless of their title. (strawman fallacy)
  2. That best guesses- at the time of, or shortly after- the attack are entered into the “official story”. Similar to the point made above- conspiracists believe that whatever someone says at the time is the immovable, solid, and more “pure” record. They do not allow individuals to investigate the available evidence, form a valid conclusion, and then test that theory. In the conspiracists eyes, science is not allowed. (fallacy of anecdotal evidence)
  3. That scientific inquiry is final- and cannot be changed by the evidence. This is emphasized by tanabear’s last comment: “Is this your final answer?” Conspiracists have a difficult time remembering that science changes to conform to reality- and as such often has to revisit previous conclusions and adjust them, if necessary. (strawman fallacy)
  4. That any unanswered or unclear explanations are “holes” in the story- when in reality, they are either moot, or just unexplained. An unexplained event is not a contradiction- science does not purport to answer all questions or provide a complete and final answer- science is the method of which we arrive at a more complete and consistent answer. (Reductio ad absurdum)

The examples tanabear gives are examples of the fallacious prerequisites above: person “a” says “x”, while person “b” says “y”- therefore it’s a contradiction. While the two individuals may be contradicting eachother, the “official story” is not being contradicted. In order to have the widely accepted scientific version of the events be contradicted, new evidence would need to be introduced- and evidence and facts are something that conspiracists do not have, and shy away from (“poking holes” is good enough, to them).

To summarize these examples, we have individuals who- very early on in the investigation, and based on very little information- said that the hole in the C-Ring was caused by the nose cone. At first glance, there may be nothing wrong with this assumption. Seeing as we know a plane impacted the Pentagon, the round hole could be caused by the round shape of a nosecone. Since it hardly makes a difference what caused the hole- it really needs no further investigation. It only becomes an interesting tidbit to those who are fascinated by the impact of planes, conspiracy theories, or the impact of conspiracy theories. Conspiracists believe that a nosecone could not have caused the hole in the C-Ring, and therefore the “official story” is wrong (and again, needs to be replaced by something that has no supporting evidence.)

While the conspiracist may be right that the C-Ring hole was probably not caused by the nosecone, they are wrong to try and use this to inject their own theory. While they may claim that they’re “Just Asking Questions” and not actually trying to insert their own theory- the moot point they are trying to make serves no other purpose. It is important to note, whatever caused the hole in the C-Ring was part of a plane, or the result of the impact of the plane. The specifics- therefore- are irrelevant. That is not to say it cannot be questioned, but the purpose of questioning it must be clear. As is the case with tanabear, the purpose of posing this question is because this is supposed to “expose” the “official story” as being “contradictory”- which clearly is not the case.

Moving on- the nose cone probably did not cause the hole in the C-Ring for three very good reasons: 1) The material that makes up a nosecone on a passenger plane is a light metal, and it is unlikely that it would survive the impact all the way to the C-Ring, 2) There are no remains of the nosecone at the C-Ring, and 3) After investigating the debris field, we can see that the contents of the plane were- for lack of a better term- inverted. The front of the plane came to rest closer to the point of impact, whereas the force and trajectory of the rear of the plane was closer to the C-Ring. This is why we find the remains of the hijackers at the point of impact (about 30 feet in) and the remains of the passengers at the rear of the plane actually closer to the C-Ring. With that damage pattern, it’s highly unlikely that the nosecone would be inconsistent with the rest of the debris.

This is not a contradiction of the “official story”- it’s the process of scientific inquiry. When other individuals claim that it was some sort of an energy blast or the landing gear, we examine their evidence to see which conclusion is more sound- if it has to be one or the other. In the case of landing gear or energy blast, it doesn’t really need to be one or the other, since both possibilities are not in contradiction of one another. It could have been an energy blast which was quickly followed by debris like the landing gear. It could have also been landing gear quickly followed by an energy blast. As to which came first- it’s irrelevant and entirely uninteresting. We see evidence for both: the landing gear came to rest at the point of the C-Ring, and there are certainly repeatable and verifiable experiments which show a blast wave could have caused the damage to the C-Ring.

