View Single Post
Old 02-20-2013, 09:53 AM   #29
ApK
Award-Winning Participant
ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 7,310
Karma: 67564074
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NJ, USA
Device: Kindle
Quote:
Originally Posted by xendula View Post
OT: I did not know anything about Prop 65, but sounds to me like the State of California is looking out for its consumers: you can't change your habits if information is being withheld from you.
I'm sure they see it that way. It might even be true. But it's also possible that, like TV news and conspiracy theorists, they are needless creating fear, uncertainty and doubt by spreading needless warnings, about questionably researched, ultra-low-probability effects.

Tell me: have you ever changed your mind about buying something because of those labels?

Same for medications. Would you refuse to take a needed medication because of those low-probability side effect warnings? I'm not saying they should be removed, I just question their value over trusting the prescribing physician.

One specialist told me outright when he prescribed a med and I asked about the side effects: "If I told you all the possible side effects, you'd never take it. In twenty years of prescribing it, I've never seen ANY of the side effects. Please take it."

ApK

Last edited by ApK; 02-20-2013 at 09:55 AM.
ApK is offline   Reply With Quote