LuckyR

In the dog food world, there are micro nutrient requirements (vitamins and minerals) that every dog food must have. Just giving meat isn't going to supply that. However when choosing between dog foods (since all of them meet the micro nutrient requirements), you should choose on the macro nutrients. Basically the higher the protein content (excluding pea protein), the better the food.

It's my understanding that the only product required to have data to back up expiration dates is infant formula. Everything else the manufacturer gets to put whatever date they want. And in my experience there is a financial incentive for the manufacturer to put a date that is much shorter than average. Mostly to have the consumer repurchase rather than reuse, and also (in the case of foodstuffs) to not run the risk that the consumer eats old product and associate suboptimal taste as being the actual quality of the product. Long story short, with a few exceptions, medications still have efficacy long after the "expiration" date.

?? Maybe you're having a bad day. Wishing you the very best.

What do you find extremely odd about using the stipulated terminology of the OP when addressing the OP? Though I stand by my observation that this terminology is both subjective and relative and therefore personal and not universal. News flash, personal opinions are the bailiwick of Internet Forums, btw.

In a practical sense there is no role for level testing in your friend's case. Since the Pill is being written for symptom improvement, if the symptom is improved to her satisfaction the dosage is "effective" or "correct", regardless of what her serum level might be. Similarly, if she is having side effects she doesn't like, her dosage is "too high", again, regardless of her serum level. Level testing is valuable in very specific situations such as replacing hormone levels in those with a deficiency, or in preventing a condition so detrimental that you can't tolerate a single episode, such as seizures.

Money is just a tool for keeping score, it isn't intrinsically on the good/evil continuum. Wealth or sums of money at the high end of the scale, is not evil, per sè, but many who possess wealth, acquired it through evil means or participated in an unjust system that those who do poorly under that system would view as evil.

Exactly. But evil is not only subjective, but it is also relative. Thus any "definitions" are going to be extremely personal and not universal.