Monday, February 07, 2005

From the people who brought you Fallujah

This by way of South Knox Bubba:

Ethical Rules “Non-Binding”— No Standards to Protect Infants and Fetuses

Washington, DC —In a notice slated for publication in the Federal Register, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will formally adopt an open door policy of accepting experiments conducted by pesticide companies and chemical manufacturers using human subjects, according to a draft posted by EPA late last Friday. At the same time, the agency is indefinitely delaying development of ethical rules to protect test subjects, instead relying on its political appointees to flag immoral or unsafe practices on a “case-by-case” basis.

“At the request of chemical companies seeking to justify higher exposure limits, EPA will sanction dosing of infants, pregnant women and other vulnerable persons with commercial poisons,” stated Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) Executive Director Jeff Ruch....

I wonder if Jenna and NotJenna would volunteer. This way they could avoid the draft.

I don't know how you all feel, but it is starting to unravel.


Alset said...

What we need to see is the 'starting' of cries of outrage. Next thing you know they'll be testing in the transit system of San Francisco again.

common sense said...

Dr. C

So, now you are concerned about fetuses! At what age? 2nd trimester I assume.

Dr. C said...

How droll, CommenSense is lurking again.

common sense said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dr. C said...

I caught your post before you removed it.

Fanatical? Me fanatical? Saddened maybe.

If you want my opinion on abortion, go to the discussion at But I am asking you to be civil there as you will be a guest.

P.S. Why don't you write a serious article?

common sense said...


I didn't realize that I had removed my post to your site. It said:

"Doctor C,

I recall your refusal to respond on a previous date to a direct question so I really don't expect anything...but here goes:

If you can take a break from your fanatical ranting for a moment I would appreciate a response to my challange of your inconsistent stand on the value of a fetus. Is there a magic date where it becomes a viable entity and warrants your involvment as a crusader in it's defense?"

Now, in response to your post...yes, you are acting fanatical and you really feel the need to dictate what I say at another site? Remember the 1st ammendment?

Regarding your challange to write a serious article...I consider my posts to your site to be short but very serious counters to your left-tilted tirades. If only you come find the fortitude to respond directly instead of directing me to another site.

Dr. C said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dr. C said...

If asking someone not to write ballistically is fanaticism, then I stand accused of fanaticism.
My response to the question of abortion is very long and documented, thus my referral to the other site. Asking you to click to another site is not a lack of fortitude.
Yes, I am fanatical. I am fanatically committed to children. And I will fight everyone whom I see destroying their wellbeing to the last ounce of my being.
Enough said.
10:32 AM

common sense said...

Doctor C,

Went to the site (loyopp) and read your posts in entirety. Your responses are indeed "long and documented". I applaud your tenacity. Unfortunately, for the purposes of our dialogue, you can't seem to answer the simplest and most straightforward questions. I won't ask again nor do I see any merit in continuing the discussion.

In closure I am curious about one thing. I assume you are not free of physical defects, however innocuous. If your mother had known of these do you think she would she have chosen abortion in hopes of a more perfect child in her next attempt?