Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX, USA
I agree that SOME (read: FEW) of the the points he is making have some merits, BUTT (pun intended) Only looking back and saying everything was SO much better 100 years ago?
The point where he became completely uninteresting *FOR ME* was when he complained about the fast tracking of some drugs. Granted, yes some drugs ARE fasttracked and can cause harm, but what was 100 years ago? At the time when there was no FDA, there were literally 100's of concoctions on the market that not only COULD harn you but in fact DID harm with 100% certainty. And then comparing that to current times and complaining?
Mind: I am NOT saying that the fasttracking of some drugs is OK, or that the FDA does a good job or anything else along these lines. I am agnostic even here. But at least there *IS* some control.
Now I know that many folks don't like control, yet in this case I do like that kind of control to make it less likely that harmful substances are being distributed.
From that point on, the whole piece seemed to me as a half assed, half thought through kind of whine.
'14 GSAW soon:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Still in search of Occam's razor to cut a Gordian knot.