I *can* see most of that Ode, but I do think that if there is a possibility that a substance that is sold as harmless - or even beneficial - is *not* then people should have the knowledge given to them, so that they can make an informed choice. After all, you or I could drink this with impunity, but there may be others who - if they had been given the information - may not have gotten sick if they had known that it could have had that effect. For instance, the thousands of people who died from taking Vioxx - if they had been told that this was a possibility - would they have still taken it? Some may 'because the doctor said,' but some might not have....and they would still be alive today. dee On 27 Feb 2010, at 15:19, Ode Coyote wrote:
> > > The other side of that story is those looking for something easy to blame and > a following to make them feel important. > The impossible solution is the easy fight..blaming what you can't control is > very safe but totally ineffective with no way to win, but every way to > continue the "good fight" and stick somebody up on a leader pedestal that > fears falling off and will say *anything* to stay up there. > You will find propaganda on both sides of any issue. > You just can't trust anyone to think for you, not on either side. > > I asked biochemists that don't make sweeteners and they confirmed the info. > So what. > -- The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. Rules and Instructions: http://www.silverlist.org Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.html Off-Topic discussions: <mailto:[email protected]> List Owner: Mike Devour <mailto:[email protected]>
