As I said, the quote is my own, from another video on the subject.

As for the toxicity of ammonia, here is a link to the Health Effects portion of the CDC's Toxicological Profile for Ammonia.

Lots to read, but basically it shows that, except in huge doses of concentrated ammonia, ammonia is readily converted by the liver into urea (hence the ammonia smell of urine). Ingesting ammonia in quantities that are harmful (though still not fatal) causes burns, and ulceration of the mouth. Obviously if there was that much in the food, there would be a problem.

The report points out, "In a study of volunteers, ingestion of a single ammonium chloride tablet (approximately 15 mg NH4+/kg/day) led to a small transient increase (33% above fasting levels) in arterial blood concentrations of ammonium ion in 11 out of 20 subjects (Conn 1972); no change was noted in the remaining nine subjects in this group.[...]These data indicate that ingested ammonia is readily absorbed from the digestive tract and that the liver plays a large role in removing it from the blood (Conn 1972).



Basically, the FDA allows the use of ammonia to sterilize food products because, 1. the quantities needed to harm a human would cause said humans not to eat the products and 2. being naturally occurring, and necessary for life (for the provision of nitrogen for amino acid synthesis), the ingestion of ammonia in these quantities has no long-term health effects.

I'm not trying to argue that eating that pink goo is good for you - but the obsession with the ammonia is the wrong approach to attacking it. Phosphorus, sodium, potassium, magnesium, etc. are also poisonous in the right quantities, and they are also all necessary for human life.

If there is any common thread to my rants here on the sift, it's that people attacking the wrong subject, regardless of their intentions, makes them look stupid and reduces their credibility to those of us who care to know the truth. I completely agree with Maher's point that the republicans just attack anything the liberals support, but when he makes that point using misleading/wrong information, he's just as bad as them.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Skeeve:
While I don't disagree with Maher's point, I'm getting really sick of people screaming about the ammonia used to treat the pink goo that is turned into chicken nuggets. As I said regarding another video:
"ammonia is a natural chemical that is necessary for human life. The amount of ammonia one would have to ingest to be harmful to a human is huge, and actually ingesting that much would be unthinkable because of the horrendous taste it would impart to the food."

This is like seeing someone sprinkle some sodium-free salt on their food and saying, "OMG that's potassium chloride! That's the lethal chemical in a lethal injection! That's going to kill you!!"
People just don't seem to care that a lot of chemicals that are popularly considered "toxic" are necessary for life or require unfathomably large doses to be harmful.

Where the hell is that quote from and is there any truth to it is what needs to be asked. To me that sounds like something a PR person would say, like in that video about Global Warming where they made the point that "CO2 is natural".
You've got more to answer for Skeeve and if you don't I'm bidding you a hearty GOOD DAY To You Sir!

That's great that you found a medication that works. Really, I mean that. I'm a big fan of "whatever works" when it comes to mental health -- although there are some extremely unethical goings on with pharmaceutical companies and the FDA, readily spelled out in this brief piece. I especially like that the FDA man has a fundamental misunderstanding of basic statistics -- and then said it was basic statistics. Facepalm!

Data are data, and anecdotes are anecdotes. And with anecdotes, there is a distinct lack of control over extraneous variables.

Also, at the end of the report, and in the companion piece, they state explicitly that you should not stop taking your anti-depressants.

I encourage you to look further into this story and the science behind it, rather than dismissing it simply because it doesn't match your experience.

>> ^DuoJet:

This is total, f cking, bullsh t. I tried a number of different medications before I found the right one for me. Some of the medications I tried did nothing, some caused unwanted side effects, only one got me where I wanted to be.
For me the difference has not been modest, but life-changing.
Friends have described the similar experiences.
Do not stop taking your anti-depressants based on this report.

@NetRunner

Who cares if you agree by accident, as long as you agree?

Who cares if the EPA is abolished, if it's filled with Ex-Monsanto Execs and Lobbyists who make it impotent anyway?

The system is broken and needs a reboot. Why are you gonna try to limp along 'til a better match than Ron Paul appears. It just won't happen in this decade.

