@@justatiger6268 but how can you be happy when you are dead. Are you trying to say that regulations prevent public damage? It may work sometimes(ex: thalidomide) but not always(ex: oxycontin).
What I don't understand is how libertarians can be so completely suspicious of government, and yet so entirely blindly trusting of private interests altruism? These are the same people in different jobs, if you can't trust them in government (where they're incentive is just to do as little work as possible), why would you trust them to make themselves rich (when that is their biggest incentive)?
"What I don't understand is how libertarians can be so completely suspicious of government, and yet so entirely blindly trusting of private interests altruism? " Because companies can't force you to do stuff.
Libertarians point out that there is collusion between companies and the government all the time. Government is sort of the key player there though. Well, if you say it's so, then it just must be the case. Oh, by the way. The libertarian TH-camr Shane Killian has made a video debunking one of Seder's videos on the FDA. It's called "I Seder Moron". You're welcome! ;)
Ha! :D Worst attempt to avoid counterarguments, ever! "The problem with libertarianism too is it denies literally hundreds of years political history." Yes, when libertarians constantly talk and write about political history, we deny it. " the more and more they concede that the government needs to do. " That's why libertarians pretty much never concede anything like that. Just genius! You've really figured it all out, haven't you? ;)
i always find it odd that libertarians seem to think the rich will take the best interests of the poor over their own interests.... the pinto is a perfect example. they did the maths, and they determined that settling lawsuits would be cheaper than fixing a deadly defect(yeah, your car exploding in a small collision is a deadly defect), so they didnt fix it. and that's in a country with public courts, which are much more difficult to buy than private courts. letting a company sponsor its own studies on its own drugs is like letting a goat look over your lettuce....it will eat it. for a very short time many years ago i considered myself a libertarian. the whole idea of unbridled liberty seems like something nobody can be against....just like life and choice.....but pretty labels are usually just that.....once you see all their positions about unregulated markets and letting the rich take absolute control of everything.......it completely shatters the illusion....
How ironic: the United States of America was one of the few if not the only western country where thalidomide was not sold (except for a few cases where it was given to patients). In Europe pregnant women and their newborns were not as fortunate; thousands were born with severely deformed arms and legs, many died soon after. Thalidomide is basically the reason why most people have a bad view of pharma industry. Few people know why but most know something is wrong. And best part; why wasn't it sold in the USA? Because of ONE FDA inspector who did her job. She literally saved thousands by standing up to immense pressure from her superiors and the drug company. I somehow doubt she could have done the same today.
David Glover That's an okay example, but homeopathy never actively killed anyone. I've got a much better example though: Radithor. If you've never heard of it, go look it up. You won't be disappointed.
in the case of this product it should have been tested by the FDA .once tested on lab rats the FDA should demand that all the results be summarized and listed on the back of the bottlethen then the producer should be allowed to sell the product with a summary of the FDA test results on the bottle and after the FDA has issued public warnings about the product via television and radioher issue was the amount of power the agency hasnot it's existence
her issue with the FDA was the POWER that the FDA has to remove a product from store shelves not it's ability to inform consumers of a products dangers
@@wvu05 it should be mandatory that a company that places a drug on the store shelves also place all available information about the drug on the package
Whenever pressed to put their ideology into concrete terms and real situations, libertarians always lapse into stuttering buffoonery. I guess Ayn Rand should have written them a strategy manifesto.
if there are already scrupulous scammers and corrupt swindlers while we have the regulations, what makes her think that they would stop if you removed the regulations?
C0ct0pusPrime well they wouldn't be any of those things because there would be no laws protecting consumers that they could break. Just go look at the snake oil sales men and rampant fraud in the late 1800's and early 1900's companies would simply say whatever they wanted and the consumer had no recourse.
Sam to Libertarian numbskull: "Let's talk about something you do know about" Man, hat's a way of guaranteeing that this is gonna be a short fucking call.
They don't care. They think history is an interesting little sidebar, but when it comes to policy prescription, they are pure idealists (in the philosophical sense of the term). Incidentally these are the same cadre of people who accuse socialists of "not knowing history" bc we have an understanding of 20th century communism that goes beyond "Durrerrrr SOVIEt VENEZUELa" Sorry to get a little juvenile there, but to be perfectly honest I really don't have a lot of respect for libertarianism.
the truth is that the car was a danger to everyone on the road near it , it should have been pulled from the market by the government until the problem was fixed...……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………...endangerment is not protected under lo libertarianism
Libertarianism seems to be all about trusting the all-benevolent corporations, and picking up the pieces after all the damage is done rather than prevent it in the first place with law and regulation.
