CNN’s Brianna Keilar Goes on 5-Minute Tear Against Democrats Ignoring Their Own Covid Guidelines

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I wouldn't eliminate the role of either.

Would you say it needs some serious revamping ? 

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

Would you say it needs some serious revamping ? 

Depends on what you mean by "serious revamping".  Most organizations would benefit from ongoing assessment, oversite and improvement.  I am not expert in either case, but I do have some experience with the FDA and very much appreciate their role in our food an drug supply systems.

Do you still fly?

[wdefromtx 3,159]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Depends on what you mean by "serious revamping".  Most organizations would benefit from ongoing assessment, oversite and improvement.  I am not expert in either case, but I do have some experience with the FDA and very much appreciate their role in our food an drug supply systems.

Do you still fly?

I do still fly. But sure as hell won’t on a 737 Max. And I’m still skeptical of the Dreamliner. Also don’t get me started on how they’ve let airlines outsource the maintenance. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

18 hours ago, homersapien said:

Depends on what you mean by "serious revamping".  Most organizations would benefit from ongoing assessment, oversite and improvement.  I am not expert in either case, but I do have some experience with the FDA and very much appreciate their role in our food an drug supply systems.

Do you still fly?

Now that I have more time to address this. I don’t know if it’s your willingness to turn a blind eye to the wrongdoing our government agencies have been doing because you like government involvement in everything or just naivety. I suspect it’s the former. Funny how you just try to dismiss people as being anti science or pro conspiracy because they don’t trust that some of the very agencies that are supposed to look out for our interests are in fact committing numerous ethical violations to line their own pockets. Just another branch that money has corrupted. Let’s face it, the FDA has turned into an agency that no longer follows the scientific evidence in decision making but rather follows what large corporations want to achieve. In addition to the medicines they allow to go through and get approved that offer little to no benefit over older proven drugs solely for drug companies to be able to recycle or patent and sell at obscene costs they allow a wide range of s*** chemicals in our foods. Many that are banned in other countries. A Scottish friend of mine came over a few years ago and made the comment after going to the store that the foods great, but he may get cancer while he’s here. And he thought it was funny that he’d watch tv and see a drug commercial and all the side effects and then a lawyer advertising suing the makers of the drug. The exact same drug that was advertised. 
 

https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/risky-drugs-why-fda-cannot-be-trusted
 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/hidden-conflicts-pharma-payments-fda-advisers-after-drug-approvals-spark-ethical
 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fda-drugs-companies-pharmaceutical-us-pay-doctors-approval-fompanies-astrazeneca-a8433621.html?amp
 

Then there’s the FAA that has fallen into pretty much the same trap. Being paid off by Boeing and others and allowing Boeing to cozy up to inspectors, write their own processes, do their own qualification testing, etc. We have 346 people dead because of that recently and directly caused by it. The oversight at the SC facility is atrocious and many airlines will not accept 787’s from the SC plant and rightfully so. Granted that’s a Boeing problem first, but it also falls on the FAA for allowing Boeing to have that much latitude. It all goes back to corruption and greed and the fact we no longer have the doctors, scientists, engineers making the important decisions but rather accounts and lawyers and such. Same can be said about BSEE to an extent. BSEE practically lets the industry right their own regulations because they don’t want ownership if another Macondo occurs. Many of the people on the front lines have no clue about any of it. You can put almost anything in the report for them and as long as you make it sound technical and give them some fancy charts and images they are happy. 
 

Do we need these agencies, of course. But we need a clearinghouse of sort to reset them back where they truly look out for the safety and interest of the public and not a servant to corporations. 
 

That is why I’m going to sit back and let others be the test mule for this vaccine. Nothing to do with Trump, science, conspiracy. I know you want it to be that for everyone but it’s not. And frankly its dumb to tell someone they are anti-science for having real concerns about this vaccine. 

