This is all well and good -- and typically I keep my mouth shut on something like this, but I had to chime in. Consider those that have challenges, albeit physical, handicapped or whatnot...little things such as broken pavement are true hazards. My Mom at 77 years of age is in pretty good physical condition, yet she has a depth perception (due to a macular pucker in one eye -- which has since undergone surgery...we're hoping for great results). She *couldn't* see the height difference in two slabs of pavement (which are the sidewalks where she is in florida) and she took a tremendous spill. Granted...that one or two inch difference to you and I is nothing. But her fall was so bad that two folks ran right over and helped her up. She wound up with a black and blue eye, swollen spots all over the side of her head and body...and was quite sore (and almost petrified) to go outside again. She did blame herself but if you look at the big picture...is it really her fault because of her limited eye sight? Things need to be relatively safe for everyone, not those that are lucky enough to be physically fit to not have any "issues".
Sorry...struck a chord. Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Dorothy Fitzpatrick [mailto:d...@deetroy.org] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 12:01 PM To: silver-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CS>(LL) Have you heard of this name change ?? Sweeteners. I'm not arguing with any of that Ode, i.e the suing thing. I think that people should be responsible for themselves as far as possible. I happen to think that if you trip up a broken pavement, then that's *your* fault, not the Councils, and you should have looked where you are going! The same goes for slipping on a wet floor. As far as the rest of it goes, I am just going to agree to disagree. dee > > > Well, I make and use CS because it's something "I" can do. > When it's not enough, I have no problem hitting the feed and seed store or asking the dentist for anti-biotics. > Doctors under attack are more expensive than dentists told about a fantasy tooth ache, animal drugs are the same as people drugs and I cut out the middle men that pay $100,000 a year for malpractice insurance...except...if I choose them wrong, I can't sue for more than being my own dead or disabled dog...and the lawyers to do that will cost far more than the payoff. > > It probably cost a billion dollars to get Vioxx approved, so I can see why the resistance to having it yanked because the risk of corking off is .7% > But lookie. I hear all the time how the FDA should get out of our lives on one hand, and burrow further into them on the other. > What do you WANT? > Freedom or safety. You can't have it both ways. > With freedom comes risk. > With safety, lack of choice...and you pay for that lack. > We don't want to pay the FDA the billions it takes to do the testing, so we pay the "Pharm" in the cost of the drugs that do get approved to cover those which don't and they write their own ticket accordingly. > For every billion the "Pharm" spends getting a drug approved, they spend 5 billion on the ones that don't pass the initial phases...and you wonder why approved drugs cost so much and why they might want to fudge the data just a little bit and balance the risk of being sued against the probability of staying solvent. > The cost of that pill is something like 25 cents for the pill and 25 dollars to insure against possible risks if ANY one dies or comes to harm, disregarding everyone that doesn't. > -- The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. Rules and Instructions: http://www.silverlist.org Unsubscribe: <mailto:silver-list-requ...@eskimo.com?subject=subscribe> Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/silver-list@eskimo.com/maillist.html Off-Topic discussions: <mailto:silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com> List Owner: Mike Devour <mailto:mdev...@eskimo.com>
