I'm sorry. I'm having a tough time following this conversation.
My children and grandchildren are fine. Both my children are professional
people now, one a linguist, and one a psychologist. My grandchildren are
provided for by multiple trusts.
I don't watch football or American Idol. I watch a total of about twelve
hours of TV a week.
Long enough ago to understand how it works, Joe. Long enough to see how DDT
went out after being touted as a world saving chemical. Long enough to see
thalidomide come and go. Long enough to see hundreds of thalidomides come
and go. Long enough to understand that money powers the world and people
lubricate the wheels. Long enough to lose my Pollyanna attitude from
childhood and learn to live in the real world.
About the same, which is how I learned that the testing procedures are too
lightweight to produce the information we need.
In your newspaper, have you ever seen ads looking for volunteers for drug
trials? Take a certain type of drug, study the results. That sort of thing.
Could be we may come to it, it seems... :(
You're saying those same companies shouldn't do clinical trials so folks
like you can say no new drugs can be introduced because they haven't
been prove to be safe for human use?
Can't have it both ways it seems to me...
You never saw me say they shouldn't do clinical trials. I asked if you'd
seen ads looking for humans who wanted to participate. I needed to establish
that you knew of the concept of clinical trials. (There are clueless people,
so I had to ask first).
Some of these trials show that a drug works much differently with humans
than with animals. Could this be a reason for testing on humans? After all,
we know that dogs and rats metabolize certain things differently than
It's almost impossible to tell what you do intend to say, Joe... :(
In general, instead of making a point, you raise rhetorical questions
and hyperbole and....oh, to heck with it...
For many purposes, hogs are about as close clinically to peoples at it
If you'd simply answered the initial question about ads, there would've been
less clutter, and this would've been easier.
I notice that you didn't address anything in the paragraph beginning with
"Some of these trials.." Is that because you need to believe the trials
exist because of animal rights issues?
In what way "easier"? Yes, I have seen ads for clinical trials. So what?
No, that's not what I said although it is much more difficult to perform
useful animal trials and much research is delayed or not undertaken
because of overzealous AR advocates. I did make a semi-tongue-in-cheek
remark that it just might come to that, however...
However, in actuality I didn't respond because the point is so obvious
as to be Homer's "DOH!" and seemed unworthy of any response...
And, no, I'm not responding to this thread further...
Shhhhhhhh. It's a secret the evil corporations don't want you to know
about. But it HAS been in recent papers and other publications. But, then,
you're a voracious reader, and knew that. Right?
BTW, you're the one who brought up the point about human testing. If you
can't explain your point, please don't foist it off on me to attempt to
How large an area? Gravel has been outlawed here, but river rock on top
of landscape cloth is good where stuff won't grow. Doesn't support
weeds as long as it doesn't have soil dumped on it. The few weeds that
do sprout are easy to pull. I would consider changing over to rock and
landscape cloth, or to beds of native plants or non-agressive ground
cover (like hosta). Beds of day lily, hosta, iris, are low maint. and
look good. Trying to kill weeds is a waste - if nothing else, plant
attractive ones :o)
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.