[homersapien 11,373]

8 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Now that I have more time to address this. I don’t know if it’s your willingness to turn a blind eye to the wrongdoing our government agencies have been doing because you like government involvement in everything or just naivety. I suspect it’s the former. Funny how you just try to dismiss people as being anti science or pro conspiracy because they don’t trust that some of the very agencies that are supposed to look out for our interests are in fact committing numerous ethical violations to line their own pockets. Just another branch that money has corrupted. Let’s face it, the FDA has turned into an agency that no longer follows the scientific evidence in decision making but rather follows what large corporations want to achieve. In addition to the medicines they allow to go through and get approved that offer little to no benefit over older proven drugs solely for drug companies to be able to recycle or patent and sell at obscene costs they allow a wide range of s*** chemicals in our foods. Many that are banned in other countries. A Scottish friend of mine came over a few years ago and made the comment after going to the store that the foods great, but he may get cancer while he’s here. And he thought it was funny that he’d watch tv and see a drug commercial and all the side effects and then a lawyer advertising suing the makers of the drug. The exact same drug that was advertised. 
 

https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/risky-drugs-why-fda-cannot-be-trusted
 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/hidden-conflicts-pharma-payments-fda-advisers-after-drug-approvals-spark-ethical
 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fda-drugs-companies-pharmaceutical-us-pay-doctors-approval-fompanies-astrazeneca-a8433621.html?amp
 

Then there’s the FAA that has fallen into pretty much the same trap. Being paid off by Boeing and others and allowing Boeing to cozy up to inspectors, write their own processes, do their own qualification testing, etc. We have 346 people dead because of that recently and directly caused by it. The oversight at the SC facility is atrocious and many airlines will not accept 787’s from the SC plant and rightfully so. Granted that’s a Boeing problem first, but it also falls on the FAA for allowing Boeing to have that much latitude. It all goes back to corruption and greed and the fact we no longer have the doctors, scientists, engineers making the important decisions but rather accounts and lawyers and such. Same can be said about BSEE to an extent. BSEE practically lets the industry right their own regulations because they don’t want ownership if another Macondo occurs. Many of the people on the front lines have no clue about any of it. You can put almost anything in the report for them and as long as you make it sound technical and give them some fancy charts and images they are happy. 
 

Do we need these agencies, of course. But we need a clearinghouse of sort to reset them back where they truly look out for the safety and interest of the public and not a servant to corporations. 
 

That is why I’m going to sit back and let others be the test mule for this vaccine. Nothing to do with Trump, science, conspiracy. I know you want it to be that for everyone but it’s not. And frankly you sound dumb trying to tell someone they are anti-science for having real concerns about this vaccine. 

First, the 737 fiasco starts with Boeing.  They essentially decided not to build a completely new airframe to compete with the completely new Airbus plane in the given class in favor of "upgrading" the engines on the old airframe. This was all to save development money. 

But the subsequent engine substitution resulted in a plane what was essentially aerodynamically unstable, which they then tried to work around with the automatic computer flight controls and we know what happened. 

Now I am not expert enough to know if the FAA should have been more strict in allowing Boeing to do what they did - after all such computerized software is required on some military designs just to keep them in the air.  But I have read many articles that claim the FAA is much too integrated with the airline industry - such as depending on the industries input of data instead of doing it in house.  I am inclined to think there is a lot of validity to this.  There's certainly good reason to question the FAA in this regard and reassess how they operate. I totally support that, even though it would constitute increasing regulatory requirements and the cost of operating the FAA.

And while I don't know if you are one of the conservatives who typically oppose ("excessive") government regulation conceptually, but if so, I find it extremely ironic that you would trash a regulatory agency for doing exactly what conservatives generally want - eliminate regulatory restrictions ("red tape") and costs.  Regardless, I have far more faith in the liberal side of our political system to strike a reasonable compromise.

As far as the FDA is concerned, I will respectfully submit that you really do not know what you are talking about. 

I have worked in both the food (packing) industry as well as the pharmaceutical industry in a product development role and am intimately acquainted with FDA regulatory requirements regarding primary packaging of food and drugs.  They are quite strict and involved, and include such things as determining possible chemical extractents from the packaging into the food.

Although I am a food scientist, I am fairly familiar with regulations concerning food ingredients than their primary packaging,  but I do know they are equally strict, at least from a qualitative standpoint. 

There is a general classification called GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) for many food ingredients based on their historical use and ongoing research.  Anything not on this list must be rigorously tested in vivo (animal testing) before they are approved. 

(And just as an aside, IMO the biggest problem by far with allowed food ingredients is with the quantity many of these GRAS ingredients are used, particularly sugar and salt.  Those are the two most important ingredients in commercial food products that are causing the most harm to people's health in this country, but the FDA does not have the authority to restrict harmful levels of salt and sugar.)

