Will the retraction of the original 1998 study that started the debate about vaccines causing autism end the “controversy”? Thanks to Matt.
FDA takes Lipton and Dr. Pepper Snapple Group to task for exaggerating the health benefits of their products. Thanks to Jes3ica.
A chaplain and an atheist learn to work together in Afghanistan, despite differing beliefs and lifestyles. Thanks to Junco.
Roger Ebert photographs a ghost in the woods. Or so says his step-daughter and boku blog readers.
Video gamers take their virtual girlfriends on real weekend getaways.
Construction complete on 9/11 truther memorial (The Onion).
The chaplain said he needed a deployment to “stay competitive with my peers.” Is there some big contest on who can put themselves in more danger, thereby winning brownie points with gawd? And we have to put soldiers in harm’s way to protect these ijits?
@aki: I think he may be referring to promotion potential in the service, i.e. “getting your ticket punched.”
Honestly, is there anything more depressing than the comments on that first vaccine story? An amazing article, great sources, the first comment is spectacular, then LET IN THE CRAZY. The only comment threads that don’t make me want to break my monitor are the ones on Skepchick.org. No lies.
So if I read the article correctly the FDA is not saying that Lipton is exaggerating health benefits just that you can’t say a food has health benefits even if it’s true?
The annoying thing was that the chaplain was giving the credit of his safety to god, instead of the soldiers who were actually putting their necks on the line for him. He seems to be blissfully unaware of reality.
@rider: I think it’s that if you make certain health claims for your product, you fall under the FDA’s jurisdiction and regulations.
@QuestionAuthority: Heh. Tying the Lipton and Army stories together, can you do the same thing with deities?
@QuestionAuthority: @QuestionAuthority:
I know that, but they are not saying the claims are not true just saying you can’t make the claims because making the claims classifies it as a drug. It might just be a very poorly written article but it sounds kind of bureaucratic to me, particularly when you consider that homeopathy is exempt for all of this.
@Mark_Hall: Why not? ;-)
Yes, the comments at the Parents article leave much to be desired. It looked like many of them were the work of the same individual. The NPR article is poorly written. I’m not sure why the author used the term drug. It doesn’t have anything to do with the matter.
http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?id=10643211755&share_id=116861878368219&comments=1#s116861878368219
Speaking of comments, if you want to shake your head in disbelief, check out the comments to the link to the NPR piece on NPR’s facebook page. The comments are astounding in their, well, you’ll see, if you are bored enough.
@rider: Right. The FDA is not analyzing the claims. It is saying “Hey companies, you can’t just go around claiming your product has health benefits.” This is a good thing. If Lipton wanted to continue with their claims, they are perfectly able to work with the FDA on that.
@ZenMonkey:
But then lipton tea would be classed as a drug which opens up a giant can of worms. there must be a middle ground between a food having health benefits and needing to be classed as a drug.
“He trusts God to keep him safe,” says RP2 Chute. “And I’m here just in case that doesn’t work out.”
ftw.