Preventing beta blockers from saving 119,000 lives is damage done by the FDA. How would any private company kill 119,000 people without anybody noticing? The government did and nobody cares. How ironic. If a company kills one person, it goes out of business.
Who is going to fund these private companies that test drugs?? What money is in the testing part? If you say the drug companies pitch in for it don’t you think they will want this companies to make their drugs pass? Are these libertarians seriously this ignorant?
She was a good caller in the way that she admits when she doesn’t know something and just wanted to have a real conversation about some things. I respect that
The problem is, she admits she doesn't know something, but she still defends the ideology. She gets her foundation knocked out, but shes still trying to fight over the color of curtains on the 2nd floor. Her argument is dead, it just doesn't have the courtesy to lie down. I can't respect that. Its dishonest.
voluntary funding, or the concept of "voluntary interactions" is something that is constantly spewed out by institutions like the Cato-institute, the Mises-insitute and the Rand foundation/institute. All of whom receive massive amounts of money from rich people. Voluntary funding is really just funding by the rich, as they will obviously by the ones capable of donating the most money. Ergo, you will have the same kind of "science" that proved that smoking wasnt dangerous at all.
First one of these that I've seen where the caller was a woman: first one where the caller admits not knowing anything at all. Interesting coincidence...
6 ปีที่แล้ว +1
As an above post noted; stupidity is equal opportunity.
Or _"I have a bridge to sell you."_ Apparently, someone named George C. Parker actually did sell the Brooklyn Bridge in the late 1800s multiple times, along with other NYC landmarks. _WHY?_ Why do people fall for this?
@@PR--un4ub Thank you. I made it by removing the heart from one picture and putting it on another where the background and heart would be noticeable without clashing when the picture is bigger but it can only be so big on TH-cam
@@goldenheart4575 Say...there's this video I'll be working on in the near future and your picture would be a fantastic addition to the final product. Would you be willing to share it for the cause? I'll afford you all the credit you deserve, if you wish to receive recognition.
Not in the short term. Without a government body to regulate and penalize, I could setup a system that would have large short term gains, then set aside a portion of profits to cover lawsuits (as not everyone will sue, only a very small portion will), declare bankruptcy, and then use the fund to cover anything I can't weasel out of. After which I just start a new company, rinse and repeat.
In the U.S., representatives from Chemie Grünenthal approached Smith, Kline & French (SKF), now GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) with a request to market and distribute the drug in North America. A memorandum rediscovered in 2010 in the archives of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shows that, as part of its in-licensing approach, Smith, Kline and French conducted animal tests and ran a clinical trial of the drug in the United States involving 875 people, including pregnant women, in 1956-57.[citation needed] In 1956, researchers at SKF involved in clinical trials noted that even when used in very high doses, thalidomide could not induce sleep in mice.[citation needed] And when administered at doses 50 to 650 times larger than that claimed by Chemie Grünenthal to be "sleep inducing", the researchers could still not achieve the hypnotic effect in animals that it had on humans.[citation needed] After completion of the trial, and based on reasons kept hidden for decades, SKF declined to commercialize the drug. Later, Chemie Grünenthal, in 1958, reached an agreement with William S Merrell Company in Cincinnati, Ohio, (later Richardson-Merrell, now part of Sanofi), to market and distribute thalidomide throughout the United States.[4][dead link] --->The U.S. FDA refused to approve thalidomide for marketing and distribution.
Nevermind the fact that several years ago, big companies shacked up with politicians and campaigned to put caps on amounts one can receive in a lawsuit. So yeah, you try taking care of a profoundly disabled child with only something like a $250k payout (as what happened to one couple after their child was irreversibly brain damaged due to obvious malpractice).
5:10 "That was an FDA approved drug, wasn't it?" I think this question is interesting because I think a lot of people who would ask this are more interested in black and white answers; as though the FDA has acted then as it acts now, and that it's the embodiment of it's staunch advocates and architects. The reality is that a lot of these government organizations are compromised upon implementation to get them established, and then they're molded and bent to the agenda of future congresses.
Combing through the comments and not a single person pointed out that this is likely not an actual female libertarian, it's more likely a pre-pubescent teenage boy. The lad probably has experience in online gaming about being called a girl due to his youthful sounding voice, and he took this and ran with that when calling in in order to garner more respect from Sam so as to not be immediately written off, since libertarianism as an ideology primarily only applies to immature minds. Now, I'm not going entirely off the tone, you can also garner by the inflection in the voice, pacing, and general lack of wisdom. It was just an inference at first, but after listening to it all I'm a lot more sure of it.
The reason we know the risk is because the surgeon general took them to court over it. The company fought tooth and nail to try and have it suppressed.
It's a really simple concept: Divide and Conquer. We either all work together to protect our common interests -- our shared property -- or we get crushed. It's that simple.
