Disney Count support may be spotty from here. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Wacky conspiracy theories

The fiance of a friend & I were talking tonight, and she produced the strangest conspiracy theory I've heard yet (that didn't involve spaceships and/or comets, anyway.)

She was saying that the drug companies and processed food companies are in cahoots with the Food & Drug Administration to put so many additives into our food, that people who eat it become diabetic. The FDA keeps the additives off the label, as they mysteriously got classified as nutritional supplements, and not as a food-type substance. When the people who eat this stuff over time become ill, they go to the doctor who prescribes medication produced by, you guessed it, the drug companies.

She told me this with a totally earnest look on her face.

What strange theories have people confided to you?
Permalink example 
January 17th, 2006
Your friend's theory sounds a lot like the Kevin Trudeau infomercial where he hawks this book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0975599518

I wonder how many people are hurt by following his advice.
Permalink XYZZY 
January 17th, 2006
The FDA went after him for making outrageous claims in his last book/infomercial. The Natural Cures infomercial is full of "I can't tell you about X because I'm not allowed to say it on TV" stuff. The Amazon.com reviews say that the book is full of the same thing - you have to sign you for his newsletter & access to his website to see it.

Hilarious. It's amazing this guy actually makes money.
Permalink MarkTAW 
January 17th, 2006
Insulin isn't under patent, so no particular pharm co is gonna rake in oodles of cash from such a maneouver.
Permalink Spinoza 
January 17th, 2006
Spinoza, unfortunatly insulin is only the first drug needed by diabetics. Many diabetics lose limbs, eyesight, and have many other health problems that need treatment. There are plenty of opportunities for drug companies to make money on diabetics.

But Trudeau's "natural treatments" are a money grubbing sham.
Permalink XYZZY 
January 17th, 2006
Here is another one that involves drugs:

The recent medicare bill specifically excludes benzodiazepenes and barbituates from coverage. These 2 classes of drugs are all generics. Medicare *does* cover the competing classes of drugs, which are highly profitable for the pharmaceutical companies that contribute to republican party members.
Permalink Peter 
January 18th, 2006
Still, I think it more likely that Big Farm is bringing in millions of tons of wheat chaff (the stuff they take out of white bread) into cities and distribute it air-wise in the middle of the night.

Then Big Pharm can sell hay fever medications, up the ying-yang.
Permalink Spinoza 
January 18th, 2006
time to take off the tinfoil hats boys ... either that or you're sitting to close to a radiation source and need to move away a bit ... wackos, that smell of meat cookin' - it aint dinner.
Permalink PNII 
January 18th, 2006
Um, what's in it for the FDA? Other than the sheer thrill of causing a statistically significant number of people to become ill and possibly being fired?
Permalink Colm 
January 18th, 2006
"The FDA keeps the additives off the label, as they mysteriously got classified as nutritional supplements, and not as a food-type substance."

Why would they keep it off the label? An excess of calories is all that's necessary to cause diabetes, and quite a few people don't bothering with any moderation of calories at all.

Indeed, trans-fats have been known to be heart clogging monstrosities (not to mention that it could potentially screw with your hormones), yet few bother looking at the label (whether listed separately, or in the ingredients as hydrogenated oils), and the only reason they've started to disappear is because of the ominous threat of lawsuits.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 18th, 2006
I'll tell you in a minute, but right now there's someone at the *BLAM*
Permalink  
January 18th, 2006
>>"The FDA keeps the additives off the label, as they mysteriously got classified as nutritional supplements, and not as a food-type substance."
>Why would they keep it off the label?

Pesticides and herbicides are somewhat notorious for this. They'd have "active ingredients" and "inactive ingredients" on the label. Not all "inactive" ingredients need to be listed, and many times the real active ingredients would be claimed to be "inactive" and not listed. This way, your competitors will have a harder time figuring out what makes your product better. Or just call something a "spice" and it doesn't have to be listed.
Permalink Peter 
January 18th, 2006
"Um, what's in it for the FDA? Other than the sheer thrill of causing a statistically significant number of people to become ill and possibly being fired?"

There is no firewall between government agencies and private business. For an example of how government officials can profit from private dealings, take a look at the history of the Clintons while Bill was governor of Arkansas.
Permalink SomeBody 
January 18th, 2006

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: January, 2006 Other topics: January, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics