Staph seen in 1/2f of U.S. meat: GOP moves to defund FDA

[Kulindahr]

The American Meat Institute disputes the overall conclusion reported by the Translational Genomics Research Institute. Which of these entities is [most] correct?
​

The first is a creature of the meat industry. The second is non-for-profit, public interest, and in somewhat of an adversarial position to the meat industry.

I favor the latter.

 

[Kulindahr]

AMI Says U.S. Meat, Poultry Safe

Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria in Animals and Unnecessary Human Health Risks​

The AMI is saying, "The government lets us get away with this, so we're going to do it."

While Pew is somewhat agenda-driven, in this case their science is good -- and probably their economics. The AMI would be making a better investment to buy a group insurance policy for all those who eat its meat so any health problems are covered than putting all these drugs in the animals.

 

[opinterph]

… almost half of the meat in this nation may be infected with drug resistant staph bacteria

How do you reach that conclusion?

 

[Kulindahr]

What entity regulates antibiotic use in livestock?

Dept. of Agriculture.

And the FDA -- if it's a drug, it doesn't matter if it's for human, pet, whatever.

They've worked out their respective territories -- this piece of a Wiki article is helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration#Food_and_dietary_supplements

What I understand from farmers here is that the FDA makes sure that the drugs are safe and governs approval and application, but whether and how they can actually be used with livestock is Dept. of Ag. So the FDA would be the one saying that a drug is fit for use with livestock, while Ag. would be the ones deciding if it actually may be used....

except when it involves a veterinary doc, and then it's all FDA.


The real problem is the giant agribusinesses: they can use the billions in subsidies meant for family farmers to lobby Congress to tell the Dept. of Ag. to do things they way they want. Since the drugs help their livestock meet Ag. health standards, they don't have to worry much about what happens once it's approved for market.

Given the way we ship food an average of something like 1500 miles to where it's consumed, food is one of those places we need the government to be on the job. In this case, the FDA needs to step in and decree that since these antibiotics are making it through to be consumed by humans, even though they're just residues in the tissues, and order that meat cannot be sold with such residues. That might not eliminate the problem, but it would make a big dent.

 

[opinterph]

In this case, the FDA needs to step in and decree that since these antibiotics are making it through to be consumed by humans, even though they're just residues in the tissues, and order that meat cannot be sold with such residues.

The article linked below offers an explanation for why it is the US Congress that must step in to stop the overuse of antibiotics in food animals.

The real problem is the giant agribusinesses

Industry has thwarted the agency’s attempts to end the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics for more than three decades.

FDA Takes Strong Stance on Livestock Antibiotic Use, Public Health Still At Risk Until Congress Acts​

 

[Kulindahr]

All I will say is this to Kulindahr.

You don't know anything about me. Don't make baseless assumptions. Believe me, I lived in the real world...

I want mass nationalization and the power put back into the pockets of the people. The private sector is robbing from this country and stealing from the workers. We're seeing the war on workers commence in this country. And the workers are powerless to stand up against the aggression of the private sector because unions are too weak. This country has higher poverty rates then European countries... because of the robbery. The government here is in it... because they center around corporatism. The entire system is broken.

I see it. I live it. I know extreme poverty. So don't come with me this propaganda and outright lies about how I don't know. I've had a very rough life.

People are getting poisoned with food, and you don't care. You just want to make a almost broken system completely broken. The FDA is vital, and we must step up funding or face the consequences. Cutting funding and making a redundant private regulatory agency doesn't cut it.

It would help if you'd read my posts. You're only seeing what your ideology allows.

You still haven't even bothered to look into private regulatory agencies. They are effective and more so than government ones, and in industries very critical to human safety are tougher than the government -- which, by getting involved, has lowered standards.

Those are just facts. Contractors, plumbers, electricians that I know agree: if you want to cut corners, go with government standards, not UL or its fellows. If an outfit like UL were in charge of certifying houses, the crappy construction with cheap materials wouldn't be happening.

If you do know extreme poverty, then you skipped having any experience with dealing with the practicality of getting quality things done for people. I'll ask again: what's your experience with construction, carpentry, plumbing, etc.? If you have none, you don't know what the reality is.

Your entire last paragraph shows you haven't read my posts. You make three statements that flatly contradict what I've said in this thread.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's liberty for which governments are instituted among men to protect when you cannot raise a cow or chicken in urban or suburban America.

