In Cambodia you can shoot goats and water buffaloes with RPGs for a few hundred bucks.

I think this is a legend. But they do have shooting ranges for tourists.

Also, at my restaurant for some reason we get a magazine called "Food Trends." In it there is an advertisement for an "exotic meats" purveyor that lists African lion among less exotic options like emu, turtle, squirrel. There's a picture of a male lion and another of a lump of ground meat.

But they do have shooting ranges for tourists.

Shooting ranges where tourists can go to shoot, or shooting ranges where one can go to shoot at tourists? Because depending upon the answer, I may need to change some travel plans.

Over 100,000 people die from prescription drugs in the US every year, and you guys are making cat calls at me? Who needs to get exercise, sunshine and eat a healthy diet when you can just take drugs for hypertension, cholesterol, diabetes, depression. Only about 10,000 die from illegal drugs, and the amount of deaths from natural remedies is negligible.

Komminsk, thanks for that link. I read that awhile back and couldn't remember it. The vast majority of drug research and testing is done by the same companies that will benefit financially when it is approved, yet you guys take it at face value and don't recognize the massive conflict of interest. Yet, you're the first ones point out the flaws, hyperbole and outright disingenuousness of Scott Boras's evaluations of his FA clients. What's the difference?

I don't know how to say this politely, so I'll just come out and say it. If you really believe that the FDA, USDA or the pharmaceutical industry has your best interests at the top of their priority list, you are an ignorant, gullible fool. Does that mean there aren't some shady people trying to sell ineffective natural herbs or other substances for personal profit? No, of course not, but most natural remedies are cheap, effective, readily available.

but most natural remedies are cheap, effective, readily available.

Cheap, not ineffective, readily available.

Shooting ranges where tourists can go to shoot, or shooting ranges where one can go to shoot at tourists? Because depending upon the answer, I may need to change some travel plans.

Does this mean you were planning on going and now will not, or you want to go now that you know about it?

Over 100,000 people die from prescription drugs in the US every year, and you guys are making cat calls at me? Who needs to get exercise, sunshine and eat a healthy diet when you can just take drugs for hypertension, cholesterol, diabetes, depression. Only about 10,000 die from illegal drugs, and the amount of deaths from natural remedies is negligible.

Yep, get rid of prescription drugs and you'll save 100,000 lives, yep.

You do realize you are largely blasting against presciption drug misuse and not use don't you?

To be clear CP, I'm totally not co-signing on to your @39; I believe that the majority of pharmaceuticals benefit people. But - which ones do and which don't - and how much do they help? We know a lot less than we ought to (to say nothing of how they interact with each other, how their effectiveness changes over time, etc...). This is really complicated stuff and we (as consumers) always want to know w/ near-full certainty for an untested subject (ourselves, our family, our friends) who differs in subtle and unknown ways from all the ones before it.

Virtually nobody disagrees with the idea that we need to exercise more, eat less and more healthily, and generally experience the non-hazardous aspects of life that the human body adapted to in the pre-"civilized" period. I don't think it follows from that that we should forego the advances we've made since then (and I know that's not exactly what you're saying but ... )

I also don't agree with but most natural remedies are cheap, effective, readily available in a great many cases. Some are (focusing on effective here) - but the studies demonstrating it are subject to many of the same issues the pharma ones are + often lack an incentive to fund them. Personally, I avoid using medication where possible, but that's easy to say when you've been blessed with pretty good health.

Who needs to get exercise, sunshine and eat a healthy diet when you can just take drugs for hypertension, cholesterol, diabetes, depression.

So despite doing both, I should not worry about my extremely high cholesterol? Excellent. I can just throw my medicine out, and have a debilitating stroke at age 60 and not be able to talk for the last 10-15 years of my life (since we are basing our conclusions on anecdotes, I thought I would give it a try).

Does this mean you were planning on going and now will not, or you want to go now that you know about it?

The latter. Living in DC, tourists tend to get annoying after awhile. I think I may have found a new spring break destination.

The only time I find tourists in DC annoying is when I am driving a car around DC. The rest of the time they don't really bother me.

