They are incredibly easy to make.
The new Hostess is non-union and has lost most of it's talent
If your first statement is true, it's hard to see why the second one would matter.
things that you don't care where you got them because you're going to replace them when they break.
Sounds like a Kindle to me
For a double blind experiment, both the doctor and the patient need to ignore (the phrase you are looking for is "not be aware") if they are on placebo or not -hence *double* blind.
I see, you think you are cute, but you misunderstand the point of double blind. The point of doing double blind is if there is a possibility that the clinician might know which drug is the test and which is the placebo and then if that knowledge could have even an unintended effect on the subject during the course of the treatment. Since the surgical patient is usually unconscious this can't happen, but if a person were being extremely careful they could have one physician interact with the patient while they were awake (before and after the surgery) and have a separate doctor do the actually surgery (or not) but lie to the "awake" doctors so they always thought the surgery was done. You are probably right that no one has been confused enough to do something like this, for ethical reasons if nothing else, but in addition to not understanding when double blinds are appropriate, you also fail to understand a ruptured appendix. Roughly speaking, the mortality rate from having the surgery is about 1 in 1,000,000 while having no surgery after the appendix ruptures is almost a death sentence. Which pretty much makes your cuteness irrelevant.
Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith. - Paul Tillich, German theologian and historian