I'd be happy to allow raising cows in urban or suburban America if they'd abide by the same rule I think the Dept. of Ag. (presently a subsidiary of the agribusinesses) should have for livestock: there has to be a certain natural area per animal, proportional to its mass. From growing up with critters, I'd say sixteen square meters is about right for a chicken. The area for a pig or a cow would be proportionally higher -- like, for a cow, which averages three or four hundred times as much mass as a chicken, and going with the higher figure, sixty-four hundred square meters of natural area would be required.

Areas covered by trees, shrubs, buildings, or pavement don't count.

 

[Kulindahr]

The article linked below offers an explanation for why it is the US Congress that must step in to stop the overuse of antibiotics in food animals.

Sounds like this needs to pass:

Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA)


But even that is being too nice -- they should just ban feed lots.

 

[Kulindahr]

Who is this guy? He's so arrogant. He thinks I have not done my research when I clearly hasn't done his research.

Just facts huh? Or assumptions by an angry individual who must always be right?

The government is necessary for increasing standards, not lowering them. They have often implemented laws that the private sector would never bother with... a lot of safety standards come from the public sector. I don't know why it's so difficult for you to understand this.

And then this guy claims I skipped getting to know how to get people out of extreme poverty? Are you nuts? Practicality? Libertarians aren't practical people. Everything they talk about looks fine on paper, but has no real world application.

I don't know what reality is because I didn't engage in those professions? You really are nuts. I know far more about reality then you do. You just want this country to be a toxic waste dump. I understand. Keep believing in those lies that you're being spoon fed. You probably read too much Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.

I became a Libertarian because of the practical world. Since you admit you haven't engaged in it, you have no room to talk.

What does it matter what I read? You don't even read the posts in this thread.

 

[Kulindahr]

I've held a variety of other working class jobs... and I have plenty of room to talk. You're dense. You have no basis for any of the arguments you are making, and I'm pretty sure you're exaggerating or outright lying about your background.

Did you have to decide what quality of product to procure for various purposes? Were you the one deciding whether a specific method should be used? If you did, you'd have learned pretty quick that you trust UL to give you something solid, but if it's not UL you don't use it even if it's government-approved.

Contractors who only have to follow government rules do only what they absolutely have to, to get by. Contractors who follow private sector recommendations build higher quality products. A case in point is just eight miles from where I sit: a small development built to private sector research outfit specs over forty years ago is still sound and solid, while less than two miles away, a bigger development built to government specs, within the last ten years, already has cracking foundations, leaking drain lines, subsiding driveways. In other words, the private sector forty years ago knew better how to build those houses than the government did ten years ago.

Why? Because the private research outfit wasn't interested in pleasing anyone at all, whether industry or constituents; they were interested in finding the best way to do something. So they went with the best knowledge of geologists, for starters (most of the problems in the new development go back to crappy assessment of and addressing the geology).

I've had to work hard to go to college. And I don't think you have one damn right to speak for me, or claim what I am or am not capable of doing.

I do read the posts in this thread. You need to take some basic reading comprehension classes.

I'm observing and making conclusions: you show no knowledge of the areas I'm addressing. Unless you've actually done the hands-on work and seen the difference in quality of parts, you're ignorant on this.

If you were reading the posts in this thread, you wouldn't be making the false statements about me and what I've said.

You can't be practical and libertarian. Practical world? What the hell are you talking about anyways? The world doesn't fit in your world views.

LOL

Most of the libertarians friends I have are that way because of their interaction with the practical world, all in hands-on occupations involving making actual products and including having to choose between components. In computers, contracting, plumbing, and more, we've all seen that government aims us at mediocrity and private regulatory outfits are the ones to be trusted. Every one of them is like me: we would never put any item for plumbing or electrical or anything in our houses unless it had the stamp of approval of a private sector entity, regardless of government approval, because the folks like UL have shown they can be trusted to certify only high quality -- since before the government got into the act.

Heck, even at Home Depot, where their interest is in selling things, I get told things are inferior, that they're "only up to government standards" -- just last week I was pointed to a store which sold a better item, because it was certified by people who have to make sure they only certify quality -- a private sector entity.

 

[Kulindahr]

The raw foodies do.

I for one am glad that I read this thread. I'd been thinking of putting my dog on a raw food diet.

