Spoken like someone that doesnt know anything about the Hobby Lobby case other than what the hyper-reactionary and completely dishonest liberal propaganda machine started spewing the moment the ruling came.

letting government control population levels via that chip while you blather on about liberal talking points that so trivially demonstrate ignorance all by themselves.

Yes, and its an Army lead by politicians who are predominately lawyers.

Its easy to prevent competition when you jack up the cost that other must pay to insane levels such as $1 million per medallion.

Let taxis suffer the regulatory capture that they themselves created. There is no reason for anyone else to suffer it.

..and you've been told more than once that they do.

That doesnt seem to have stopped you from continuing to be in the "question" state instead of the "answered" state.

Yep, thats why there was a big "snake oil" market until 1968 when efficacy was finally monitored by government .... oh, wait... "snake oils" pretty much disappeared half a century previous to that? How can that be?

So no, mandating efficacy is NOT the best defense against snake oil sales after all. If anything, mandating efficacy pushes "snake oils" underground or into adjacent markets such as "dietary supplements" where again the FDA does not ensure potency, purity or biologic activity of the ingredients.

Also to add:

The Kefauver Harris Amendment was inspired by the thalidomide tragedy that caused thousands of birth defects. However, the number of birth defects it caused in America was 0 because thalidomide was not approved yet by the FDA simply on the safety mandate. Thalidomide would have passed efficacy tests because it was, in fact, effective for more that a few purposes. So effective it was for so many purposes that Germany had lifted regulations and even started selling it over the counter.

Mandating efficacy is the backwards thinking of the Statist.

He is a full blow Statist willing to make things up to justify his Statist position, rather than form a position based on actual information.

perhaps he thinks that his Statist position is so solid that the information he is unaware of must support his position, so feels free to just make it up because hey it must be true.

Only if we know what the alternative was/is can such a claim be made.

See, the person you replied to detailed both sides of the coin (delays cost lives, rushing cost lives, compare) while you only want to look at one side with your "counter example" (lack of spending cost lives, lets not compare to anything..)

"Bureau of Chemistry" was split into the "Food, Drug, and Insecticide Administration" and the "Bureau of Chemistry and Soils" in 1927, the former of which was later renamed "Food and Drug Administration"

The FDA's purpose was codified by the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 until the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 was passed.

Still at this point, the FDA's purpose was only regulating safety.

It wasnt until the Kefauver Harris Amendment of 1962 was passed that drug efficacy was considered by any federal law, Even here it wasnt until 1968 that the FDA enacted the Drug Efficacy Study Implementation that complied with the 1962 law - so the very first year that the FDA monitored efficacy was 30 years after the FFDCA, and 62 years after the PFDA.

So only 44 years of monitoring drug efficacy by the FDA, yet its original mandate has been around since 1906 and the administration has had its current name since 1927.

You've got some explaining to do: Are you being a intentionally dishonest fuck, or are you just an ignorant twat? yeah I now.. facts are hard to either know or have to defend against.

Everything you said is unimportant because the FDA's purpose isnt supposed to be enforcing efficacy, only safety.

Somewhere along the way, however, some blind fool tools such as yourself got the FDA into the safety efficacy racket, and the thing that took a back seat because of it was in fact safety.


Let me quote you: "if it can't be overseen by the government it need to either be banned." Not only is this a grammatic fail, even if it was grammatically correct it would still just be a full blown blind call for complete Statism.

Yes, it cant be that the science disagrees with your philosophy.

You can't have the debate on honest grounds where we debate if a human fetus has rights -- instead you just want to define, completely unscientifically, that a human fetus isnt human.

Is it that you are afraid that you don't have much of an argument if we just talk about if a particular set of humans should have rights?

Its not "global warming" or "climate change" ... its "climate disruption" now.

Seems to me that if warming wasnt the best word to describe it, and change wasnt the best word to describe it either, then I have to start wondering what the hell "it" really is.

Then why are you going on about "brain capacity or structure" when we are discussing what is and is not human?

Clearly you want it to be about your belief system rather than what is and is not a human scientifically. You would be very hard pressed to find a biologist tell you that a human beings fetus is not human. Results would be different when talking about an embryo, but I suspect that just the mere distinction between fetus and embryo has already injected too much science into the discussion for you to adequately deal with without you putting in some research.

If you do need to do some research at this point, then you were never equipped to enter this discussion. That whole embyro to fetus to baby process is the science of it, while "brain capacity or structure" is pseudo-science used by philosophers rather than scientists.

What you say and how you say it do not jive. You are on a crusade and are fully willing to slander other folks in the process of defending your kids from your own lack of parenting through government action. Its quite clear.

Science - Member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens.

You could have at least tried to go with the embryo vs fetus argument (which I left open for you...) but that would have required that you actually knew some of the science.