What caused the damage to the C-Ring? What difference does it make? The evidence clearly suggests that it was the landing gear- or a blast wave- or a combination of the both. Until evidence to the contrary is presented, there is no “contradiction” to the “official story”. Furthermore, if new evidence is introduced, that evidence would then become part of the scientific record, and therefore the “official story”. Since there is absolutely no evidence of a missile, and in fact a mountain of evidence that it was- in fact- AA 77, any claims that it was anything else need to be met with some extreme skepticism, and a high demand for verifiable evidence. There would need to be a clear explanation for the existence of the FDR, flight path damage, DNA and remains, witnesses, plane parts, etc. This is not “poking holes” in the conspiracists fantasy- this is pointing out that when they claim to be “Just Asking Questions” or “seeking the truth”, their motive is often far more sinister: to deny the evidence and reject reality.

Is that my final answer? No, I reserve the right to change my position- and in fact often do- based on the available evidence. That’s what science is.

Filed in 9/11 Conspiracies, Conspiracy Theories | Comments (6)

Casualties of War

Friday, December 7, 2007

The first casualty of war is the truth- a quote attributed to many individuals which rings true for the war against irrationality. Not only is truth the first causality, but logic quickly follows. A good indicator of irrational thinking is when an individual contradicts themselves repeatedly. In reality, contradictions do not exist- which is why arriving at a contradiction means that one should “check their premises, you will find that one or more of them is often wrong.”

Conspiracy theories are often chock full of contradictions and gullible folks are caught repeating those contradictions without thinking them through. For a large majority of the 9/11 conspiracists, this is due to their political position. They hate Bush / this government / government in general, so soaking up anything anti-Bush / anti-American / anti-government is easy- whether it makes sense or not is unimportant. One need to look no further than the claim of a conspiracy theory regarding 9/11 itself to see a gigantic example of this: I have yet to see any conspiracist give me a full timeline of the events of 9/11 without contradicting the major events. What I mean is- a conspiracist will say that WTC 1 & 2 were taken down by controlled demolition, but Flight 93 was shot down. One event demands government involvement- the other suggests that the government knew nothing of what was happening, and is covering that lack of knowledge up. It makes no sense.

This lack of consistency was recently perfectly demonstrated by the same blujesus character I mentioned in another post. In a somewhat dishonest attempt to answer the 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge, blujesus presented some of his criteria- one of which was so blatantly contradictory that it’s puzzling that as of this post, he still tries to defend it.

According to blujesus, if Bush were to testify under oath before an independent commission (one he says should be headed by Kucinich), then blujesus would admit that he is wrong. The political bias is immediately easy to see, but it goes far deeper than just identifying political figures which he likes or dislikes. He is of course attempting to hitch on to the facts of the 9/11 Commission and use them for his own political advantage. Whether he realizes it or not, it’s that very act of positioning that is likely the reason that Bush refused to be placed under oath during his testimony.

First, this does not even qualify as a response to my question (I ask for a fact or piece of evidence specifically to avoid this sort of dogma) and is instead a demand for action, which is covered in the earlier post regarding common answers to the Challenge. Second, to imply that the individual who blujesus would be accusing of the murder of 3,000 people would suddenly be so overwhelmed by the power of oath as to admit to his crimes is highly irrational. I not only find it hard to believe- but am certain that the statistics would support the statement that it’s unusual if not unheard of that putting someone under oath would force them to admit to their crimes- especially a crime as heinous and insane as the multitude that conspiracists accuse Bush of. When it was pointed out to blujesus that this criteria was self-defeating, his response was to fall back to his real reason behind the post. He did not address the rationality of his claim, but instead attempted a strawman argument claiming that putting people under oath is legitimate, other people have been put under oath, and that I must be rejecting the sanity of judges and prosecutors who put others under oath. This tirade continues to be his primary defense against my rebuttal, despite the fact that I have corrected him numerous times.

How can people like blujesus not see the outright stupidity of their claims? I tried another approach- to follow his logic to its conclusion. I asked him- if Bush were to placed under oath and sat quiet, lied, made a bunch of monkey noises, or maybe even just got up and left- would blujesus still admit that he’s wrong? Of course, he was unable to answer the question and instead continued to try to impose his strawman. Would he admit that people can lie under oath? Yes- he was capable of doing that, but insisted that the truth still comes out through investigation. He failed to notice that he shot himself in the foot by admitting that truth is not only objective and unrelated to the act of putting someone under oath, but is indeed discovered through investigation. Though he admits to small pieces of his story being inconsistent, he’s incapable of committing to the fact that it’s entirely irrational. He recognizes that facts are facts regardless of whether someone admits to them or not- he recognizes that putting someone under oath will not suddenly make them truthful- and is even willing to admit that previous attempts to put people under oath have not exactly been successful (he attempted to use Clinton as an example… when I pointed out that Clinton lied, he retreated back to his previous strawman argument).

So what gives? If an argument is made up of A and B and both A and B are found to be false, why would a person still try to maintain that argument- even after admitting it’s clearly wrong?

When you arrive at a contradiction- check your premises, you will find that one of them is often wrong. It’s not that people like blujesus are interested in truth or even addressing my Challenge- which would be a fair assumption since he’s trying to respond to my Challenge- instead, they are interesting in political puppet shows where they can shove their hand straight up the puppethole of some politician they do not like and make him do things they would not normally do. When their fantasy is threatened, they attack the individual pleading for reason by forcing him to watch the puppet show and demand that he support or condemn a particular actor. The brute force strawman arguments necessary to perform this kind of a puppet show have produced such a ridiculous string of claims that it’s difficult to keep track of what blujesus even believes at any given moment (even by his own words). He is often forced to ignore 3 or 4 rounds of questions just to keep repeating his strawman arguments, and then suddenly claims victory for no reason at all.

I turn the spotlight on this sort of thinking because it’s the greatest threat to reason as I see it- individuals who are so blindly wrapped up in their own hatred or fueled by a passion pushed onto them by individuals seeking to manipulate their very sense of being. I don’t really believe that blujesus is capable of putting forth the argument on his own- because I don’t see him defending it with any sort of thought process- he’s just repeating what he’s told to repeat and puking out catch phrases that he’s memorized from various sources. It’s that sort of hatred and manipulation that has caused a large majority of the 9/11 conspiracists in the US and elsewhere to believe what they believe. It’s not through careful consideration of the facts, scientific inquiry, critical thinking, or anything of any objective rational process- it’s pure political dogma.

Filed in 9/11 Conspiracies, Conspiracy Theories, Philosophy, Politics, The War | Comments (4)

Conspiracism and Bigotry

Friday, November 30, 2007

Conspiracists often whine that they are compared or associated with Antisemitic elements within the movement. The problem is that this issue is inherent in the “us” and “them” attitude that conspiracists often espouse. By this, I mean any time a conspiracist claims that “the government is” such and such.

The method involves first categorizing any action by any government official as “the government”. “The government” is capable of lying, therefore everything “the government” says is a lie. This is the fallacy of division: the entity A contains a property of B, therefore all the parts of A contain the property of B. This is a very powerful and dangerous fallacy as I will explain below- first, let’s see it in practice.

A recent example of this comes from YouTube user blujesus, who has tried to claim that by admitting that “no one has ever said the government is incapable of lying” (a quote he mined from an earlier response I gave, which he then turned into a strawman) that I am now forced to admit that “the government” must be lying because it’s Commission Report was “supervised by an insider of one of the most dishonest administrations in history.” Here, we can see that’s he’s clearly trying to mix the parts with the whole: from “9/11 Commission” to “the government” to “an insider” and back to “the government” again without batting an eyelash. Logic obviously does not work this way- properties of entities are specific to those entities, not to the categories we may incorrectly put them in, unless those categories are of those properties. That’s tricky- but it’s why we need logic in the first place. A table (often) has 4 legs, a surface, and is typically used for resting things on, eating on, etc. A table is not an apple, because an apple does not have 4 legs, it does not have a large surface for putting things on and it is not used for eating on. A red table and a red apple are also not the same thing- just because they contain the property of red does not mean that an apple suddenly has legs and is used for eating on.

How is this bigotry? Conspiracists need to identify an enemy- it joins them in a common goal against someone else. Being against “bad things” isn’t much of a motivator for long periods of time, and having your enemy be only a couple of easily identifiable characters narrows the movement down to something that has limitations. Instead, conspiracists draw the irrational conclusion that “them” is any person place or thing that could be qualified as “government”. (In the end, however, this only hurts the credibility of the claims because it means that a gigantic entity would have to be “in on it”.)