The rest of the time they don't really bother me.

They can be terrible in the Metro, particularly when they get off the escalator and stop to figure out where to go next. I don't mind that they need to figure that out, just don't do it right after you step off the escalator - step to one side and then look around. I am more patient than I used to be, but that one still irritates me to no end.

They can be terrible in the Metro, particularly when they get off the escalator and stop to figure out where to go next. I don't mind that they need to figure that out, just don't do it right after you step off the escalator - step to one side and then look around. I am more patient than I used to be, but that one still irritates me to no end.

I find the locals to be vastly more annoying on the metro. Or I should say the locals that even though they have been using the metro for years they still haven't figured out that more than just them use it. I also don't really frequent metro stops around the touristy areas so I don't run into the tourists a lot in the metro. Though whenever there is a rally it sucks.

Most locals' pet beef with tourists on Metro is that they get in the way on the escalator when people need to hurry down (or up) to transfer to a train or bus. To out-of-towners intending to visit the D.C. area: When on the escalator, stay to the right to allow people to pass on the left. It's like a U.S. highway.

Most locals' pet beef with tourists on Metro is that they get in the way on the escalator when people need to hurry down (or up) to transfer to a train or bus. To out-of-towners intending to visit the D.C. area: When on the escalator, stay to the right to allow people to pass on the left. It's like a U.S. highway.

While annoying, I have found that most move over if asked. It slows me down a bit, but I can live with it. As I said, I am much calmer about these things as I have aged.

Unfortunately, I had to push to the side (very gently) one lady at the bottom of a full esclator to get her to move out of the way. I don't think she had even realized where she had stopped.

EDIT: I should also add that I have not taken Metro regularly for the past couple of years, so perhaps tourists are better or my experiences are due to frequenting a higher percentage of touristy areas.

Most locals' pet beef with tourists on Metro is that they get in the way on the escalator when people need to hurry down (or up) to transfer to a train or bus. To out-of-towners intending to visit the D.C. area: When on the escalator, stay to the right to allow people to pass on the left. It's like a U.S. highway.

That is my beef with locals at Dupont circle but most of the time they either see you coming and move or will move when asked. What really sucks is when a couple takes up the whole escalator and then 5 or 6 people behind don't say anything so you have this clogged artery where you basically have to act like lipitor and bust through it for everyone behind you.

Yesterday an even at the gallery station brought a smile to my face. Whenever one is switching from the red line to the yellow line there is always a rush to get down to the platform and this time somehow the first guy on the escalator was some guy who was paying more attention to texting than where he was. He meandered back and forth slowly down the escalator shuffling left and right and basically prevented anyone from getting by him. It drove several people nuts and yet nobody said anything to him.

I'm not going to go on after this post, but homeopathic medicines and other natural cures are not usually tested clinically because the manufacturer/producer can't turn around patent them to drive the prices up and recoup their costs.

Do you drug defenders realize that it is illegal in the US to make a health claim for any food or other substance that hasn't been approved as a drug by the FDA? It is illegal for someone selling walnuts to state on their packaging that "eating walnuts can reduce your risk of prostate cancer" despite the fact that it has been clinically proven. Yet the FDA sees no problem in giving the OK to Big Pharma to finance their own studies of their own drugs, and downplay the side effects of said drugs to get an approval. And this is perfectly OK with you?


And JDLink, I doubt your doctor has told you this, or even knows this, but eating foods high in cholesterol (e.g. red meat, eggs, butter, cheese) has no impact on your blood cholesterol. If you cut out processed foods, refined starches (white bread, white rice, white pasta, etc.) and processed sugar (HFCS, sucrose, fructose, dextrose etc.), and start using a lot of olive oil, you will find that you won't need your expensive cholesterol drugs.

And JDLink, I doubt your doctor has told you this, or even knows this, but eating foods high in cholesterol (e.g. red meat, eggs, butter, cheese) has no impact on your blood cholesterol. If you cut out processed foods, refined starches (white bread, white rice, white pasta, etc.) and processed sugar (HFCS, sucrose, fructose, dextrose etc.), and start using a lot of olive oil, you will find that you won't need your expensive cholesterol drugs.

Wow, the arrogance of certainty.


Do you drug defenders realize that it is illegal in the US to make a health claim for any food or other substance that hasn't been approved as a drug by the FDA? It is illegal for someone selling walnuts to state on their packaging that "eating walnuts can reduce your risk of prostate cancer" despite the fact that it has been clinically proven. Yet the FDA sees no problem in giving the OK to Big Pharma to finance their own studies of their own drugs, and downplay the side effects of said drugs to get an approval. And this is perfectly OK with you?

And what does that have to do with your belief that 90% of prescription medicine is a fraud and the other 10% isn't needed because homeopathic medicines can do it better?

And this is perfectly OK with you?
It's not with me, but my response to the issue would be expensive and unpopular (and is also something I can't post; sorry - ask me over a beer sometime).
Regardless, what do you suggest?

Do you drug defenders realize that it is illegal in the US to make a health claim for any food or other substance that hasn't been approved as a drug by the FDA?

From a box of Cheerios:

Lower Your Cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks

From another box of Cheerios:

Cheerios May Reduce Your Cholesterol

So I guess I was out of the room when Cheerios was approved as a drug by the FDA.

DB

Wow, the arrogance of certainty.

Its funny, isn't it?

I won't pretend to have a perfect diet, but my wife and I have always stayed away from processed foods, refined starches and the like, and eaten whole grains, fruits and vegatables and the like. Yet my cholesterol has gone steadily up to where last year it almost hit 300. About the only foods that did anything noticable were oatmeal and Cheerios (which reduced the amount of increase for a couple of years). Though my ratio of good to bad is still decent, my doctor wanted to get the LDL down because it was just too damn high (her words). But what does she know?

So I guess I was out of the room when Cheerios was approved as a drug by the FDA.

Not Cheerios, but in 1997 the FDA approved the claim that oats lower cholesterol, making it legal to put on cereal boxes.

EDIT: Here's the FDA's list of approved health claims. It's far smaller than the list that any accredited nutritionist would draw up.

EDIT EDIT: There are also things like "qualified claims" that can be made with certain disclaimers attached, that aren't on that other list. Things about Omega 3s and so forth.

The single best thing you could do for that gig would be to remind people to:

a. wash their hands/bodies regularly.
b. drink boiled water.
c. carry at least .50 caliber ammunition for dinosaur hunting.

Kaspar Hauser, "Phone Call to the 14th Century." Fred Bob says, Check it out.

The single best thing you could do for that gig would be to remind people to:

a. wash their hands/bodies regularly.
b. drink boiled water.
c. carry at least .50 caliber ammunition for dinosaur hunting.

Kaspar Hauser, "Phone Call to the 14th Century." Fred Bob says, Check it out.

One day in my college history class on the Reformation, the professor walked in and noticed a flyer for a Renaissance Faire on the bulletin board by the door. The flyer began "Experience life in the Renaissance!" The professor read that line out loud and then said, "First, you need to develop a skin disease."

McCoy - I didn't say anything about homeopathic remedies. I've never used them, and am skeptical of them, but I would be willing to try them if I ever had a health problem. At least they can't hurt you, unlike the majority of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals.

Komminsk - What do I suggest? How about a complete dismantling of the US government (not that Canada's is a whole lot better). I just find it troubling that the FDA and USDA are more concerned about conducting armed raids of stores selling raw milk to people who are demanding it, and threatening people claiming walnuts are good for you with prosecution, than they are with actually providing oversight and effective regulation of the drug industry. There is little harm that can come from someone buying a product with no side effects that doesn't perform as advertised, but 100,000 deaths and lord knows how many minor and major side effects speak to the harm caused by an ineffectively regulated pharmaceutical industry.

