More Paul than Kenny I’d say.
No Crowds Until March 2021
- Thread starter Frogfish
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
More Paul than Kenny I’d say.
Yes, Paul Gascoigne was also a great player.
I dunno, Alzheimer's and cancer terrify the shit out of me too. I've seen people go through that, and it's fucking grim
Yeah, I was being a little flippant. Most people take relative precautions against the top killers i.e. not smoking/drinking too much, wearing sun cream, exercising, looking when crossing the road, looking after their mental health etc. So, people do actually worry about the traditionally high reasons for death, and take precautions within reason. The problem with this particular cause of death, is that we currently need to take somewhat extreme measures because of how little we know about it and it's highly contagious nature.
You absolutely sure The Lying Rag cream which they sold to you for $29.95 with a polished marketing pitch, is actually keeping you safe? That the formulation scientists who made it actually know what they're doing? How many of your own colleagues know what they're doing, when dealing with far simpler problems than skin cancer and solar radiation? Yeah you're probably better off just staying out of The Lying Rag, rather than placing your faith in a bottle of cream.
I've decided that I'll chance that cancer treatment will be cheaper than sun cream when the time comes.
Last edited:
I do. It’s for the little shits who are allergic to every cream going apart from the most expensive one on the market.
The number of chemicals that go into them, that's hardly surprising. The FDA eventually got around to thinking hang on a fucking minute, what the hell is up with all these ingredients? They wanted some testing done, and the woke scientists played the animal testing card to safeguard their own salaries. So that's why you'll have to carry on forking out more of your own salary for the high end brands meant for rich people, who you of course don't dare poison with dodgy creams because they're rich.
[article]
Animal rights advocates are calling for changes to a US Food and Drug Administration sunscreen proposal that they say will require a "disproportionate" volume of animal testing.
The request has come in response to the FDA’s February proposal to put into effect a final monograph for nonprescription, over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreen drug products. Under this process, the agency has requested additional information on 12 of 16 active ingredients on the market, in order to determine if the substances should be designated as "generally recognised as safe and effective" (Grase).
Many of the more than 1,000 comments that have already been submitted on the ongoing consultation have supported the agency’s effort to gather more data on the safety and effectiveness of these substances. Others, however, have been more critical of the approach.
Cruelty Free International – which pushes to abolish animal testing – has called for a full revision of the rule, over concerns that its data requirements would necessitate at least seven different categories of animal tests. The group calls this request "disproportionate," especially when compared with international standards.
"These requests go far beyond that required in Europe for chemicals including cosmetic substances and indeed for pharmaceuticals in the USA, Japan and EU," CFI said.
The organisation demanded that the FDA review Europe’s REACH database of chemicals for the proposed substances before finalising the rule, explaining that the draft does not include the results of many of Europe’s animal studies.
"We seriously question the scientific need for additional studies in these cases," they wrote.
Medical community concerns
Meanwhile, members of the medical community are worried that the FDA’s proposal will make people less inclined to wear sunscreen, regardless of the contents of the final rule.
The proposal states that it "does not represent a conclusion by FDA that the sunscreen active ingredients … are unsafe for use." But both the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) and the American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS) are concerned that it has nevertheless prompted public confusion about which products are safe and effective.
According to comments by the ONS, mainstream news outlets have reported in some cases that sunscreen products "may potentially do more harm than good" in their coverage of the proposal.
"We are deeply concerned that FDA’s proposed rule, which calls into question the safety and efficacy of 12 of the most common ingredients used in currently approved sunscreen products, will deter consumers from the use of these products," it said.
And the ACMS – which represents doctors working on skin cancer and reconstructive surgery – broadly concurred, urging the FDA to clarify that currently available sunscreens are safe and effective.
"Any policy that deters use of sunscreens puts consumers at increased risk of developing skin cancer," it said.
The comment period on the rule has been extended by 30 days, and will now close on 27 June.
[/article]
Cheers Dantes. Another reason to hate everything.
That reminded me of Mark from Trainspotting
Brilliant!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
