3·
2 months agoOut of curiosity, what do you think about the fact that they knew from animal testing that the retraction issue existed, but they installed it into a human anyway?
- 0 Posts
- 5 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
Cake day: September 6th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Huh, the unethical company that installed known-bad tech into a human is acting unethically. Interesting.
His family should sue them for fraud and whatever crime is to knowingly injure someone with subpar products.
They tested on animals, identifying the retraction issue… Then did nothing and installed it into a human anyway.
In your example it’d be shampoo that chemically burns pig scalps that is pushed to market for humans anyway.
Stop being an apologist and think about what it means to have billionaires treating desperate people as guinea pigs for invasive technology testing.
The point being that memorizing complex math is pointless unless you’re using it for some sort of day to day.
The fact that you say “drug use” as a blanket statement proves that you don’t know what you’re on about. There are a lot of drugs with a lot of effects, and even most controlled substances have approved medical applications (opiates for example).
You should look at drug scheduling in the US, which mostly captures if drugs have a medical application.
On a personal note, I hope you never have to face the kind of pain that makes you consider legal or illegal drugs as an outlet.