As for pharmaceuticals, the regulations are stricter than for food.  I was personally involved with the development of primary packing of new parenteral drugs.  (The actual drug in question along with it's primary package is what is considered for approval.)  This approval typically takes years of clinical trials in several phases in addition to the laboratory extraction work.  

Having said that, food and drugs as categories are enormously complex and it's not impossible for regulatory "mistakes" to be made.  The science is never complete.  It's completely unrealistic to expect perfection in a regulatory agency responsible for regulation food and drugs.  But we enjoy the safest food and pharmaceuticals in the history of mankind and that is a direct result of government regulations.  (If you are really interested we can talk about what the food and drug industry was like before the FDA.)

It's fine to be skeptical when eating or injecting anything into your body but considering the alternatives, anyone who cites the FDA as a reason to not take the covid 19 vaccine is a conspiracist. 

Likewise, to refuse a vaccine that has demonstrated a 90+% effectiveness rate (at least for the short term) is ignorant of the science by definition.  The only other possible motivators are ignorance of the nature of the pandemic (epidemiology) or you just don't give a damn about anyone  and are willing to take the personal risk (which is rather stupid.)

There is no rational reason to refuse the covid 19 vaccine.

I don't care if you think I am "dumb" for stating the facts as they are, but I suggest you look in the mirror before doing so. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

First, the 737 fiasco starts with Boeing.  They essentially decided not to build a completely new airframe to compete with the completely new Airbus plane in the given class in favor of "upgrading" the engines on the old airframe. This was all to save development money. 

But the subsequent engine substitution resulted in a plane what was essentially aerodynamically unstable, which they then tried to work around with the automatic computer flight controls and we know what happened. 

Now I am not expert enough to know if the FAA should have been more strict in allowing Boeing to do what they did - after all such computerized software is required on some military designs just to keep them in the air.  But I have read many articles that claim the FAA is much too integrated with the airline industry - such as depending on the industries input of data instead of doing it in house.  I am inclined to think there is a lot of validity to this.  There's certainly good reason to question the FAA in this regard and reassess how they operate. I totally support that, even though it would constitute increasing regulatory requirements and the cost of operating the FAA.

And while I don't know if you are one of the conservatives who typically oppose ("excessive") government regulation conceptually, but if so, I find it extremely ironic that you would trash a regulatory agency for doing exactly what conservatives generally want - eliminate regulatory restrictions ("red tape") and costs.  Regardless, I have far more faith in the liberal side of our political system to strike a reasonable compromise.

As far as the FDA is concerned, I will respectfully submit that you really do not know what you are talking about. 

I have worked in both the food (packing) industry as well as the pharmaceutical industry in a product development role and am intimately acquainted with FDA regulatory requirements regarding primary packaging of food and drugs.  They are quite strict and involved, and include such things as determining possible chemical extractents from the packaging into the food.

Although I am a food scientist, I am fairly familiar with regulations concerning food ingredients than their primary packaging,  but I do know they are equally strict, at least from a qualitative standpoint. 

There is a general classification called GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) for many food ingredients based on their historical use and ongoing research.  Anything not on this list must be rigorously tested in vivo (animal testing) before they are approved. 

(And just as an aside, IMO the biggest problem by far with allowed food ingredients is with the quantity many of these GRAS ingredients are used, particularly sugar and salt.  Those are the two most important ingredients in commercial food products that are causing the most harm to people's health in this country, but the FDA does not have the authority to restrict harmful levels of salt and sugar.)

As for pharmaceuticals, the regulations are stricter than for food.  I was personally involved with the development of primary packing of new parenteral drugs.  (The actual drug in question along with it's primary package is what is considered for approval.)  This approval typically takes years of clinical trials in several phases in addition to the laboratory extraction work.  

Having said that, food and drugs as categories are enormously complex and it's not impossible for regulatory "mistakes" to be made.  The science is never complete.  It's completely unrealistic to expect perfection in a regulatory agency responsible for regulation food and drugs.  But we enjoy the safest food and pharmaceuticals in the history of mankind and that is a direct result of government regulations.  (If you are really interested we can talk about what the food and drug industry was like before the FDA.)

