@smr
Well, there was a fight over the definition of butter too, but not what you described.

I think the biggest difference is the possibility that the public could confuse one product for another.

The public uses nut milk as a substitute for animal milk, you put it on cereal, in shakes, dunk cookies in it, etc. It's a white liquid that differs in taste, but is made to be close to animal milk.

The fight over "butter" as a definition happened between butter and margerine. The butter people, at one point even lobbied for a law making it so magerine could not be sold in the color yellow. It makes sense to some degree. They are similar products. They are used in almost identical application.

It's probably the case that nothing like that happened with peanut butter because it's not close enough to regular butter to be confused as churned milk fat.

One could argue that people may put peanut butter on toast with jelly with their breakfast, possibly; but they'd know what product they are using. No one would try to put a dollop of apple or peanut butter in a pan to fry up some eggs. They are night and day different products and it's not as though one would be confused about what you were getting into with the purchase of apple butter instead of butter.

Whereas milk vs almond milk seem similar enough, and butter and margerine are similar enough and both used the same; the FDA then decided that a distinction should be made.

I think it's fair for the dairy industry to lobby for this. It's an argument of definition.

You make almond milk basically by taking almonds and blending them up with water then straining.


They could call it "milk-substitute" perhaps. Point being, it's not the same thing as milk from a cow.

Peanut butter went through a similar episode in history when Jif added a bunch of crap that wasn't peanuts to its mix.

"Jif, in an effort to overtake Skippy and Peter Pan, added sweeteners and reduced their actual peanut content to improve the flavor and increase the profit margin. According to a lab study (granted, by a lab run by Skippy’s parent company, Best Foods), Jif peanut butter contained 25 percent hydrogenated oil and only 75 percent actual peanuts. This greatly concerned the FDA and other consumer groups."

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/12/food-labels-peanut-butter-hearings/

Today, you can't call a product "peanut butter" unless it's made of at least 90 percent ground up peanuts. Otherwise it has to be labeled "peanut-spread."

See also: Pringles are not "chips" they are "potato-crisps" http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/04/the-inventor-of-the-pringles-can-was-buried-in-one/

Meh lame, tinted contact lenses are actually used to protect eyes for medical reasons or by people who don't want to wear sunglasses.

And the transition contact lenses are coming: https://www.cnet.com/news/contact-lenses-that-darken-in-the-sun-fda-says-yes/

good video. note :if splenda has dextrose in it already then you don't need to use the invertase.
Splenda is sucralose which isn't well digested 10-30% in the gut depending on what microbes you have but it has a horrible aftertaste and so I imagine they used dextrose right up to the 5% FDA limit to help mask it.

Don't hate the player. Hate the game.
The drug costs $0.10 in India but, thanks to the prohibitive restrictions imposed by the FDA on the manufacture of more generic medicines like Deraprim, it's unavailable to Americans for less than $750. It's true that there are likely to be quality issues with Indian generics, but Pyrimethamine is widely available in Europe and an approval elsewhere ought to translate with reciprocal approval here. It used to cost $1 million to bring a generic to market; now it costs $10 million and that's the direct result of big pharmaceutical companies lobbying the FDA to make it cost prohibitive to bring competitive generics to the market. This is the consequence of government-created monopolies, so this is not so much a issue of "price gouging" and "CEO greed" as it is about government greed and its pursuit of an ever increasing expansion of its political power. But haters gonna hate based on preconceived biases and there's no reasoning or common sense among irrational people.

For an American Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-certified/tested medical device, this is actually a good price.
lol.

Whatever FDA is doing with tobacco is still more than what's going on with those robot penises.

You know that the tobacco industry isn't regulated either, right? The FDA has been wanting to for decades, but there's way too much money at stake for politicians to let that happen.

And you are the guy who rapes nuns on Teusdays for peanut butter jelly sandwitches. (Hint: Lies aren't don't become true just because you type them out.)

You are welcome to continue placing your faith in the FDA, CDC, and AMA to tell you the truth. Good luck with that.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4546409/mr-posey

You expect me to show you massive, expensive, controlled studies published exclusively by those who have a massive, vested, financial interest in supressing the very same studies. Genius. Pure genius.

These peer reviewers are regularly lying to each other, to themselves, to the publishers, and to the public to maintain funding. They have no credibility whatsoever. You are reading studies that are all fancied up to be all technical and socially acceptable and official and scientific and peer reviewed and above reproach... And they are all lies. Calculated lies to maintain the results expected by those who fund the studies.