You keep acting as if your "Vote Democrat" worldview will result in some slow but steady march into Ameritopia.
[Nevermind, the fact that "Democrats" like Obama are center-right to begin with and too timid to propose ultra-left policies even with Democratic Majority.]

It simply can't happen. The system currently does not function how it was advertised.
~~

Plain and simple. Does a person or business have the right to refuse service?

If so, you've legitimized discrimination. If not, you're forcing your will upon others.

Both are relatively wrong. But which is worse? Do civil rights trump natural rights?

Moreover, the entire point I'm getting at is: Ron Paul wants to decentralize power i.e. GIVE YOU MOAR POWER!

Another blaring point you refuse to comprehend or admit, even if Ron Paul overturns 100 years of law [which he wouldn't be able to] YOU now have the power to construct BETTER policies.

Create your own EPA and FDA with more strict standards. Create your own business park that has anti-discriminatory policies. This is the true essence of Democracy and Self-Governance combined.

Or.. you can keep being Obama's bitch boy.

For some reason, I think you'll choose the latter.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Heh. I thought the obligation of the police bit was rhetoric.

Nope, it was an attempt to get you to remember something, anything, about the era that led to the Civil Rights Act.

It means going back to a time where this happens anytime one of those "out-groups" shows their face in the wrong place.

You're going to have to explain to me why that's justice, and why that's freedom, because it looks to me like violent oppression and a criminal deprivation of liberty.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
You're always talking about how we can harness the power of voting & democratic systems to eventually overcome things; and you're almost guaranteed to make actual progress thru those means if Paul were POTUS.

Paul is antithetical to "progress." His vision of a perfect society is an America where we unwind everything that's happened in the last 100 years. Possibly more, depending on how seriously you take his position on the Civil War.

There are a couple issues where, purely by accident, Paul agrees with me. I want the war in Afghanistan to end because I think it's stupid, not because I think America should never get involved in international politics. I want the drug war to end because it's a terrible way to solve the problem with substance abuse -- universal healthcare would be a lot better. Paul is just as mad about the drug war as he is about the FDA (or the EPA, for that matter).

Ron Paul stands in steadfast opposition to everything I care about. Even on the issues where we seem to agree, we turn out to be miles apart when you get down to the details.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

So why are you letting a little thing like Gasp a Racist Conservative Republican, stop you from acting in your own best interest.
[Since you're neither black nor gay. I think you'll be okay either way, @NetRunner]

To quote MLK, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Even if all I cared about was my own ass, the "freedom" to discriminate against black or gay people would also mean people have the freedom to discriminate against whites, or men, or straight people, or liberals, or atheists, or gamers.

The protections against discrimination protect me as much as it does any given out-group.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The problem with Ron Paul is that his economic policy contradicts his foreign policy. He wants to further deregulate and cut taxes for the corporations that took us to war in the first place. It's like trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline.


You see contradicts, I see consistency. A position against against war is a position against meddling, same to regulating businesses. And not all corporations profit from war, that is a bold hyperbole. Would an entire internet of do-gooders regulate food imports better than a government agency? Who knows, I for one, would like to see it tried. A failure will precipitate more participation in solution finding then the flawed FDA's and its inadequacies. The same advances that advance all our modern technology are ignored when mired in the miasma of politics. Important things that have no real answers should be left in our hands, 300 million hands make light work of problems, but only if that problem is left for them to solve. The illusion of law and safety is worse than no law at all. I consider myself a caring person, so I don't advocate liberty as an excuse to do harm, but do good in the way and on the things I want to do good on. Outsourcing caring, justice, goodness to other people; to government people I believe is the cause of much of our selfish american culture. And as such, I don't think upping the ante of other people caring for us is the answer. Freedom is harder, its evil more plain and boldfaced. But boldfaced enemies are easier foes than powerful men hiding behind good sounding legislation. Basically, I am against all forms of force, be it forces of good or evil. The only force I believe in is personal force of will, and my ability to convince you without force. It would be evil for me to demand you give your time, money, and energy to habitat for humanity...even though what they do is an arguable good thing. I don't see how the case for any of the other social legislation is any different.