It's fine to be skeptical when eating or injecting anything into your body but considering the alternatives, anyone who cites the FDA as a reason to not take the covid 19 vaccine is a conspiracist. 

Likewise, to refuse a vaccine that has demonstrated a 90+% effectiveness rate (at least for the short term) is ignorant of the science by definition.  The only other possible motivators are ignorance of the nature of the pandemic (epidemiology) or you just don't give a damn about anyone  and are willing to take the personal risk (which is rather stupid.)

There is no rational reason to refuse the covid 19 vaccine.

I don't care if you think I am "dumb" for stating the facts as they are, but I suggest you look in the mirror before doing so. 

Regarding Boeing, I fully understand what happened and you are essentially right about why they did things. The problem is the only reason they were able to do what they did is because of how cozy the FAA and Boeing were with each other. That is on the FAA not Boeing, it should not matter if Boeing wanted to do things it was the FAA's job to make sure they do it safely. So in regards to what I highlighted in green, this is what I mean by revamp. And I 100% support stricter regulation and don't care if it costs more. Hell, charge an extra $5-10 a ticket as long as they put that money to proper use. 

I usually don't like the government meddling in most of the private sector, however they have a role to ensure the safety of the traveling public (same way the FDA is in charge of making sure that drugs and food are safe for human consumption.) I have a two engineering degrees from Auburn and I am licensed as a PE in 4 states so I fully support government regulations such that the FAA and FDA. Hell when I graduated Auburn made us sign an oath to uphold the integrity of the engineering profession as well as the school and to always to make ethical decisions that always put the welfare of the public's safety first. That is one reason why it bothers me so much to see unethical decisions being made.

As far as the FDA is concerned, I do have enough ties to it to know that it essentially has the same fundamental issue the FAA has. Too cozy with the companies. Letting the companies dictate what is acceptable and what is not. That's a problem and needs to change just like the FAA. Just because you may not have experienced it, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. While I agree with the sugar and salt added to foods it goes far beyond those to things. See a couple of examples posted. I don't know why you think I am against the FDA regulations, I am against the FDA making decisions that most likely were due to some type of pressure from companies. Mistakes happen when you get lax with things. And you should realize that just because something is classified is "generally safe" doesn't mean it is. We should really be asking why are some of these items banned in other countries such as the UK. They are just as capable at science as we are. 

 

What I said about the food can somewhat be applied with the drugs as well. Granted it isn't as bad as with foods, but nevertheless it still exists. 

Show me where I said I was going to refuse the vaccine, I never did. I only said I was going to wait and see how it played out with others first. I don't see the problem with that. Who cares how effective it is if it has some unforeseen side effects that we won't know until mass testing is done. 

Also, what you stated is your opinion and not all "facts" as you claim. Maybe dumb is the wrong word, but it is certainly ignorant.

[homersapien 11,373]

16 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Regarding Boeing, I fully understand what happened and you are essentially right about why they did things. The problem is the only reason they were able to do what they did is because of how cozy the FAA and Boeing were with each other. That is on the FAA not Boeing, it should not matter if Boeing wanted to do things it was the FAA's job to make sure they do it safely. So in regards to what I highlighted in green, this is what I mean by revamp. And I 100% support stricter regulation and don't care if it costs more. Hell, charge an extra $5-10 a ticket as long as they put that money to proper use. 

I usually don't like the government meddling in most of the private sector, however they have a role to ensure the safety of the traveling public (same way the FDA is in charge of making sure that drugs and food are safe for human consumption.) I have a two engineering degrees from Auburn and I am licensed as a PE in 4 states so I fully support government regulations such that the FAA and FDA. Hell when I graduated Auburn made us sign an oath to uphold the integrity of the engineering profession as well as the school and to always to make ethical decisions that always put the welfare of the public's safety first. That is one reason why it bothers me so much to see unethical decisions being made.

As far as the FDA is concerned, I do have enough ties to it to know that it essentially has the same fundamental issue the FAA has. Too cozy with the companies. Letting the companies dictate what is acceptable and what is not. That's a problem and needs to change just like the FAA. Just because you may not have experienced it, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. While I agree with the sugar and salt added to foods it goes far beyond those to things. See a couple of examples posted. I don't know why you think I am against the FDA regulations, I am against the FDA making decisions that most likely were due to some type of pressure from companies. Mistakes happen when you get lax with things. And you should realize that just because something is classified is "generally safe" doesn't mean it is. We should really be asking why are some of these items banned in other countries such as the UK. They are just as capable at science as we are. 