Now, I see that the risks outweigh the benefits.

Almost all bacteria on meat cuts is on the very surface. I have no problem feeding Bammer raw meat, with one caveat: I sear the surface first. Frying pan is one way, flame-broiling is another. Just get the outside nice and brown, and the inside can be raw.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't know about that one, good buddy.

Self-regulation turned out to be a most colossal disaster in the financial sector.

Who said anything about self-regulation? I only advocate adversarial regulation: regulation by people who dearly want to find something wrong with the product they're regulating.

Okay, UL isn't very adversarial, but their dedication is to seeing that they certify nothing but the absolute best. If some company doesn't have the quality, UL tells them so -- and until government got in the business, that alone was enough to make a company get it together; now, they can go find someone with lower standards.

Besides that, I've already stated that I see no way for private-sector regulation of a number of things, among them air quality, the food supply, and the financial sector. Water quality can be done privately, with one caveat: the government should specify that water purity should reflect "best local standards". That alone would end the heavy-metals dumping into Oregon's Willamette River, which is perfectly legal because they mix it in to just under what the EPA says is safe -- the problem being that the levels of those heavy metals in the river coming to them are so low that when I was at OSU, at any rate, we couldn't even measure them.
That definition also wouldn't allow local industries to defend themselves against state laws by saying they complied with federal (a stunt pulled at a coal mine in Colorado; with the state law mandating higher standards, that would BE the federal law, because it would be "best local standard".
Of course a science standard should be tied in. Regulators have a tendency to say that if they can measure it, they can regulate it at that level, or if it has a momentary detrimental effect, the long term or the natural rhythms of nature are excluded -- a good example there is a local reservoir, where ecofreaks keep getting the water district barred from cleaning the reservoir of sediment by using a "spider" on the bottom -- a machine that wanders slowly across the bottom, stirring up the sediment so it can be carried away. The ecofreaks are driven by saying the mud is bad on the beach, but they're missing the fact that before the dam was there, even larger inflictions of mud came at least twice a year, dumping not just fine particulates but clumps, rocks, and other debris -- so what the water district is doing is actually weakly mimicking the natural pattern, and the ecofreaks are fighting for an artificial deprivation of nutrients to the near off-shore systems. Another good example is when the EPA says you can't use certain chemicals or kill off vegetation in wetlands, which here is resulting in takeover of acre after acre by invasive species which serve as food for nothing here and choke out food plants for native wildlife (besides choking rivers and endangering local species). Mere common sense would dictate that the invasive species be removed, but doing so actually requires an EPA waiver!

 

[Kulindahr]

And this hypocrite has the audacity to claim that I'm making false statements... such hypocrisy. He should stop making false statements about me. This guy doesn't know anything about me. So stop being a hypocrite like most libertarians and come back to reality please.

You have been making false statements: you contradict things I've written plainly in this thread.

I haven't made any false statements about you, and you've offered little to correct the impression you give of ivory-tower ideologue, except making up crap about my background.

 

[Kulindahr]

Just for starters:

I don't think the government belongs in the food inspection business, but someone has to do it.

If they want to defund the FDA, the legislation should include automatic awards beginning at ten million dollars for any death shown to come from contaminated meat, plus awards for pain and suffering to all family and close friends of any deceased, and lesser automatic penalties for anyone getting sick from it. And if the government has to get involved, the offending company should have to pay all government expenses.

If they're going to transfer trust to the companies, the responsibility has to go with it.

See how fanatic I am, demanding that the FDA be folded right now, and go away? How I insist we don't need any regulation? How companies be freed from all responsibility for their actions?

The FDA is ineffective because it's underfunded. So let me guess, underfund it even more to make it more effective? Uh... what? This is why libertarianism makes no sense to me and I used to be one.

Thus demonstrates you don't understand libertarianism. You're attacking a straw man.

Fines would help. But the FDA has been short on inspectors for years, and the Bush administration wasn't any help. When you haven't got enough people to do the checking -- and when people on the inside tell the slaughterhouses and processors when the inspectors are coming -- you're going to get lousy results.

I'd set up an outside, private regulatory agency as competition. Then tell the food people in the FDA that their salaries depend on doing better than the private people. That would provide more inspectors, and be a step toward getting government out of the business.