Edit some autocorrect typos

The 'terminally ill' do still qualify for small and large clinical trials, but the severity and complication of their illness will effect their acceptance to a study group. The best study subjects are going to be young, otherwise healthy individuals with a supportive family, close proximity to the research hospital, and a upbeat attitude in the face of the challenges ahead!

Here's a decent read about clinical trials in general: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/info/understand
You might be interested in the 'Phases' part, describing the size of participant pools. You might also be interested in seeing some of the recently approved devices/procedures (they include scans of the letters sent out, which I always find interesting): http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/Recently-ApprovedDevices/ucm241143.htm

One last thing to note; you can follow products funded by the government (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/sbir.htm for instance) as they progress by digging through the interwebs. Private companies can get a peak at their publicly funded competition sometimes, which,... well, is actually usually not as useful as you'd think.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Common sense would dictate that drug companies be allowed to offer deals to terminally ill patients, perhaps in exchange for paying for their care. But the FDA is there to make sure common sense is kept locked away.

Common sense would dictate that drug companies be allowed to offer deals to terminally ill patients, perhaps in exchange for paying for their care. But the FDA is there to make sure common sense is kept locked away.

Everything you've stated is true, and the fadeouts of these potential 'cures' certainly don't sell papers like hype does.



>> ^bamdrew:

These are costly and typically slow-moving ventures. A lot of waiting for approvals, signing up and weeding through subjects, processing collected data, etc.. Many promising ideas get lost in the ~4-8 years from rodent animal model to large human trials (researchers leave the project following new ideas, funding dries up, etc.).
One trick you'll often see if you look for it is the country the initial human data is collected in; Portugal (and Scandinavian countries to an extent) has laws with a higher tolerance for experimental use of clinically approved devices and devices shown to be biocompatible than the US, so you'll see a group from Purdue in the middle of Indiana gathering data with surgical staff and subjects who are in Portugal.
The study you cite is also surgically invasive, and the obese subjects are not going to be the healthiest people out there... the fear of random health complications can keep project leaders up at night, and can quietly kill a project if they're bad enough. Related to the study you cite, I'm aware of vagal nerve stimulation being researched for treating depression... in other words, systems in the body that seem straightforward often reveal themselves to be a part of complex, intertwined feedback loops.

>> ^quantumushroom:
While far from a conspiracy nut, I notice that fat-reducing products that have great potential (and even actual results) are never seen nor heard from again. In America alone the 'diet industry' is 40 billion a year.

Two I remember:

Intra-abdominal vagal blocking (VBLOC therapy): clinical results with a new implantable medical device
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18549888


There was also a pill that mimicked exercise (stuck at the mouse phase).
Both of these items are from 2007-2008.

Modern medicine is extremely effect, especially when compared to none, for every vegetable hooked up to life support there are thousands of people who would otherwise be unproductive that have had their productive years extended. I don't view medicine as unnatural for people because it is an extension of our natural ability to understand and manipulate our environment. Just as regulation is something we can use to manipulate the market to avoid undesirable situations while allowing for continued prosperity.

That is not to say we always regulate properly or fairly, or that everyone in the market benefits equally. The problem with the bailouts was while they averted catastrophic consequences for the majority of people, and inconvenience for the richest.

And therein lies the crux of the problem, the people with the most, those who really created the problem are nothing more than inconvenienced, even if they lose millions they still have enough left to live comfortably, while the average worker who had little to do with the with the shifty policies suddenly have nothing. Further more there are many who benefited greatly by the practices proving if you've got the right acumen, or at least that's the illusion, you can make a lot of money.

Do the majority of people share some blame for what happened, of course, but when you look at who suffers and who had the most to do with the unscrupulous practices, those who had the least to do with it suffer the most. Those who have the most control suffer the least, or worse come out for the better, so why should they change their practices?

And that's why I think regulation has its place, when properly applied it acts as a deterrent for those who would otherwise have little to lose from unscrupulous practices, and gives those who have little control some method of petitioning for change.