 

What I said about the food can somewhat be applied with the drugs as well. Granted it isn't as bad as with foods, but nevertheless it still exists. 

Show me where I said I was going to refuse the vaccine, I never did. I only said I was going to wait and see how it played out with others first. I don't see the problem with that. Who cares how effective it is if it has some unforeseen side effects that we won't know until mass testing is done. 

Also, what you stated is your opinion and not all "facts" as you claim. Maybe dumb is the wrong word, but it is certainly ignorant.

 

Who the hell are you to call me "ignorant" on the subect? 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Who the hell are you to call me "ignorant" on the subect? 

I did and you sound ignorant when you make blanket statements based your political views such as " I'll expand my classification from simply "Trump supporters" and change it to people who are generally anti-science and pro-conspiracy."

I presented you with my opinion based on my dealings with the matter and the information that I have seen. Unless you are disputing that countries have no clue what they are doing with items banned. How hard is it to figure out that some of those chemicals we use have been linked to cancers, etc. Personally have seen relatives deal with the effects of such chemicals and how some were pinpointed as an issue and eliminated from their diet and saw many improvements with their condition.

[homersapien 11,373]

7 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I did and you are. You make blanket statements based solely on your opinion based on your experience and your political views. I presented you with my opinion based on my dealings with the matter and the information that I have seen. Unless you are disputing that countries have no clue what they are doing with items banned. How hard is it to figure out that some of those chemicals we use have been linked to cancers, etc. Personally have seen relatives deal with the effects of such chemicals and how some were pinpointed as an issue and eliminated from their diet and saw many improvements with their condition. 

You are the one making blanket statements.

And if you want to present a case for any approved ingredient causing cancer in the amounts used, please do so.  You haven't so far.

Your last statement is called "anecdotal".  It's most certainly not empirical evidence.  It probably reflects personal allergies (for example).  Such a statement is no more valid than insisting vaccinations cause autism.

If you are going to come on here and tell a (retired) professional who worked in the food and drug industries they are "ignorant" of the subject you need to demonstrate your implied expertise.

I'll wait, but I won't be holding my breath.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are the one making blanket statements.

And if you want to present a case for any approved ingredient causing cancer in the amounts used, please do so.  You haven't so far.

Your last statement is called "anecdotal".  It's most certainly not empirical evidence.  It probably reflects personal allergies (for example).  Such a statement is no more valid than insisting vaccinations cause autism.

If you are going to come on here and tell a (retired) professional who worked in the food and drug industries they are "ignorant" of the subject you need to demonstrate your implied expertise.

I'll wait, but I won't be holding my breath.

The first link a relative was related to my family member that had many issues that were linked to potassium bromate. You know, the chemical that is supposed to be safe but the UK banned in what the late 80's early 90's? The same relative was involved in the process to have some additives removed (finally). Hell the FDA was breaking it's own rules by allowing additives that were found to cause cancer in rats in our foods. Who cares if it is "de minimis" if it causes cancers at any levels and there is a way to make the product without (which is often). Which many UK countries have had mad companies figure that out and reformulate ingredients.

Banned bread: why does the US allow additives that Europe says are unsafe? | US news | The Guardian

FDA Removes 7 Synthetic Flavoring Substances from Food Additives List | FDA

 

I know you are not an ignorant person intellectually, but your training and experience is shaped by standards that can be considered flawed in some aspects. There is no valid reason for some of these additives to be allowed in our foods and the only reason is $$$$ that benefits the company. The have gotten the FDA to allow things that don't need to be there only to increase profits or make things last forever on the shelf. Which saves companies money. But at what expense? This whole way of thinking is taught as acceptable. If these products are so safe why aren't they in the same items in the UK? Hell the UK version of things taste better. Hell I love the starburst candy there and it actually has real fruit juice. 

[homersapien 11,373]

Good thing I am not holding my breath. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Good thing I am not holding my breath. 

Damn, you are worse than I thought. You ignore science as a "scientist." You have presented absolutely no facts, I have presented you links to some that then can take you to the actual papers written. But hey this isn't the first time you ignored the truth Donald. Maybe I just should have linked an opinion article. 😜

[homersapien 11,373]

8 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Damn, you are worse than I thought. You ignore science as a "scientist." You have presented absolutely no facts, I have presented you links to some that then can take you to the actual papers written. But hey this isn't the first time you ignored the truth Donald. Maybe I just should have linked an opinion article. 😜

You are projecting. 

You are the one who has to prove the assertion that the FDA is incompetent and allows harmful ingredients, not me. (Hard to prove a negative.) 

And it's not my job to seek out the published scientific papers that support your case, it's yours. You have yet to present any science proving any specific example you refer to. 

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.  Nor is citing what other country's regulatory agencies are doing (which assumes their position is the one that is scientifically correct.)

And if you don't lose the attitude, I'll put you back on my "ignore" list.

 

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are projecting. 

You are the one who has to prove the assertion that the FDA is incompetent and allows harmful ingredients, not me. (Hard to prove a negative.) 

And it's not my job to seek out the published scientific papers that support your case, it's yours. You have yet to present any science proving any specific example you refer to. 

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.  Nor is citing what other country's regulatory agencies are doing (which assumes their position is the one that is scientifically correct.)

And if you don't lose the attitude, I'll put you back on my "ignore" list.

 

 

You are projecting.

I am actually not the one projecting, you are. FDA is incompetent and allows harmful ingredients, not me. (Hard to prove a negative.) I never said the FDA is incompetent, I do not have to prove that because I never said it. However, I did state they allow harmful ingredients and provided proof. Which is very easy to prove and the information is everywhere. Regardless of concentration it is harmful and can be substituted for another. Why would anyone want this in the food or cosmetics? See below.

Harmful Ingredient:

Potassium bromate | KBrO3 - PubChem (nih.gov)

IDENTIFICATION: Potassium bromate is a white or colorless crystal or powder. It is odorless and tasteless. Potassium bromate is soluble in water. USE: Potassium bromate is used as a laboratory chemical, oxidizing agent in hair products, and a food additive in flour and malted cereal used for the brewing of beer or distillation of spirits. Potassium bromide's use as a flour improver strengthens dough and allows for greater oven spring and higher rising in the oven; unbrominated flours require slightly longer mixing times and lower initial water temperature. The baking process generally converts bromate into bromine; however, if too much is used then a residual amount will remain. Because of this, in 1995 the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (and international expert scientific committee) determined that it is not appropriate to add potassium bromate to flour products. It is still acceptable as a flour additive in the United States; however, the U.S. FDA restricts the amount of potassium bromate that can be added to flour (<50 ppm) and recommended a voluntary stop of use in 1991. Potassium bromide is allowed for use in hair straightening or permanent wave products in the United States at concentrations less than or equal to 10.17%. In Canada, products containing >50 mg must carry a warning label and poison control center contact recommendation. It is not permitted for use in cosmetics and personal care products in the EU. EXPOSURE: Workers that use potassium bromate may breathe in mists or have direct skin contact. The general population may be exposed by consumption of some breads and use of hair products. However, in the bread baking process, most of the potassium bromate is converted to bromide. RISK: Temporary upper respiratory track irritation has been reported among workers exposed to potassium bromate dust. Nausea, vomiting, stomach pain and diarrhea have been consistently reported in cases of accidental or intentional ingestion of home hair products containing potassium bromate (most accidental cases occurred in children). Acute kidney failure and inability for the kidneys to produce urine for several days has also been reported in the majority of ingestion cases, with some individuals showing permanent kidney damage. Loss of consciousness, sedation, permanent hearing loss, and death due to renal failure have occurred at very high ingestion levels. No studies evaluating long-term oral exposure to low levels of potassium bromate in humans are available. Potassium bromide is a skin, eye and muscous membrane irritant. Changes in kidney function and kidney lesions have been observed in laboratory animals repeatedly exposed to moderate-to-high oral doses of potassium bromate over time. Multiple types of cancer have been associated with potassium bromate exposure in laboratory animals, including kidney tumors, thyroid tumors, and mesothelioma. No evidence of infertility, abortion, or birth defects were observed in laboratory animals exposed to potassium bromate before mating and/or during pregnancy. Decreased sperm count was observed in some males repeatedly exposed to low levels of potassium bromate. The International Agency for Research on Cancer determined that potassium bromate is possibly carcinogenic to humans based on a lack of human data and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in laboratory animals. The U.S. EPA IRIS program determined that bromate is a probable human carcinogen based on no data in humans and adequate evidence in laboratory rats exposed to potassium bromate. The potential for potassium bromate to cause cancer in humans has not been assessed by the U.S. National Toxicology Program 13th Report on Carcinogens. (SRC)

 

And it's not my job to seek out the published scientific papers that support your case, it's yours. You have yet to present any science proving any specific example you refer to. 

Actually I did, I provided the ruling by the FDA that cites all the data and tests and shows where they finally removed 7 additives. Another article where they link to the science. But here is the full document from the governments registry it has excerpts of the scientific evidence. I have provided you with the resources to support what I am claiming, just because I am not uploading a pdf for you does not mean you can just ignore factual information. It even says where they weren't following their own Delaney Clause. Again, why allow harmful ingredients? Just because they say the concentrations are low, it still is harmful and can be replaced by something else.

Federal Register :: Food Additive Regulations; Synthetic Flavoring Agents and Adjuvants

 

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.  Nor is citing what other country's regulatory agencies are doing (which assumes their position is the one that is scientifically correct.)

Lab testing on rats and mice is not anecdotal, it is all scientifically based. I only provided anecdotal evidence to further support what I am claiming. Which, was actually a long process with various doctors, nutritionists, phycologists, etc. that while you may say isn't "harmful" it was actually the cause of the problem. So I have seen firsthand how "safe" things can be a problem.  Also, citing other countries is acceptable. Are you assuming that they are scientifically incorrect? I am pretty sure the UK has capable scientists. The science just leads to a judgement decision that must be made. So you cannot criticize one for making an informed decision.

And if you don't lose the attitude, I'll put you back on my "ignore" list.

You are the one that made baseless claims (no facts provided). You twist what I say into something it is not (never said the FDA is incompetent). You can't seem to understand that there are valid reasons for not taking the vaccine right away, you may not agree but they are 100% valid. 

[homersapien 11,373]

4 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

You are the one that made baseless claims (no facts provided). You twist what I say into something it is not (never said the FDA is incompetent). You can't seem to understand that there are valid reasons for not taking the vaccine right away, you may not agree but they are 100% valid. 

I have made no "claims".

You said you would not take the vaccine and clearly implied the FDA as justification for that decision.  To me, that implies you think the FDA is incompetent or at least not trustworthy.

You are correct in that I don't agree that there's any valid reason for not taking the vaccine considering what is about to happen.

So, let's just leave it at that.

 

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I have made no "claims".

You said you would not take the vaccine and clearly implied the FDA as justification for that decision.  To me, that implies you think the FDA is incompetent or at least not trustworthy.

You are correct in that I don't agree that there's any valid reason for not taking the vaccine considering what is about to happen.

So, let's just leave it at that.

 

 

We can leave it at that since that's your opinion, I am willing to listen to any facts that you may have so maybe I can understand why other countries have come to another conclusion on many things. I would say that the FDA does not always look out for what is best for us, same with the FAA. Again, I said I would not take it until I see that it really is safe......same as flying on a Max. Never said I wouldn't get it. There is a huge difference. 

[DKW 86 7,423]

9 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

We can leave it at that since that's your opinion, I am willing to listen to any facts that you may have so maybe I can understand why other countries have come to another conclusion on many things. I would say that the FDA does not always look out for what is best for us, same with the FAA. Again, I said I would not take it until I see that it really is safe......same as flying on a Max. Never said I wouldn't get it. There is a huge difference. 

When the hell has homey ever used facts?
He will have to post up some crazy ass driveby opinion piece by someone that barely even knows how to spell the topic. 

I was actually happy that for once he didnt post up those opinion pieces and claim that they even made sense, although, i am also sure we are about to get another dozen opinion pieces on the lame duck president being relevant and evil. Just ignore his ass. Even his crazy supporters are going to walk away from him soon. The Republicans en masse probably havent as a way to not turn away their base. But I see zero evidence that anything is going to happen on 1-20-21 other than Biden being sworn in.  Trump is 1-42 by my last count. Was there some very minor issues in the voting? Sure, there always are. Will they change one state for Trump? NOPE, not even close.