I have a question for libertarians: if there were no FDA, & one was injured, made ill or was given a birth defect by an unsafe drug, how would you know that the drug caused your illness injury or birth defect & furthermore how would you prove such in court?
Sam is incredibly patient and understanding even with morons like these. I mean if I was the one answering calls from these idiots I would just laugh in their faces and ridicule them at every given chance.
Libertarians out here arguing "do you know how many people suffer because a bespoke drug is restricted due to being unsafe" as though taking all the regulations off the industry would cause a net decrease in suffering. My guy, many of those people suffering from not having the FDA-disapproved medication will most likely continue to suffer but in new, horrible ways, AND their friends and family will also suffer because their medication is no longer monitored by a neutral agency.
6 ปีที่แล้ว +2
The primary function of government is to protect the weak (through collective influence) from the strong. Otherwise I just bust you in the chops and take your stuff.
Whats with the obsession with law suits? First of all, a law suit cant change the fact that you been critically damaged, maybe even for life. Secondly, have anyone of these libertarians ever tried going to court against massive corporations? You`re not on equal grounds at all. Oil and oil related companies are often sewed in the third world, and the majority of the times the corporations win in court.
Right, he didnt despute that it was approved, his point was that FDA kept an eye on it and forced it off the market, where as without a regulatory body watching, we would be lucky if any media wasnt paid off or didnt notice the trend for a much longer time, leading to many more issues before it was finally taken off the market or replaced due to overwhelming evidence that couldnt be hidden.
Tobacco companies didn't just "not disclose" information about their products, they fought tooth and nail to deceive the public and counter all evidence that their product was harmful. As alvcard2 says, we know the risks largely because of government intervention.
The Hippocratic oath is a formality, and it has radically changed over the centuries. It even has different forms at different schools. The original oath forbade surgery, which was the province of blacksmiths. Doctors regularly have to "do harm" by prescribing drugs with side effects, and doctors in Oregon can prescribe intentionally lethal drugs.
Sam - next time you give the Thali-do-mide example, which is great, know that this is how it's pronounced, just sayin.. anyways, it's always so painful to hear these folks. They use tech to call in, tech that would probably not be possible without government and would cost them arms, legs and kidneys if private companies took care of everything, and still spew their idiotic, juvenile tantrumy, unrealistic arguments from the comfort of their modern-age homes and not off-grid caves.
Brilliant marketing plan from Ford executive: "What if we just tell the customers that the car might explode! Then we couldn't be sued, because we have truthfully advertised our product. And luckily no other people on the highway, who decided not to buy our defective cars, will be affected by a car exploding in front of them, so they won't be able to punish us in any way either. It's the perfect solution, where yes, there are an untold number of unnecessary deaths and horrific hours-long traffic jams, and the whole population will surely be traumatized every time they get into almost any car, not just ours, but at least we won't be living under the tyranny of an agency that regulates drugs for causing birth defects."
You've just described the current corporatist system, but instead of having to start new companies, they just get more bailouts and more gov't protection.
If you can't get the cancer drug because the FDA hasn't approved it, yet, the state of Oregon has an alternative. As the Oregon Health Plan explained to a woman dying of cancer in a letter, she still has the option of physician-assisted suicide. Blue America takes care of its own!
Ppl in the U.S. die all the time from FDA approved drugs. The FDA is in bed with big pharma and doesn't grant licenses to natural medicines. Who knows how many ppl have died because some medicine was waiting years to get approved.
not that I agree with any of them (though Sam is definitely more convincing and knows how to present his arguments, while lady seems to lack knowledge and just wants to tell useless talking points), I've checked Ford Pinto "the number who died in Pinto rear-impact fires was well below the hundreds cited in contemporary news reports and closer to the 27 recorded by a limited National Highway Traffic Safety Administration database, with over 2 million built" is there any dispute over this report?
Its more likely than getting rid of the federal government, FDA, EPA, and all the other protective regulatory bodies. Which I'm guessing is what you advocate
Wow this person has a new level of know-nothing going on in their head. She thinks people will know that the cause of their health problems is the drug and they will find out by word of mouth. She also thinks that you would be able to mount a case against a corporation with your claims of its side effects when no one is doing a study on it. How hard does this person try to not think?
Sorry, but first the FDA is not doing the testing, they are checking theset-up and results of clinical studies. If you wanna use these unreleased products apply for the cllinical study where they are tested in humans.
please look up "shell company". It's legal to own a company that literally doesn't nothing. Look up the example he gave of the Ford Pinto. Ford knew how much it cost to go back & place a circular ring between the bumper & gas tank. It was massively more than paying out for each death. They went with running it out there knowing these facts. Corporations are amoral. They have no public goal aside from increasing profits. Some times good things can happen from that, sometimes not
Yeah, because adding layers of bureaucracy to everything really makes things affordable for poor ppl. It was the gov't in the first place who would only allow a privileged few to own land.
