StringJunky

Rohypnol (or Roofie) and Gamma Hydroxybutyrate (GHB), I think would be the main ones to have in situ tests for, as they are commonly used as date rape drugs and victims don't remember anything afterwards. Did a quick search and detection straws are a thing, but still perhaps still under regulatory scrutiny. More info in link. I also found something called Sabre Drink Test for GHB and Ketamine that might be worth looking into.

From Wiki: "☐Mg2Mg5Si8O22(OH)2 (☐ is for a vacancy, a point defect in the crystal structure." Could that explain it? I wouldn't like that in my lungs!

Thanks

Relaxing public restrictions was already imminent iirc, so I don't think it made much sense to cause more problems for the NHS as a whole.

Phase 4 is done in the field after it's been approved and released for use to the public. That's where the information in a black box warning on prescribed drugs containers comes from, monitoring subjects in the field aka Phase 4. As for the minimum time required: You appear to be confidently making assertions that are factually wrong. This is the problem you are having because of your strong beliefs.

Cheers. The common one it seems found in talc that's fibrous is: "Anthophyllite is an amphibole mineral: Mg2Mg5Si8O22(OH)2" . What's with the Mg2Mg....in that formula, why not 3Mg....?

Let me emphasise the correct words in your quote: So, the studies are done after the trials and after they've been authorized fror use. You can only get long term data by putting it out in the field. Phase 3 trials test for acute reactions and efficacy.

Deleted. Quoted wrong post.

You can do safety tests two ways: Have a few thousand volunteer testers over some years, or have many millions of patients in a much shorter time. The data from real world application of a novel vaccine of so many subjects will provide vastly more, and higher quality, information into the potential adverse reactions. Couple that with intense collaboration between all disciplines, you have a much faster, as safe QC process. This analogy sums it up well:

The antithesis of UK SC selection then. Thank you for bringing the US judicial selection criteria to the fore.

Melodrama, much? Stop caricaturizing. You are getting old.

Cheers chaps. I was trying to figure where the asbestos come from in talc. I had a read about the J&J litigation.

Clearly, It is you that is endowing 'outrage' upon those whose ideas you oppose.

Yes. Create+ (top) > Topic > Click Poll tab

Probably because of the reach, speed and availability of the internet. Many topics are news now that the mainstream media never touched before, as there were higher priorities in the limited capacity of the media then. There was less transparency from institutions because of that lack of technology. This kind of public oversight is only going to increase. Everyone is seeing much more of the mechanics and reality of government through the media nowadays and have opinions about it, which they can easily broadcast, hence the increased noise.

Ignore the people doing that and focus on the ones with a reasonable rationale, with genuine concern for the matter. Here's how the UK appoints SC judiciary for comparison: https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/jud-appts/

I know you were being sarcastic, but that's an emotional response. You appear to be painting, all those holding a position contrary to yours, with the same brush. Your opposition are not monolithic.

It appears that talc is magnesium silicate and some natural asbestos-types, are the same compound. Is it the physical structure, due to geological stresses, that defines the difference?

Now, you are getting emotional. That approach doesn't get us anywhere. Perhaps, the Dems get it more because they are expected to be more above board, the GOP, peoples expectations with them are probably at an all time low after Trump. They don't give a FK, as long as they get what they want... there are exceptions, but as a collective, the shit smells stronger than the roses.

I don't think anyone is arguing against the choice, but the prejudgement of the type of candidate to be decided.

Well, it turned up there. I must have had a hunch of where it was heading... and here it is, but iNow said he omitted a part because he couldn't find it. I accepted that, but it did skew the perception of his intent. My interpretation was, and I think a couple of others, was that it was being argued that precedence justified the present, in a nut shell, and not that it was a first of its kind that deviated from the past convention.

Of course not, but one should be mindful of collective hypocrisy. The squeaky gets the grease, and clearly it is the exclusionary faction that's getting in the news and. hence, looking like they speak for feminists as a whole. JK Rowling and some other prominent feminists are exclusionary to a subset of the population, that they deem are not legitimate members of their category. People like her get on the front page.

I had a hunch after that you were talking about other forums. Yes, less is more.

To you there isn't an issue, maybe, but there clearly is to other reasonable thinking people. It doesn't matter what the prescribed candidate criteria are, it's still prejudging the outcome, it's not cricket.

It's called 'prejudice'. We know the world's messy and full of kinks in practice, but it does no harm to say that "in principle, it is wrong". You are right though, the US system, as practiced, is ultimately at fault. So you are using the past to justify the present? It doesn't matter which administration, or which point in history is used, precedence says it's ok.