Thank Eric. Hi again by the way. Maybe off, but regardless, incredibly intensive and expensive. People tend to think of the FDA approval as spurious and superficial and it's anything but.

Unfortunately, I see this as a ploy to get people to buy their drugs. I see no way they could possibly get approval for the type of experiments they would have to do to prove their theory, that it could somehow at least slow the effects of oxygen deprivation to the brain.
Any study on near death medicine is going to be difficult and dangerous in the extreme. It takes a long hard fight to get the FDA to allow even limited trials on humans, even humans that agree to it, even humans that are almost dead and will certainly die without it. Even animal studies on something like this will be hard to get approved and will have PETA up his ass with a flamethrower. This is the kind of science that won't get done, unfortunately, because those willing to do it don't have the means, and those with the means won't touch it with a 10 foot pole.
Don't get me wrong, though, I do think it's a good idea to examine this, and other substances, both natural and man made, for unknown properties/effects they may have, I just don't believe for a moment that this guy, or his small crowdfunded group can get the kinds of legal approvals needed just to START such a study, much less the millions of dollars they cost to actually run, which means they will only be using the money to buy their drug of choice.
Contribute if you like, but I strongly suggest researching this guy and his team first, and investigating exactly what they intend to do with your money beyond what they said, which is just buying some high grade DMT, unless you don't mind just buying him a few hits for personal use. ;-)

So, they ask you to 'please send us money to buy high grade DMT. Our plan is to inject clinically dead people with large amounts of it to STOP brain damage...if we ever even apply for and unbelievably get FDA approval for human testing, and can somehow find people who will knowingly die soon and are willing to trip balls as they do and sign a release clearly saying so, and if that well thought out plan falls through at least we'll have a good supply of high grade DMT to use ourselves.' says the doctor with a book about DMT induced astral projecting to alien planets.
Uh...yeah. I won't be contributing.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by blackfox42.

Debunking the notion of "herd immunity," this doctor provides evidence for how the vaccines themselves can cause the person to develop measles and, itself, become the source of an outbreak.
Yet another problem coming as the result of patent laws and FDA-bred cronyism in the vaccine business..

In terms of "Big Brother," the United States government has paid more than $3 billion to victims of vaccines since 1989, according to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation (VICP).

No. Aspartame is not bad for you. Sugar, however is absolutely bad for you. The purpose of this video is to show people how much aspartame is in Coke Zero vs the amount of sugar in Coke. Sugar, the number one cause of obesity, heart disease and other health issues, is far less sweet so you need a much larger amount to get the same level of sweetness as aspartame. The tiny amount of black stuff left over at the end of the Coke Zero pan is the aspartame. You need milligrams of aspartame compared to 30 grams of sugar.

All of the studies that have "shown" damaging effects of aspartame have given RATS not milligrams of aspartame, but GRAMS. This would be equivalent to a human being shoveling a pile of aspartame powder into their mouth, something that no one could even do because it would be too sweet to ingest.

Aspartame is a very simple chemical that when it enters the human body breaks down into three things, phenylalanine, methanol and aspartic acid. Once again, the amounts that these things break down into is smaller than you would get from eating comparable "natural products." You would get more methanol eating a few grapes or an apple. Aspartic acid is an amino acid that is good for you and you would once again find more of it in an oyster than in Coke Zero. And finally phenylalanine is the only thing that is of any danger to anyone. And even then, it is only dangerous to those who have phenylketonuria, a sensitivity to phenyl-groups that you would know if you have. Otherwise it is a hormone that only affects infants and is present in breast milk, one of the healthiest substances on earth for a human.

Sure, aspartame is one of the most complained about items by consumers at the FDA. But does that mean the science is wrong? No. It simply means that someone gets a headache and they blame it on the diet soda they just drank instead of the fact that they are dehydrated. Or someone has a dizzy spell because they got up too fast and they blame it on the diet soda they just drank. Aspartame has been investigated by every Federal Consumer Product group around the world and none of them have found a sufficient link to any health danger in order to take it off of the shelves. If you believe that this is a conspiracy, you are wrong. The bigger conspiracy is the rampant disregard for the danger of sugar in processed foods.

If you are curious about the dangers of sugar that are backed by solid nutritional and molecular biology, you should watch "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" on Youtube, or the movie Fed Up.