This fallacy is one in the same with racism- a term I do not use lightly. Do not be confused- I am clearly not saying that conspiracists are necessarily racists- I am saying that the same error in thinking- if applied consistently- would allow an individual to draw conclusions which are racist (this blank person is a liar, he has a skin color/heritage/country of origin that is A, therefore all people of A are liars). This is why we do see a large part of the movement being Antisemitic: the fallacy necessary to draw that conclusion is the exact same one that allows someone to conclude that everyone who works for “the government” is a liar, murderer, crook, shill, paid off, etc. Thankfully- conspiracists are nothing if not inconsistent. This allows skeptics / debunkers / scientists to point out these errors and pull conspiracists out of the downward spiral that ends in Antisemitic claims, racist thoughts, or other conclusions of bigotry. This- however- does not work if the person started out as a racist, Antisemite, or a raging bigot- because they drew their conclusions out of hatred and convenience, not simple error.

This issue is more generally discussed in my video: Conspiracists Mantra

YouTube Preview Image

You can see blujesus making this error in the comments, here.

Filed in 9/11 Conspiracies, Conspiracy Theories, Objectivism, Philosophy, The War | Comments (1)

LC:FC Protest Final Thoughts

Sunday, November 11, 2007

After flyering the release of Loose Change: Final Cut at the local theater, one thought really sticks in my head. It should come as no surprise that people repeat lies which have already been debunked, but it was still amazing to me how many people are unfamiliar with the facts surrounding the collapse of Building 7. From the “pull it” claims to the “free fall” myth, the most popular claims at this event were surrounding that question: “What about Building 7?”

Of course, it’s easy to just assume people don’t actually want to know the facts, but I still feel compelled to respond to those claims- even though they have been debunked for quite some time.

For anyone who thinks that there’s some sort of great mystery surrounding the collapse of Building 7, please visit my links section to get access to the information necessary to satisfy some of that curiosity. In addition, the following videos really strike at the heart of the lies by the conspiracists regarding the collapse of WTC 7:

YouTube Preview Image YouTube Preview Image YouTube Preview Image
Filed in 9/11 Conspiracies, Conspiracy Theories | Comments (0)

9/11 Truth MN Hosts LC:FC Screening

Friday, November 9, 2007

Loose Change: Final Cut will be shown at the Riverview Theater in Minneapolis on Sunday, hosted by 9/11 Truth MN. (Correction: That’s MN 9/11 Truth, not to be confused with 9/11 Truth MN)

From the website:

The premier showing of Loose Change Final Cut, a documentary that examines the events of September 11, 2001, will be shown at the River Theater in Minneapolis.

Loose Change Final Cut
Riverview Theater
3800 42nd Ave S., Minneapolis
4:30 p.m. Sunday November 11, 2007

Cost $6.00

This new film draws from research and evidence gathered since the release of earlier Loose Change versions and will be substantially different in content and presentation. Loose Change Final Cut includes never-before-seen interviews with numerous witnesses to the September 11 attacks. The evidence collated for the film has been fact-checked for accuracy by Dr. David Ray Griffin, author of several books on 9/11.

A producer of Loose Change Final Cut, Jason Bermas, will speak to the audience after the movie screening.

An event I will not be able to miss.

Expect pictures, video, pamphlets, and a wonderful story. Do not expect a review of the film.

Filed in 9/11 Conspiracies, Conspiracy Theories | Comments (0)

Feature: YouTube Hall Of Shame

Thursday, October 25, 2007

I’ve added a new page which includes a running list of individuals who have been suspended and/or blocked from my YouTube Channel. Part of the reason for doing this is it gets difficult to keep track of everyone who needs to be unblocked as part of their suspension, but more importantly the claim that I block people because I’m afraid of them has no merit- this list shows that. Individuals who have been permanently banned from my Channel have either participated in repeated spamming efforts or have threatened me. On a couple of rare occasions, bots have been immediately blocked- but I don’t think anyone cries over them.

On my YouTube Channel, there’s roughly 50 or so people currently blocked. I can’t remember why each of these individuals were blocked, and it’s certainly not important enough to go back through the comments and figure them all out. Instead, from this point forward I will keep a transparent list of these individuals as well as what my personal policies are.