What you're describing is anarcho-capitalism, not libertarianism. The general sentiment of libertarians is "minarchism," or keeping the government as non-interventionist as possible, not abolishing the government. When we refer to excess regulation, we're talking about ridiculous zoning laws, limits on energy exploration, and simply red tape in general, not lead in the paint.
This is just playing into the libertarian fantasy that the company will have your best interest in mind and will just willy nilly disclose anything for you. This is why we have safety tests. This is why we have an FDA. This is why we have regulations. Because, it's been proven again and again that companies will cross lines if it still means they're profitable in the end.
You're assuming that I brought up race up first. However, I do think that race is biologically useful information. The irony is that liberals only used to call race a just a social construct. Now that genes like MAOA are known to exist in different amounts in different races, liberals are trying to say that such genes act differently in different races due to biological differences, in order to nullify differences of allele frequency.
That's right, if I take a drug and it ends up killing me I swear I'm going to sue the *living hell* out of that company.
Well, the ability to find someone who will take the case is pivotal....
Yeah money totally worth my baby with mo hands.
Even though you can't sue them, your family members and consumer protection groups will sue them on your behalf.
@@rajashashankgutta4334 and I will be super happy when they do
@@justatiger6268 but how can you be happy when you are dead.
Are you trying to say that regulations prevent public damage? It may work sometimes(ex: thalidomide) but not always(ex: oxycontin).
This girl's personal motto is "I don't think, therefore I am a Libertarian."
That's generally the libertarian motto.
What I don't understand is how libertarians can be so completely suspicious of government, and yet so entirely blindly trusting of private interests altruism? These are the same people in different jobs, if you can't trust them in government (where they're incentive is just to do as little work as possible), why would you trust them to make themselves rich (when that is their biggest incentive)?
"What I don't understand is how libertarians can be so completely suspicious of government, and yet so entirely blindly trusting of private interests altruism? "
Because companies can't force you to do stuff.
Libertarians point out that there is collusion between companies and the government all the time. Government is sort of the key player there though.
Well, if you say it's so, then it just must be the case.
Oh, by the way. The libertarian TH-camr Shane Killian has made a video debunking one of Seder's videos on the FDA. It's called "I Seder Moron". You're welcome! ;)
Ha! :D Worst attempt to avoid counterarguments, ever!
"The problem with libertarianism too is it denies literally hundreds of years political history."
Yes, when libertarians constantly talk and write about political history, we deny it.
" the more and more they concede that the government needs to do. "
That's why libertarians pretty much never concede anything like that. Just genius! You've really figured it all out, haven't you? ;)
i always find it odd that libertarians seem to think the rich will take the best interests of the poor over their own interests....
the pinto is a perfect example. they did the maths, and they determined that settling lawsuits would be cheaper than fixing a deadly defect(yeah, your car exploding in a small collision is a deadly defect), so they didnt fix it. and that's in a country with public courts, which are much more difficult to buy than private courts.
letting a company sponsor its own studies on its own drugs is like letting a goat look over your lettuce....it will eat it.
for a very short time many years ago i considered myself a libertarian. the whole idea of unbridled liberty seems like something nobody can be against....just like life and choice.....but pretty labels are usually just that.....once you see all their positions about unregulated markets and letting the rich take absolute control of everything.......it completely shatters the illusion....
All libertarians are id people who dont want to pay taxes and retroactively trying to justify it unsuccessfully
How ironic: the United States of America was one of the few if not the only western country where thalidomide was not sold (except for a few cases where it was given to patients). In Europe pregnant women and their newborns were not as fortunate; thousands were born with severely deformed arms and legs, many died soon after. Thalidomide is basically the reason why most people have a bad view of pharma industry. Few people know why but most know something is wrong.
And best part; why wasn't it sold in the USA? Because of ONE FDA inspector who did her job. She literally saved thousands by standing up to immense pressure from her superiors and the drug company. I somehow doubt she could have done the same today.
If my car blows up, I'm not buying it again.
I might even file a negative Yelp! review.
"People aren't that gullible"
Of course they are, ever heard of homeopathy?
David Glover That's an okay example, but homeopathy never actively killed anyone. I've got a much better example though: Radithor. If you've never heard of it, go look it up. You won't be disappointed.
