NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

very well said.

---------- Post added at 04:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 AM ----------

These are good points but the breakdown is too ambiguous. Am I to discern that "106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines" means that the correct dosage was applied and the user didn't overdose? Is it possible that a slightly more scrutiny might paint a less ominous/malevolent image? The rest of the 225,000 are basically human error or complete accidents. So, a large portion can be removed from the science/technology debate. In other words, the science or technology didn't fail it was the fault of a human in the application of the science or technology.

<blockquote data-quote="Ron Collins" data-source="post: 93057" data-attributes="member: 574">very well said.---------- Post added at 04:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 AM ----------These are good points but the breakdown is too ambiguous. Am I to discern that &quot;106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines&quot; means that the correct dosage was applied and the user didn&#039;t overdose? Is it possible that a slightly more scrutiny might paint a less ominous/malevolent image? The rest of the 225,000 are basically human error or complete accidents. So, a large portion can be removed from the science/technology debate. In other words, the science or technology didn&#039;t fail it was the fault of a human in the application of the science or technology.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ron Collins, post: 93057, member: 574"] very well said.[COLOR="Silver"] [SIZE=1]---------- Post added at 04:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 AM ----------[/SIZE] [/COLOR] These are good points but the breakdown is too ambiguous. Am I to discern that "106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines" means that the correct dosage was applied and the user didn't overdose? Is it possible that a slightly more scrutiny might paint a less ominous/malevolent image? The rest of the 225,000 are basically human error or complete accidents. So, a large portion can be removed from the science/technology debate. In other words, the science or technology didn't fail it was the fault of a human in the application of the science or technology. [/QUOTE]

Verification