As I said before I agree with you in that our regulations piecemeal conglomeration of polices that rob each other of efficacy. However I feel in free market situation you describe the people with the least amount of control suffer the most and the wealth continually gets concentrated in the hands of fewer ad fewer.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
Regulation, in my natural selection analogy, is like modern medicine: It can sustain companies that should be dead, making those invested in the company happy but having negative effects on the system as a whole.

When the bailouts were fresh news, there were a lot of cries that the free market didn't work. In truth, the free market was working. Those banks had unsustainable practices and they were going down because of it. Would it have been catastrophic when they failed? Yeah. But the recovery process would have started then and there and any banks still standing would have had good reason not to repeat the others' mistakes. Instead the government propped them up and they are back to fucking us.

The auto industry situation isn't much better. Regulation imposes tariffs on foreign cars that get passed on to us in the price. Why? Because American cars suck ass and can't compete on a level playing field. Even with the deck stacked in their favor, the big 3 tank anyway. The government bails them out because of some misguided sense of national pride. They justify it with talk about lost jobs, but it's all nonsense. The demand for cars doesn't go down because car makers go out of business, people who would have bought from the big 3 just have to buy from someone else now. Toyota already employs more Americans than the big 3 combined. The textile manufacturers see no change in business volume as the other car manufacturers increase production to fill in the gap left by the big 3.

Let them tank. Let the jobs migrate. Let failed companies stand as examples to the rest.

I really feel like people are somewhat spoiled. They're no longer willing to see or endure anything "bad", but the old and sick must die to make way for new life, both in nature and in business, and things can get real ugly when you try to stand in the way of that.

I don't think everyone needs to be professionals at any level of market freedom. Even the most ignorant person knows they're being screwed at some point and there's nothing that says the free market can't contain professional advisers and watchdog groups.

What I think government's biggest role ought to be is enforcing a level of transparency so that we all have legit information to make our decisions on. The FDA requires ingredients to be listed on all food items. Some people don't pay any attention to it, but it's there. I'd like to see that sort of thing everywhere.

Regulation, in my natural selection analogy, is like modern medicine: It can sustain companies that should be dead, making those invested in the company happy but having negative effects on the system as a whole.

When the bailouts were fresh news, there were a lot of cries that the free market didn't work. In truth, the free market was working. Those banks had unsustainable practices and they were going down because of it. Would it have been catastrophic when they failed? Yeah. But the recovery process would have started then and there and any banks still standing would have had good reason not to repeat the others' mistakes. Instead the government propped them up and they are back to fucking us.

The auto industry situation isn't much better. Regulation imposes tariffs on foreign cars that get passed on to us in the price. Why? Because American cars suck ass and can't compete on a level playing field. Even with the deck stacked in their favor, the big 3 tank anyway. The government bails them out because of some misguided sense of national pride. They justify it with talk about lost jobs, but it's all nonsense. The demand for cars doesn't go down because car makers go out of business, people who would have bought from the big 3 just have to buy from someone else now. Toyota already employs more Americans than the big 3 combined. The textile manufacturers see no change in business volume as the other car manufacturers increase production to fill in the gap left by the big 3.

Let them tank. Let the jobs migrate. Let failed companies stand as examples to the rest.

I really feel like people are somewhat spoiled. They're no longer willing to see or endure anything "bad", but the old and sick must die to make way for new life, both in nature and in business, and things can get real ugly when you try to stand in the way of that.

I don't think everyone needs to be professionals at any level of market freedom. Even the most ignorant person knows they're being screwed at some point and there's nothing that says the free market can't contain professional advisers and watchdog groups.

What I think government's biggest role ought to be is enforcing a level of transparency so that we all have legit information to make our decisions on. The FDA requires ingredients to be listed on all food items. Some people don't pay any attention to it, but it's there. I'd like to see that sort of thing everywhere.

In reply to this comment by Crosswords:
If you view free market as a processes like natural selection, then everything counts including regulation. Regulation is simply an adaptation to market conditions by certain segments of a population. It is an ability to exert control on the market while avoiding the volatile, risky and harmful consequences other methods might accrue.