Or religion.
in the case of this product it should have been tested by the FDA .once tested on lab rats the FDA should demand that all the results be summarized and listed on the back of the bottlethen then the producer should be allowed to sell the product with a summary of the FDA test results on the bottle and after the FDA has issued public warnings about the product via television and radioher issue was the amount of power the agency hasnot it's existence
he keeps asking her if drugs should be released to the public without being tested after she said three times that drugs should be tested first
homeopathy is the best medicine for imaginary illnesses.
wow, a female libertarian!
Zatzzo she must be super popular at the get gatherings.
@Zatzzo I was thinking the same thing. First one I've ever heard.
@Zatzzo, I was thinking the same thing, first female libertarian I've ever heard.
Just as dumb
but i still wouldnt put it past her to bring up age of consent law lmao
The FDA should take libertarianism off the market immediately for causing an epidemic of stupidity.
Don't call in to defend your ideology when you're high.
her issue with the FDA was the POWER that the FDA has to remove a product from store shelves not it's ability to inform consumers of a products dangers
@@robinsss So, does this mean that you're fine with poison being on the shelf in case someone doesn't have the good fortune to have seen that warning?
@@wvu05 it should be mandatory that a company that places a drug on the store shelves also place all available information about the drug on the package
@@robinsss It should be mandatory that poison is taken off the shelves.
@@wvu05 rat poison?
Google FDA Compassionate Care Use. The FDA will let people take unapproved drugs if there is no other option.
Thalidomide was for morning sickness in pregnancy!
Natures way of NOT letting the crap you ate last night threaten the next generation.
I have been on a several hour long sam vs libertarian over the past couple days and this is the FIRST non man who has called. Good on ya jessica😊
Imagine thinking that the American FDA is TOO STRICT with it's regulations...
Just because you are not aware of something happening, does not mean it's not happening. the caller needs to scrutinize more companies.
I love how her answer to almost everything Sam brought up was "I don't really know much about that." What *do* you know?
She knows she comes from money and doesn't have any real problems at all.
Libertarians are really good at not knowing much about the very things that they espouse. For example, feudalism.
Whenever pressed to put their ideology into concrete terms and real situations, libertarians always lapse into stuttering buffoonery. I guess Ayn Rand should have written them a strategy manifesto.
Caller should have looked up what a trial study is and that doctors for patients dying will suggest trial studies for new drugs.
if there are already scrupulous scammers and corrupt swindlers while we have the regulations, what makes her think that they would stop if you removed the regulations?
C0ct0pusPrime well they wouldn't be any of those things because there would be no laws protecting consumers that they could break. Just go look at the snake oil sales men and rampant fraud in the late 1800's and early 1900's companies would simply say whatever they wanted and the consumer had no recourse.
Well you can sue them for fraud.
Sam to Libertarian numbskull: "Let's talk about something you do know about" Man, hat's a way of guaranteeing that this is gonna be a short fucking call.
Libertarians are masters at inflating their own ignorance...from a pea to a beachball.
You can tell she just followed libertarian propaganda and didn't question it ever
That's a pre-requisite for being a libertarian.
I just do not get it do these people not know any history
Mike snyder They either know no history, or just ignore it when it’s inconvenient (which is always).
ZachyZachyZach 'A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest'
They don't care. They think history is an interesting little sidebar, but when it comes to policy prescription, they are pure idealists (in the philosophical sense of the term). Incidentally these are the same cadre of people who accuse socialists of "not knowing history" bc we have an understanding of 20th century communism that goes beyond "Durrerrrr SOVIEt VENEZUELa"
Sorry to get a little juvenile there, but to be perfectly honest I really don't have a lot of respect for libertarianism.
they are purposely ignorant of everything that shows how stupid libertarianism is
Some of these Libertarian callers lack critical thinking skills....
All of them lack critical thinking skills.
Most
The notion that being able to sue and maybe get some money solves everything is just crazy.
the notion of preventing people from putting whatever the hell they want into their body is just crazy.
@@bruhbruh6315 Willingly sure, but that's not what this was about at all. Thanks for playing.
@@bruhbruh6315 Red herring fallacies are just crazy eh? Maybe you don't know what that is. Maybe you won't look it up yourself.
MY HEAD JUST EXPLODED/ Must have been a Pinto.
How dare you infringe on my right to roast alive in my own car! Just because the company cut corners and allowed my car to be a death trap!
They saved $25 PER Pinto by NOT fixing the inferno issue.
25$ per? Dang really was worth it
the truth is that the car was a danger to everyone on the road near it , it should have been pulled from the market by the government until the problem was fixed...……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………...endangerment is not protected under lo libertarianism
Is the only female libertarian to ever call in to Sam?
Sam is so respectful. Idk how he doesn't get more frustrated
Libertarianism seems to be all about trusting the all-benevolent corporations, and picking up the pieces after all the damage is done rather than prevent it in the first place with law and regulation.