No, it isn't -- that's idiotarianism. Intelligent libertarians know you have to fix all the messes we have because we've had a statist society for so long, which includes providing institutions to take over as we get government out of the way. Helping set up entities like Underwriters Laboratories for the various areas government presently regulates is the first step.

See here how I say the FDA should have fewer inspectors? That we should let the food companies regulate themselves? That it should just be dissolved and we can take it on faith that effective private sector regulators will pop up overnight? And where I invented something called Underwriters Laboratories to pretend I have a point?

Private people would also let things go by easier because the private sector cannot be trusted.

Yet you have immense faith in the private sector -- to seek profit (see below), and your second clause is a statement of faith.

The private sector would be more inclined towards making a profit, rather then the well being of the people.

This demonstrates you don't understand the private sector: a company whose prosperity depends on defending the well-being of the people will do just that -- out of self interest. These companies exist, they existed before government regulation, and they kept standards high for years all by themselves.

And getting government out of business would be a terrible idea. I guess the idea of no regulations and no standards would be excellent for you.

This shows your lack of reading comprehension: just the posts of mine cited above show it's false.

BTW, I taught remedial reading comprehension and writing at the college level.

You know that won't work at all. Getting "government out of the way" will only make things worse. It's a silly idea. And actually in this country, there hasn't been enough regulation... hence the entire financial crisis. And what regulation there was, wasn't properly enforced. Libertarianism is a a silly, circular idea... relying on the private sector to correct the woes of the private sector... that's enough to make me laugh.

What next? Get rid of the EPA, and ask the private sector to deal with it?

This is called "changing the subject". Statements within it show it's ideologically driven, a dodge to try to keep your footing by invoking slogans and abandoning the arguemtn, trying to replace it with another.

Oh and as far as the EPA is concerned, the so called "small government" advocates have tried to get rid of it and defund it. Europe has done just fine with strong government standards and regulation...

Now you bring in yet another topic: "small government advocates". Why are they of interest here?
Especially when they're not what the name says: they're actually "strip away all structure and drop us into anarchy" advocates.

The only way we can improve this is by increasing funding to the government institutions and reform how they do things. You can't possibly rely on the private sector for anything but a profit margin. And it's even more silly to think we can establish some privately owned institutions to take over in regulating the markets. That won't work.

More statements of faith, followed by a statement contrary to recorded fact: privately owned institutions do effective regulation, and have been doping so for generations.


Here's a post of mine you plainly missed:

What the Republicans in the House want isn't liberty, it's chaos. They have this warped notion that by burning down the bramble patch, you automatically get a blueberry farm. Somehow they totally overlook the fact that someone still has to build up the soil, plant the blueberry bushes and nurture them at least five years before they bear any fruit at all.

And many libertarians brainlessly follow that fantasy. They could use a little wisdom, and a lot less ideology. They need to face the real world, where there are indeed areas where the private sector, at least at the moment, shows no capacity for taking care of keeping quality high. An obvious one is air quality: there is no way that air quality on a national scale can be handled without a nation-wide agency. There's no way it can be done with multiple competing agencies; how do you maintain air quality when you have multiple competing standards? and when the air masses move from one company's territory to another's? I suppose someone like Nobel laureate Friedman might come up with a scheme, but I'm doubtful. Getting the idea of chemical trespass into the law would be a big step toward it, but there's a long way to go before I'd even tentatively consider it sane to transfer air quality authority to the private sector.

BTW, How much have you studied the concept of chemical trespass?

 

[Kulindahr]

I think you have a good point here. Privatizing some elements of commerce oversight does have tax-saving merits as long as there is no provision to 'opt out' from third party regulations that will ensure public safety. No question that the feds are not very cost effective with our tax e.g., bloated military budget for one, and can go too far in protecting the environment (the bark beetle proliferation is a good example by not allowing for the culling of trees). I do agree that the FDA's role could be limited to auditing the regulatory process. So there, I compromised with you!

Did I miss this the first time through?

Limiting the FDA's role that far isn't something I'd do yet. I think we're ready to spin off water quality issues to the private sector, except for referee power (what the constitution grants the federal government anyway) for water that moves between states). But the food supply? I'd say that the fact that the government system is making so many mistakes at this point that perhaps we could try a pilot project for private regulation, but the trouble there is that food moves so far from production location to consumption location that you'd need to start with a pretty vast company to begin with. I'd rather study and model how best to establish private regulatory agencies while giving the FDA enough personnel to show that it can be done right at all.