There will always be someone/something trying to control market forces in their favor. If you were to eliminate any regulation you would be eliminating one side's ability to exert control, they would be at the mercy of those who control the resources. So I guess in rebuttal to your argument, we either already have free-market working as intended or it doesn't exist and can't exist because anytime you put in a stipulation that you can't do X you're regulating someone's ability to exert control over the market forces.

As far as consumers go, I'm torn by the desire to see people acting more personally responsible and the opinion that you shouldn't have to be a professional in everything. You just can't compete when you're trying to know everything so you can make the right decisions, against someone who specialize in a specific area. At some point you're going to have to appeal to an expert. Unfortunately we have become so used to appealing to the experts its become increasingly easy for the experts to take advantage of everyone else.

Also:
I really think there are numerous systems which can successfully regulate a market but we've got these bits and pieces of several of them that don't work together. The people we've put in charge of this stuff all have such deep emotional attachments to their one economic gospel that they're often unwilling to even honestly discuss things with anyone from a different church.
I can't help but feel that is an exceptionally true statement. Our system of regulations has been cobbled together and broken apart by various ideologues over the years as painful a process it might be I wish we could redo everything in a manner that makes sense for the current market.

First of all, Schiff didn't get schooled, unless you count him appealing to the disbandment of the EPA, FDA, and Board of Education as him schooling himself. The protester he chose to verbsterbate over was not interested in the kind of 'debate' Schiff was looking for. Or, perhaps, that's what it's supposed to look like with the dude in the suit staring down a protester in a keffiyeh, and Schiff got what he wanted, firing up his fellow suit-wearer base. Looks pretty allegorical to me, though.

Anyway marbles, crosswords: Crosswords' post regarding the arguments Schiff is making were more or less in line with the points Schiff spoke. #1 is more in line, @1:25s Schiff makes the argument that corporations 'need' to move their production elsewhere because Americans demand lower prices than corps can profit from if production is in the US. Crossroads' statement of Schiff's position as: "AMERICAN WORKERS ARE DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND LOWER PRICES THAN CORPORATIONS CAN PROFIT FROM" is entirely in line with what Schiff is saying, simply adding that workers in the US want more money than workers elsewhere, which I'm sure Schiff himself wouldn't argue with.

Crossroads' #2 argument is a bit more of an extension of Schiff's ideas however I think it emerges out of the sentiment expressed by Schiff about the CEO of Apple having a right to give people jobs wherever he wants. The point being made by the protester is that Steve has an obligation to the US, from which he has gained so much, to try to keep manufacturing jobs in the US (another argument for another time, please) to which Schiff says @1:05 "The American people don't own those jobs. Steve Jobs has a right to manufacture where he wants." Now Crossroads' "I WORKED HARD TO EARN EVERYTHING I GOT, SO I DESERVE TO KEEP IT ALL AND DO WHATEVER I WANT" certainly echoes that sentiment. Also, I think you can glean that sentiment from virtually all of what Schiff is saying, from the Apple manufacturing to the abolishment of the various gov't agencies (I can explain that specific point more if you'd like, but think it would be beside the point right now).

So I really do feel like Crossroads' paraphrasing of Schiff's statements is entirely within the realm of the reasonable. And even where they're pushing those boundaries to call them 'douchey' arguments certainly seems baseless. So, marbles, do you have any anything to say about the content of Crossroad's rebuttals to the arguments Schiff has presented?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Keep sucking that corporate cock. Keep sucking with all your heart and all your mind. Close your eyes and keep sucking it until you are filled up with the warm and sticky spurt of freedom. You are not a whore. You are not a dupe. You are a self made rugged individualist. Breathe in. You are not blindly following a fantastical doctrine. You have come to these conclusions on your own. Breathe out. You are not a sucker. You are a hero. Breathe in. You are not a dupe. You are a champion. Breathe out. You are the living embodiment of liberty. Breathe in. One day you will be rewarded for your loyalty. Breathe out. One day you will be rewarded. Breathe in. One day you will be rewarded. Breath in. One day you will be rewarded with spurt. Breathe out. You are not a dupe. You are a champion. Breathe in. You are not a dupe. You are an champion. Breathe out. You are ayn champion. Breathe in. Champion. Breathe... and suck... and breathe... and suck... and suck... and breathe... and suck... and... spurt.
I'm spent.
>> ^marbles:
"Koch Brothers lackey Peter Schiff gets schooled by OWS"
I think the title proves who the real fool and idiot is.
The black guy makes a rape analogy between corporations and their victims, but then seems to suffer from Stockholm syndrome when questioning Schiff about EPA, FDA, and Dept of Education.