Preventing beta blockers from saving 119,000 lives is damage done by the FDA. How would any private company kill 119,000 people without anybody noticing? The government did and nobody cares. How ironic. If a company kills one person, it goes out of business.
@@firstlast9916 Just yesterday there was a 26 billion dollar settlement over opiods.
Short-term casualties are always acceptable to libertarians.
@@PR--un4ub liberals killed 119,000 people by restricting beta blocker and they say libertarians are not compassionate.
@@firstlast9916 How many people did the Sacklers kill again?
Who is going to fund these private companies that test drugs?? What money is in the testing part?
If you say the drug companies pitch in for it don’t you think they will want this companies to make their drugs pass?
Are these libertarians seriously this ignorant?
She was a good caller in the way that she admits when she doesn’t know something and just wanted to have a real conversation about some things. I respect that
The problem is, she admits she doesn't know something, but she still defends the ideology. She gets her foundation knocked out, but shes still trying to fight over the color of curtains on the 2nd floor. Her argument is dead, it just doesn't have the courtesy to lie down. I can't respect that. Its dishonest.
voluntary funding, or the concept of "voluntary interactions" is something that is constantly spewed out by institutions like the Cato-institute, the Mises-insitute and the Rand foundation/institute. All of whom receive massive amounts of money from rich people. Voluntary funding is really just funding by the rich, as they will obviously by the ones capable of donating the most money. Ergo, you will have the same kind of "science" that proved that smoking wasnt dangerous at all.
Honestly more and more these calls sound like Sam Seder teaching a high school civics class.
Interesting, the libertardian obsession with the FDA.
First one of these that I've seen where the caller was a woman: first one where the caller admits not knowing anything at all. Interesting coincidence...
As an above post noted; stupidity is equal opportunity.
Libertarianism in a nutshell:"We don't need planning or laws bro,everything would just automatically work out bro"
She's a libertarian. It's not just a sound.
was she being held at gunpoint? she seemed really disinterested in the convo
“I don’t think people are that gullible”
Are you familiar with the term “snake oil”?
There is a reason
Or _"I have a bridge to sell you."_ Apparently, someone named George C. Parker actually did sell the Brooklyn Bridge in the late 1800s multiple times, along with other NYC landmarks. _WHY?_ Why do people fall for this?
@@goldenheart4575 Off topic: I dig your avatar and name.
@@PR--un4ub Thank you. I made it by removing the heart from one picture and putting it on another where the background and heart would be noticeable without clashing when the picture is bigger but it can only be so big on TH-cam
@@goldenheart4575 Say...there's this video I'll be working on in the near future and your picture would be a fantastic addition to the final product. Would you be willing to share it for the cause? I'll afford you all the credit you deserve, if you wish to receive recognition.
@@PR--un4ub You can use it and you don't need to credit me. What is the video you are working on?
Not in the short term. Without a government body to regulate and penalize, I could setup a system that would have large short term gains, then set aside a portion of profits to cover lawsuits (as not everyone will sue, only a very small portion will), declare bankruptcy, and then use the fund to cover anything I can't weasel out of. After which I just start a new company, rinse and repeat.
They rushed Phen-,pen to market and that went so well....
the FDA doesn't actually test drugs. it evaluates the data the drug companies are required to provide.
true…………..………………………………………………………………………….the government should do the tests
She never rang back.
15:00
"Did the car company tell people it was gonna explode?"
- No, they didn't tell people that it was gonna explode.
(^___________^)
Can you just feature these on the majority report? It's my favourite thing in the world - hilarious.
In the U.S., representatives from Chemie Grünenthal approached Smith, Kline & French (SKF), now GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) with a request to market and distribute the drug in North America. A memorandum rediscovered in 2010 in the archives of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shows that, as part of its in-licensing approach, Smith, Kline and French conducted animal tests and ran a clinical trial of the drug in the United States involving 875 people, including pregnant women, in 1956-57.[citation needed] In 1956, researchers at SKF involved in clinical trials noted that even when used in very high doses, thalidomide could not induce sleep in mice.[citation needed] And when administered at doses 50 to 650 times larger than that claimed by Chemie Grünenthal to be "sleep inducing", the researchers could still not achieve the hypnotic effect in animals that it had on humans.[citation needed] After completion of the trial, and based on reasons kept hidden for decades, SKF declined to commercialize the drug. Later, Chemie Grünenthal, in 1958, reached an agreement with William S Merrell Company in Cincinnati, Ohio, (later Richardson-Merrell, now part of Sanofi), to market and distribute thalidomide throughout the United States.[4][dead link]
--->The U.S. FDA refused to approve thalidomide for marketing and distribution.