 

[Kulindahr]

You still haven't answered this -- so I have to continue on the assumption that you have no actual experience:

You say you study this. Tell me, then: how many construction sites have you been on, how many contractors have you worked with, how much plumbing and electrical and carpentry have you done? Do a thousand hours or more spread across those, and you'll have studied the issue, because that's where you'll find that the people who depend on things being good trust UL to guarantee a product's quality and safety, and laugh at government regulation as a joke. Oh, here and there you'll find a government inspector actually interested in making sure people end up with good materials, homes, plumbing, whatever, but mostly they're about filling in blanks and drawing a paycheck. That's why we get roads that fail, bridges with rust and metal fatigue cracks just painted over, entire housing developments that have so many corners cut they would roll.

And you still haven't shown any sign that you have any knowledge of UL....

Why do the people who depend on quality trust UL? Because with UL, everyone takes direct responsibility for their actions. When a product is certified, the paper trail shows who did the testing, who signed off on it, who his supervisor was, all the way to the top. If something is fishy, everyone who signed off on it is called on the carpet. When a government regulator signs off on something, he isn't liable for a bloody thing, and his job isn't in danger.

This is the reality. I've seen it on construction sites, with water quality, with other things. The testing that can be trusted is done by private companies, not by the government. And when the EPA signs off on dumping heavy metals into clean rivers, and their regulations let invasive species crowd out the native ones, when you can drive fifty miles through forests of dead trees caused by government regulation, it's plain where good regulations comes from -- and it isn't from bureaucrats.

More poor reading comprehension....

Quick quiz: who in the private sector was I saying could be trusted?

Your apparent answer, from below, is "all of it" -- which is false.

As is the assertion that I said anything political.

Ignorance is bliss. Only you could take something I said out of context, not responsible to 80% of my post, and then go on a political tirade about how the private sector can be trusted which is flat out rubbish.

The idea that regulation existed before major government regulation is hogwash.

Did you do any research into when private regulatory outfits started?
Hint: it was before government regulation began.

If it was up to you, we wouldn't have minimum wages, no environmental standards or anything.

Flat falsehood, which you'd know if you were reading the thread -- just see my posts above, cited from this thread.

Yes -- you should stop lieing about the reality. Tell me how many thousands of hours of employment in occupations that depend on the reliability of products; if it's at least 2k, I might believe you have a clue. And if you can tell me the history of Underwriters Laboratories without having to look them up, it might give you some credibility.

Done this yet? If you had, you wouldn't continue to spout that private-sector regulators can't be trust. UL is better trusted than the government, in the undustries where they inspect and certify.

Here's another ideological assertion, which also happens to employ a fallacy:

And you do? Because all you have demonstrated is how arrogant and ignorant you really are. I know a lot more about the real world then you do. Want to know why? I'm a leftist, you're a libertarian. That says it all. Libertarians are absolutely clueless about reality.

Libertarians don't use facts in their arguments, only emotion and irrelevance.

The last statement again shows you aren't even reading this thread.

 

[Kulindahr]

You've lied about me, and my background. You do NOT know anything about me, and I ask you to cease making stupid statements (like saying "ivory tower ideologue". I live in the real world... so shut your damn mouth.

If you'd pay attention to things that don't fit your ideology, I'd stop describing you as what you appear: an ivory-tower ideologue. You refuse to look into the actual history of private regulation, you refuse to acknowledge that it began before government regulation, you refuse to acknowledge any facts offered to you -- that's an ideologue, pure and simple. That you offer no evidence of actually having grappled with the issues as issues, not as some academic study, is ivory tower; you think the world conforms to what you've found in books.

I'll try again: what jobs have you held that required you to understand the difference between a government-regulated product and a privately-regulated one? how much study did you put into the difference?

And a conclusion is not a lie -- I've drawn conclusions about you from the evidence you both present and refuse to present. You've made flatly false statements about me that you know are false if you're reading this thread, and know even more certainly they're false if you've read much in this forum.

Johan just a little above demonstrated where ideology gets in the way: from our prior interactions, he knows quite well I don't believe in self-regulation, yet he referred to it as something I favor. That's because the left has certain conceptions about things and can't see around them. You've admitted you're a leftist, you talk in absolutes like a leftist, you make the very same mistakes, and so the logical conclusion is that your ideology is blinding you to what's actually written in front of you on the screen.