LOL nice. That's the best you got?

You should focus more on making rational arguments instead of trying to attack those you disagree with.

Keep sucking that corporate cock. Keep sucking with all your heart and all your mind. Close your eyes and keep sucking it until you are filled up with the warm and sticky spurt of freedom. You are not a whore. You are not a dupe. You are a self made rugged individualist. Breathe in. You are not blindly following a fantastical doctrine. You have come to these conclusions on your own. Breathe out. You are not a sucker. You are a hero. Breathe in. You are not a dupe. You are a champion. Breathe out. You are the living embodiment of liberty. Breathe in. One day you will be rewarded for your loyalty. Breathe out. One day you will be rewarded. Breathe in. One day you will be rewarded. Breath in. One day you will be rewarded with spurt. Breathe out. You are not a dupe. You are a champion. Breathe in. You are not a dupe. You are an champion. Breathe out. You are ayn champion. Breathe in. Champion. Breathe... and suck... and breathe... and suck... and suck... and breathe... and suck... and... spurt.

I'm spent.

>> ^marbles:

"Koch Brothers lackey Peter Schiff gets schooled by OWS"
I think the title proves who the real fool and idiot is.
The black guy makes a rape analogy between corporations and their victims, but then seems to suffer from Stockholm syndrome when questioning Schiff about EPA, FDA, and Dept of Education.

@Crosswords
i am beginning to feel the stirrings of a man-crush on you.

look.
when it comes to money and economics schiff has made some great points and in 2004 was almost prophetic but when it comes to politics schiff appears to be a fish out of water and came to OWS with a self-righteous pre-conception and was rightly shown the error in his ways.

the argument about disbanding the EPA,the FDA or the DOE is a conflation.
we can argue the effeciency vs results but that is an entirely separate argument and has little to do with their actually designed roles and the necessity of those departments.

i do not understand those who keep touting the virtue of an un-regulated and "free" market.
unless you feel that indentured servitude,child labor and unsafe products that may harm or kill are perfectly acceptable.
it not only ignores history but conveniently ignores that uneven disparity that would be inevitable.
you think there is inequality now?
let a true free market become the mantra of pure capitalism and see what happens.
dont have resources and were not born in to an affluent family?
well go fuck yourself and make me a sandwich.

the game is rigged.
the system is fixed.
a CEO defrauds billions and walks away with 160 million in bonuses.
a man steals a pack of underwear and spends 30 days in jail,gets charged for the food and board and owes 500 hours of community service and a years probation at a 100 bucks a month.

all men are created equal under the eyes of the law?
i call bullshit.

"Koch Brothers lackey Peter Schiff gets schooled by OWS"

I think the title proves who the real fool and idiot is.

The black guy makes a rape analogy between corporations and their victims, but then seems to suffer from Stockholm syndrome when questioning Schiff about EPA, FDA, and Dept of Education.

Maybe the EPA and FDA could use some cleaning up, but without them, if there's profit to be had, is the free market gonna protect people and the environment from being abused?

Companies already expect and prepare for potential lawsuits and fines as part of doing business, and keep pushing tort reform to limit those liabilities. People are already being hurt or killed with corrupt regulators in place, so in what reality does no regulation lead to a better result?

And then they manage to force people they've hurt into silence, if they want any compensation, so we may never know how much damage they've caused.