*A female libertarian? Is that legal?*
golden86 hahahahahaha. Good one mate
I will make it legal.
But jessica, I have no arms.
*thats just the way lawsuits work*
Oh 🤷♂️
"Well, there is now"....her parents must be so proud. .
This woman apparently has never heard about the tobacco industry.
I wonder how this lady feels about mRNA vaccines.....
Thank goodness she has the internet to do her own research. No harm can come to her 😂.
Nevermind the fact that several years ago, big companies shacked up with politicians and campaigned to put caps on amounts one can receive in a lawsuit. So yeah, you try taking care of a profoundly disabled child with only something like a $250k payout (as what happened to one couple after their child was irreversibly brain damaged due to obvious malpractice).
5:10 "That was an FDA approved drug, wasn't it?" I think this question is interesting because I think a lot of people who would ask this are more interested in black and white answers; as though the FDA has acted then as it acts now, and that it's the embodiment of it's staunch advocates and architects. The reality is that a lot of these government organizations are compromised upon implementation to get them established, and then they're molded and bent to the agenda of future congresses.
Combing through the comments and not a single person pointed out that this is likely not an actual female libertarian, it's more likely a pre-pubescent teenage boy. The lad probably has experience in online gaming about being called a girl due to his youthful sounding voice, and he took this and ran with that when calling in in order to garner more respect from Sam so as to not be immediately written off, since libertarianism as an ideology primarily only applies to immature minds.
Now, I'm not going entirely off the tone, you can also garner by the inflection in the voice, pacing, and general lack of wisdom. It was just an inference at first, but after listening to it all I'm a lot more sure of it.
As unlikely as it might sound, the likelihood of a female libertarian is even lower than that.
For God's sake, Sam, thah-lid-a-myde. Thalidomide.
Great interview, Sam.
True, it's hard to be a Libertarian if you actually know facts.
As soon as I heard the 469 area code, I knew this would not end well and I'd just like to point out not all of us in Texas are this stupid
it seems this girl has never heard of the cost benefits analysis
One again.. say it Sam: Thaa - Lidd - Aaah - Myde
The reason we know the risk is because the surgeon general took them to court over it. The company fought tooth and nail to try and have it suppressed.
"how do you explain things like ah er thamaldama er ah ma ah mide?????"
It's a really simple concept: Divide and Conquer. We either all work together to protect our common interests -- our shared property -- or we get crushed. It's that simple.
I have a question for libertarians: if there were no FDA, & one was injured, made ill or was given a birth defect by an unsafe drug, how would you know that the drug caused your illness injury or birth defect & furthermore how would you prove such in court?
is this the only female member of the libertarian party?
Sam is incredibly patient and understanding even with morons like these. I mean if I was the one answering calls from these idiots I would just laugh in their faces and ridicule them at every given chance.
That's what the comment section is for.
Libertarians out here arguing "do you know how many people suffer because a bespoke drug is restricted due to being unsafe" as though taking all the regulations off the industry would cause a net decrease in suffering.
My guy, many of those people suffering from not having the FDA-disapproved medication will most likely continue to suffer but in new, horrible ways, AND their friends and family will also suffer because their medication is no longer monitored by a neutral agency.
The primary function of government is to protect the weak (through collective influence) from the strong.
Otherwise I just bust you in the chops and take your stuff.
Whats with the obsession with law suits? First of all, a law suit cant change the fact that you been critically damaged, maybe even for life. Secondly, have anyone of these libertarians ever tried going to court against massive corporations? You`re not on equal grounds at all. Oil and oil related companies are often sewed in the third world, and the majority of the times the corporations win in court.
Right, he didnt despute that it was approved, his point was that FDA kept an eye on it and forced it off the market, where as without a regulatory body watching, we would be lucky if any media wasnt paid off or didnt notice the trend for a much longer time, leading to many more issues before it was finally taken off the market or replaced due to overwhelming evidence that couldnt be hidden.
Tobacco companies didn't just "not disclose" information about their products, they fought tooth and nail to deceive the public and counter all evidence that their product was harmful.
As alvcard2 says, we know the risks largely because of government intervention.
Internet seems to say that the actual effect of the pinto problem wasn't actually that bad.
This sounded like a college professor having a polite debate with a sixth grader.
The Hippocratic oath is a formality, and it has radically changed over the centuries. It even has different forms at different schools. The original oath forbade surgery, which was the province of blacksmiths. Doctors regularly have to "do harm" by prescribing drugs with side effects, and doctors in Oregon can prescribe intentionally lethal drugs.
I'm way more clever: I'm gona be super rich and, instead of buying a fantastic car, I'll buy 300 exploding cars.