 

[Kulindahr]

All pie in the sky nonsense. Like the rest of your views.

So now you agree that giving the FDA more inspectors and the funding them them is idiotic. You think it should just be dissolved.

Funny, because I don't.


I just spent a couple of posts showing how you claim things about me that are plainly false as seen from statements I'd already made. Are you going to continue to pretend you're reading this thread?

 

[Kulindahr]

Who is this ideological clown? I wonder... can anyone tell me about this guy? Apparently he seems to have fun posting nonsense without any reasoning or facts behind his answers. Everything you have said is politically and ideologically driven.



More lies and more exaggerations... but then again I wouldn't expect anything less from this guy.

So you refuse to do any homework or show anything that demonstrates you have a grasp of he subject.

I've worked in the industry, and I've worked the inspection side, of what I'm talking about. I have on-the-ground experience. I continue to give examples from the real world, where you haven't given a single one; you just repeat that you understand.

You call me ideologically driven, but there's not a chance in the world you could describe my ideology, because you aren't paying attention to what I've said in this thread -- for example, that the FDA needs more inspectors. If you can't pay attention to my actual statements, you'll never figure out where I'm coming from.

I went back again and read through the thread. I provide facts, you provide sweeping statements. I ask for evidence that you know what you're talking about; you change the subject.


If you stick around, you'll find that those patterns don't fly well here. I can cite my construction, maintenance, handyman, and other background here and it's generally accepted because people know that's what I've done. You aren't citing anything except to say "I've studied" -- but you don't tell us anything you've studied, don't bring up any points from what you've learned, don't even tell us where you studied or who from. That's not a path to credibility; it's one that generally means the person is an ideologue who doesn't actually care about facts.

The closed mind you're showing doesn't help, either. You repeat the same assertion and refer to others as ridiculous, regardless of the fact that some brief research will show that the ideas you're dissing are actually sound, that they have worked. Again, the refusal to do your homework suggests you don't care about the facts, your mind is made up.

At the very least you need examples others can look at and see if they match their own. I've built storage sheds, small barns, and other small items, plus been part of building and repairing and maintaining houses, barns, offices, even a grandstands (note: doing maintenance on grandstands sucks). When I talk of such things, others who have done the same can judge whether I'm making stuff up. When I talk from my education, I reference where I studied (most important here is generally OSU [bachelor's in general science, magna cum laude]; my linguistic studies have little relevance to CE & P).

Something to get used to: when someone points out that you appear ignorant on a subject, that's not an insult, it's an observation cum conclusion. OTOH, when you sound off with something like "If you had your way...", followed by a big generalization, you've better have read at least a quarter of the person's posts in this forum, and probably Hot Topics as well. There are regular readers here who may be laughing their heads off at your assertions about me, not just because they're contradicted in this very thread, but because newcomers frequently make such assertions -- calling me a blind neocon, a left wing ideologue, anti-religious, a religious freak.... So before you use that on anyone else, go read their thread history, so you don't look silly.

 

[Kulindahr]

I have offered plenty of evidence showing I do know the issues. You can keep on claiming that I haven't, but what you say isn't reality. Again, let me go over this for you a bit more clearly. My viewpoints are influenced by reality, not by what is in books.

You make idiotic assumptions about leftists, because you're too delusional to realize the errors and holes in your own beliefs. You don't make logical conclusions, only arrogant pompous assumptions about others. It's time for you to open your eyes a bit to reality.

You say all this about the left... but what about your own biases? You can't see opposing viewpoints, hence why people mostly don't bother replying to what you say. I have a feeling that most people here don't care for what you say.

Now we get to actual personal attacks, after I call you on failure to show you know what you're talking about.

Again: how many hours have you logged in the construction trades? how much responsibility did you have for making decisions about product quality?
I've got thousands, and hundreds, respectively.

I made no assumptions about leftists -- I pointed out an observable phenomenon.

You have offered not one shred of indication that you have any experience or knowledge in this area -- I just re-read the thread again, and there are only statements of opinion and ideological sloganeering.

I keep asking for you to offer something, anything at all almost, but you give nothing but insults.

You're so bent on attacking me that you agreed the FDA should be eliminated!