Psycho-Babble Medication | about biological treatments | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Lou's reply-advertising

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 9, 2015, at 7:44:09

In reply to Lou's reply-The Constitution SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 9, 2015, at 7:01:36

> > > But by you being allowed to leave out material facts and the adverse consequences from the drugs that you promote here, innocent people could die for they could think that you and Mr. Hsiung are being supportive.
> >
> > Please don't accuse me of promoting the death of others by my language or lack of language, regardless of your definition of the word "supportive".
> >
> > I have the protection of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America to espouse my thoughts and suggest any medical substance or procedure I like. You have the same freedom to recommend that people avoid medical treatments, regardless of outcome. Of course, freedom of speech has its limits. Please be careful of how closely you approach yours.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > - Scott
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...Please do not accuse me of promoting death of others by my language or lack of language. regardless of your definition of he word "support"...].
> Death can happen from reading here that a drug is being promoted and the promoter leaves out material facts that if they were known to the reader, they could have a more-informed way to take the drug or not. Without a balanced posting of harmful reactions and by leaving out material facts about the consequences that the drug could inflict and death that could come from these drugs , readers could be misled to think that they are safer than they really are and continue to take the drug to their death.
> The FDA wants to protect the health of it's citizens and by people promoting drugs that can induce life-ruining conditions, addiction and death without being compliant with their rules, people could be deceived into believing a lie and be killed by the drugs. Freedom of speech does not annul the FDA rules to protect it's citizens. The FDA stops tobacco companies from attracting children by making the cigarette ads by them to comply with particular rules. That is not denying freedom of speech, but stopping deceit so that the harmful effects could be known. If you leave out material facts when you post a promotion of a drug here, mothers drugging their children in collaboration with a psychiatrist could be misled to believe the drug is safer than it really is that could result in the death of their child because Mr. Hsiung allows you to not be in compliance with FDA rules when promoting a drug here. Any children that are killed by the drugs because Mr. Hsiung does not comply with the rules of the FDA if he is required to do so, could bring up as to who could have their blood be upon them for the deaths. Could it be you? Could it be Mr. Hsiung? Could it be the FDA? Does the Constitution prohibit the FDA? Do not the citizens here have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness protected by the rules of the FDA to require the whole truth be posted about these drugs so that deaths from the drugs could be prevented? What about those lives?
> Lou
Freedom of speech does allow for advertising long as it is not deceptive or false.




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Medication | Framed

poster:Lou Pilder thread:1082096