Filed in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

FDA Admits It’s Useless

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Every year, roughly 65 million prescriptions are given for drugs which have not been approved by the FDA. Surely, one would expect that evil mega drug manufacturers would be taking advantage of loopholes in the system- but this level of circumvention must be resulting in the deaths of millions of people, right? If the FDA was really a regulatory agency that was doing some good- then the process by which it approves drugs would be precise, but expedient- the drugs that have not yet been approved have certainly been held back due to the dangers, right?

That is- assuming the FDA was necessary.

Many people have trouble with the thought of an open pharmaceutical market- where drug manufacturers can produce and sell what they want and it’s up to doctors and patients as to what’s necessary and what’s beneficial, but what a lot of people don’t know is that it’s already happening. Due to a rather ridiculous procedure in which the FDA assigns a National Drug Code (NDC Number) to each drug, even prior to its approval- there is no real identifying difference between a drug that has been approved and one that has not. Pharmacies use this code to identify different drugs (since that’s what it’s made for) and nobody has bothered to modify the process to distinguish between an approved, pending, or maybe even a drug that was not approved… just a thought. Drug manufacturers take advantage of this and market drugs which have not been approved; pharmacies rarely know the difference, and doctors are far too busy keeping their waiting rooms full of at least 11 people to bother to check on the status of the drugs they are prescribing. Can you really blame them, though? If the drug works…

And herein lies the rub: if patients are not dying left and right from these unapproved drugs, then what do we even need the FDA for?

It seems as if the FDA even recognizes this little contradiction. On its website regarding unapproved drugs, it refuses to list the unapproved drugs for fear that individuals will get the wrong idea and stop taking a drug that may actually be helping. Funny. From the Q&A:

Some unapproved drugs, such as phenobarbital, used to control seizures, are very important therapies in the treatment of significant medical conditions and appear to have benefits for patients, so patients should not stop taking an unapproved drug without talking to their doctor first to determine their best treatment options. However, being
unapproved means a drug’s safety, effectiveness, manufacturing, and labeling have not been specifically reviewed by FDA.

What a novel concept, bypass the FDA altogether and just discuss it with your doctor.

A recent article on CNN has emphasized the worries of a public too attached to the teat of the FDA to recognize the irony of unapproved drugs helping people where the FDA would not. The problem, however, gets a bit more dangerous when irrational fear and an emotional attachment to the Nanny State prevent people from taking control of their own lives. When an unapproved drug seems to be doing well, the FDA has the advantage of looking the other way- it may seem a little silly that it can’t approve a drug that’s working, but it’s better than taking responsibility. When the opposite is the case- a drug seems to be doing poorly, or may have some undesirable side-effects- the FDA is stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place: do they actually do something about the drug and investigate, or do they just kowtow to public pressure and over-reaction and bring down the swift hammer of justice on these drugs to make it look as if the regulatory body is worth some good. The major drawback to the FDA acting on public pressure instead of good science, however, is that good drugs with a bad rap may be taken from the people that do need them.

Once again, what good is the FDA?

Drugs certainly do have side-effects- some even resulting in death. It’s quite the cliche that the side-effects of drugs are often worse than the symptoms they are supposed to be treating. The decision of whether to take that drug or not- even if it could result in death- should be left to the individual and their doctor. The benefits and risks must be weighed by the individual that matters the most- especially when the FDA and other regulatory bodies have shown that there is absolutely no purpose for their existence except to stunt the growth of the industry and act as a mediator in a dispute that doesn’t need to exist.

Filed in Philosophy, Politics | Comments (0)

Never Forget

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Six years ago today I was getting ready for work. A news story flashed across the screen stating a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. A horrible tragedy, I thought. Pilot error? Fog? How do you miss one of the largest buildings in the world? I pondered for just a bit, and then made my way to work. When I arrived my boss came running out to my car.

“Did you hear about the World Trade Center?” she asked. At which point I replied that I had heard about the plane that had accidentally hit the tower. She gave me a worried look, “No, there was a second one.”

At this point most Americans who had heard the news of the 2nd plane were arriving at one horrible conclusion: we were under attack.

Sadly, the close to 3,000 dead are just playthings for conspiracists. The lives of those lost on September 11th, 2001 are just a mind game. I have hope that some of them will realize their mistakes- that they will begin to place blame on those who are truly responsible.

Let us not forget who did this.

Let us not forget who died.

Filed in 9/11 Conspiracies, Conspiracy Theories | Comments (0)