Michelle Obama has been going on about the need to educate people about healthy eating, going so far as to plant an organic garden at the Whitehouse. Meanwhile, her husband's government continues to subsidize corn and soy (and hence beef, hog and chicken) production, which make it cheaper to eat a Big Mac combo with a litre of Coke than it is to buy a salad. How ridiculous is that? Does anyone think its a coincidence that all the poor people are obese? Is it from from more calories alone, or is it because of the under-researched metabolic effects of highly processed ingredients and additives like HFCS, sucralose, trans-fats, MSG, aspartame, etc?

Most locals' pet beef with tourists on Metro is that they get in the way on the escalator when people need to hurry down (or up) to transfer to a train or bus. To out-of-towners intending to visit the D.C. area: When on the escalator, stay to the right to allow people to pass on the left. It's like a U.S. highway.

I love visiting DC for this very reason. Nobody else in the country gets it. Every escalator in the Atlanta airport, for example, has some ####### standing on the left side with a vast open space in front of him, and yet he remains completely ignorant of the fact that the people behind him are trying to get somewhere, not hang out on the escalator like a schmuck. DC > Atlanta used to be one of my most frequent travel itineraries, and the contrast in escalator etiquette never failed to amaze me.

I think this is a legend. But they do have shooting ranges for tourists.

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article722991.ece

Furthermore (although this particularly unsavoury offer was supposed to have ended years ago) live animal targets are also available — at a price. “We can do it, we can do it,” he smiles. Of the 30 or 40 visitors to the range each day, at least three groups each week opt for the heavy weapons, he says, although he won’t divulge just how many groups use live animals for their rocket practice.

I'm not going to go on after this post,

Aw, a hit and run?

but homeopathic medicines and other natural cures are not usually tested clinically because the manufacturer/producer can't turn around patent them to drive the prices up and recoup their costs.

Someone has to pay for them!
And while I agree that this may mean some cures work and just haven't been tested... how are you supposed to know which work?

It may surprise you to know that the reason clinical trials are so expensive is because almost everything fails. And they generally fail because they do not work.

So the "Evil" pharma/FDA axis actually just wastes money and time NOT approving stuff even through since they are in cahoots they can just rubber stamp whatever they want.

Do you drug defenders realize that it is illegal in the US to make a health claim for any food or other substance that hasn't been approved as a drug by the FDA? It is illegal for someone selling walnuts to state on their packaging that "eating walnuts can reduce your risk of prostate cancer" despite the fact that it has been clinically proven. Yet the FDA sees no problem in giving the OK to Big Pharma to finance their own studies of their own drugs, and downplay the side effects of said drugs to get an approval. And this is perfectly OK with you?

I guess you meant this paper:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18454862

Actually that's kind of cool. 75g of walnuts is a lot. Also, it's hardly a definitive study. The FDA (as others have posted) does seem to validate these claims sometimes (Oats), but they have to have SOME standards. Maybe not just jumping on every article in the "Journal of Nutrition" is the way to go.

Besides, no matter what someone printed on their food package I would be pretty skeptical. I certainly don't believe eating Cheerios significantly lowers your (bad) cholesterol.

And JDLink, I doubt your doctor has told you this, or even knows this, but eating foods high in cholesterol (e.g. red meat, eggs, butter, cheese) has no impact on your blood cholesterol.

TRUE! (but I am not going to cite) For many people. There are some genetic disorders in which the opposite is true, and you can control your cholesterol by simply zeroing your intake.

If you cut out processed foods, refined starches (white bread, white rice, white pasta, etc.) and processed sugar (HFCS, sucrose, fructose, dextrose etc.), and start using a lot of olive oil, you will find that you won't need your expensive cholesterol drugs.

Cite or GTFU. My hippie mom told me 30 years ago that white sugar was bad for me. Why? I presume because it wasn't cool to eat. "Oh if it's PROCESSED it must be bad for you!"

I have to admit I am from the HFCS anti-defamation-league though. Unless you want to start explaining why "fructose syrup" is bad, but "fructose in apples (or chose your fruit) is good". And while you are at compare the "empty" calories in an apple to a candy bar.

It's no longer HFCS, it's 'corn sugar'. (rolls eyes)

If your answer is 'a complete dismantling of the US government', I can't imagine I'm asking the right question. Don't get me wrong, I'm have sympathy for some of the individual points you're making, but in aggregate... no.