What a bargain !
Sam - next time you give the Thali-do-mide example, which is great, know that this is how it's pronounced, just sayin.. anyways, it's always so painful to hear these folks. They use tech to call in, tech that would probably not be possible without government and would cost them arms, legs and kidneys if private companies took care of everything, and still spew their idiotic, juvenile tantrumy, unrealistic arguments from the comfort of their modern-age homes and not off-grid caves.
Brilliant marketing plan from Ford executive: "What if we just tell the customers that the car might explode! Then we couldn't be sued, because we have truthfully advertised our product. And luckily no other people on the highway, who decided not to buy our defective cars, will be affected by a car exploding in front of them, so they won't be able to punish us in any way either. It's the perfect solution, where yes, there are an untold number of unnecessary deaths and horrific hours-long traffic jams, and the whole population will surely be traumatized every time they get into almost any car, not just ours, but at least we won't be living under the tyranny of an agency that regulates drugs for causing birth defects."
You've just described the current corporatist system, but instead of having to start new companies, they just get more bailouts and more gov't protection.
Jessica sounds like an 11 year old boy. Hmmm
You know, you're right! I seem to remember from medical school that there are more than one cancer drugs.
Ppl that don't do research on what they buy, definitely aren't going to pay attention to what regulators are saying.
Sam has a lot of patience, coping with that caller...
If you can't get the cancer drug because the FDA hasn't approved it, yet, the state of Oregon has an alternative. As the Oregon Health Plan explained to a woman dying of cancer in a letter, she still has the option of physician-assisted suicide. Blue America takes care of its own!
Ppl in the U.S. die all the time from FDA approved drugs. The FDA is in bed with big pharma and doesn't grant licenses to natural medicines. Who knows how many ppl have died because some medicine was waiting years to get approved.
not that I agree with any of them (though Sam is definitely more convincing and knows how to present his arguments, while lady seems to lack knowledge and just wants to tell useless talking points), I've checked Ford Pinto
"the number who died in Pinto rear-impact fires was well below the hundreds cited in contemporary news reports and closer to the 27 recorded by a limited National Highway Traffic Safety Administration database, with over 2 million built" is there any dispute over this report?
Government is the creatorof the
Markets.
Property entails everything, your body, your belongings, the environment etc.
Perhaps when I have some time set aside I will do just that.
Its more likely than getting rid of the federal government, FDA, EPA, and all the other protective regulatory bodies. Which I'm guessing is what you advocate
Wow this person has a new level of know-nothing going on in their head. She thinks people will know that the cause of their health problems is the drug and they will find out by word of mouth. She also thinks that you would be able to mount a case against a corporation with your claims of its side effects when no one is doing a study on it. How hard does this person try to not think?
Sorry, but first the FDA is not doing the testing, they are checking theset-up and results of clinical studies. If you wanna use these unreleased products apply for the cllinical study where they are tested in humans.
15:55 Some might see it as juvenile, but I rather like the copying of the caller's "eh" in response to his comment.
please look up "shell company". It's legal to own a company that literally doesn't nothing. Look up the example he gave of the Ford Pinto. Ford knew how much it cost to go back & place a circular ring between the bumper & gas tank. It was massively more than paying out for each death. They went with running it out there knowing these facts. Corporations are amoral. They have no public goal aside from increasing profits. Some times good things can happen from that, sometimes not
Ah to be young and naive. I miss those days
Thalidomide is actually still in use as an anti nausea drug. Just NOT in pregnant women.
Yeah, because adding layers of bureaucracy to everything really makes things affordable for poor ppl. It was the gov't in the first place who would only allow a privileged few to own land.
These are the same people that complained about the vaccine being rushed
What you're describing is anarcho-capitalism, not libertarianism. The general sentiment of libertarians is "minarchism," or keeping the government as non-interventionist as possible, not abolishing the government. When we refer to excess regulation, we're talking about ridiculous zoning laws, limits on energy exploration, and simply red tape in general, not lead in the paint.
LMAO failure to disclose important information that the car was going to explode is this person serious?.
This is just playing into the libertarian fantasy that the company will have your best interest in mind and will just willy nilly disclose anything for you. This is why we have safety tests. This is why we have an FDA. This is why we have regulations. Because, it's been proven again and again that companies will cross lines if it still means they're profitable in the end.
I want Jim. Jim is da best.
You're assuming that I brought up race up first. However, I do think that race is biologically useful information. The irony is that liberals only used to call race a just a social construct. Now that genes like MAOA are known to exist in different amounts in different races, liberals are trying to say that such genes act differently in different races due to biological differences, in order to nullify differences of allele frequency.
"The fool isn't the one who sells it. The fool's the one who buys it."