Unless you want to start explaining why "fructose syrup" is bad, but "fructose in apples (or chose your fruit) is good".

I'll take a crack at this. Fructose in fruits is fine - it's not in particularly high quantities, and there are vitamins and micronutrients that can be good for you, and the fiber in the fruit leaves you satiated and can itself have positive health effects. HFCS is an additive that offers none of the health benefits of fruit but all of the calories, and it's often added to foods in higher quantities than you would find in fruits. You also generally don't feel very satiated after consuming HFCS.

And while you are at compare the "empty" calories in an apple to a candy bar.

This one I don't really understand. Are you saying candy bars and apples have the same nutritional value?

Do you drug defenders realize that it is illegal in the US to make a health claim for any food or other substance that hasn't been approved as a drug by the FDA? It is illegal for someone selling walnuts to state on their packaging that "eating walnuts can reduce your risk of prostate cancer" despite the fact that it has been clinically proven.

This I don't understand. You want it to be ok to make health claims about walnuts based on some seriously thin evidence, but you dismiss the positive effects of drugs, which are based on controlled clinical trials, the strongest form of clinical evidence? That doesn't seem consistent to me.

Are people advocating the downfall of government usually rational and consistent?

@80 you are assuming the conclusion.

You start with the assumption that fruit > candy then, yes one can make arguments. But arguments are not evidence.

Maybe in a case of a totally fibre and vitamin deprived diet you could argue, in a vacuum, apples are slightly better for you than candy bars. But the comparison is absurd. No one live on just apples and no one lives on just candy.

Maybe in a case of a totally fibre and vitamin deprived diet you could argue, in a vacuum, apples are slightly better for you than candy bars. But the comparison is absurd. No one lives on just apples and no one lives on just candy.

Not snarking; just making sure that I'm understanding what's being said:

If I'm reading the above quote correctly, what you're basically saying is that, all other things being equal, when viewed in the context of being just one (small) portion of someone's daily food/caloric intake, for all intents and purposes one apple = one candybar.

Have I correctly re-stated your point?

DB

Sounds like sombody is a HFCS farmer.

Maybe in a case of a totally fibre and vitamin deprived diet you could argue, in a vacuum, apples are slightly better for you than candy bars. But the comparison is absurd. No one live on just apples and no one lives on just candy.

I honestly have no idea how you could have possibly read that I was comparing an all-apple v. all-candy bar diet. I really didn't think the notion that controlling for other foods, apples are generally better for you than candy bars was that controversial. Am I wrong on that?

OK I am going to back track a bit on this, but only a little.

A snickers bar (57g) is 265 cal and an apple is (125g, 100g of which is water) is only 65 cal.

I thought they were both closer to 100 cal which is just wrong.

So, apples ARE good for you in the sense that you can eat a "whole" apple and only get 65 calories (from 100% fructose) and a little vitamin C, a tiny bit of vitamin K, and some postassium.

But lets's compare apples to apples here - and instead of a while candy bar one of those little 15g Halloween bars. 70 cal, a couple grams of fat (not a bad thing, necessarily, and a gram of protein). Also minor amounts (totally comparable to an apple, BTW) of niacin, magnesium, copper, zinc, calcium and others).

If you want to argue secondary effects like water intake (good), or some micronutrients that the FDA doesn't track, or the fact that you won't eat 7 apples while the same is not true of candy bars - fine.

That does not make apples "BETTER FOR YOU" by any significant measure.

I realize FDA nutrition stickers are nothing like the be-all, end-all of nutritional value -- they just happen to be convenient to check on the internet -- but you want say they are BETTER FOR ME, bring some facts.

I have no real comment on the content of the article. But the phrase "Deer Antlers" does make me wonder why there are so many bands out there with some variation of "deer" or "antlers" in their name. There's Deerhoof, Deerhunter, Antlers, Crystal Antlers, the Dears, and that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.

Deerhunter are pretty awesome though.

Deer antlers: the hot new PED

What's wrong with Barry Bonds' elk semen? Too "old school"?? It got results!!!