No need to be sorry unless you're implying that I lied. But I don't think that's the case. Nor have I been hoodwinked by the man. Dr. Wallace retired from Dupont at relatively young age of his own free will and on excellent terms. He'd still be working there except he set out to pioneer a solution to much more pressing problem than anything he would be faced with working at Dupont. While he still has strong ties to bio-medical field it is far from being the focus of his work for the last 33 years. I'm not trying to convince you to believe what I wrote. Rather, to convince you that I have not been hoodwinked by a quack doctor. Whether you believe me or not is neither hear nor there.
The FDA is not perfect but they are not a criminal agency. Give me a break.
They're not criminal in the conventional sense. But neither were several of Bill Clintons crimes, crimes in the conventional sense. The FDA does more harm than good. On net wide-scope accounting it is a drain on society. I know that for a fact. Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant. For that matter weather I believe that or not is irrelevant because it is what it is. I am far from being the only person that knows the FDA is a net drain on society. Obviously you and I have not researched the same information over the last eleven years. I have no vested interest in exposing the FDA for what it aside from reigning in government abuse. I get paid nothing and receive no perks. I don't have any hostilities for them. To the contrary, I'd like to help the FDA and the people that work there. Before that can even begin to happen it's imperative to focus on the overall; work to identify the biggest most pervasive problems and identify the causes. Some lessons in life are learned the hard way. But they must be learned. Sometimes that calls for being resolute and undeterred while at the same time having compassion, empathy and sympathy.
You're not a perfect person and I hope that people don't go around exaggerating your inadequacies as if you have no reason to live.
Whoa there Nellie, simmer down. I never even remotely implied that any person has no reason to live. You conjured up that implication out of nothing but thin air. No person is perfect. That much is obvious and certainly need not be said, right? I mean, it's like saying every person makes mistakes or that the Sun rises in the east. Your reference to the FDA field agents' actions being mere inadequacies is a colossal understatement. I'm glad one of has a grip on the situation. Thank my lucky stars that I'm not trying to convince you differently because you obviously have no reservations about using conjured up notions of things I never said or even remotely implied. ...And you inject a plea to the emotions that "nobody's perfect" not even you Zon, thus greasing the way for, you have inadequacies Zon and so do they. That was an obvious red flag making me the object of your comment -- juxtaposition me to the FDA field agent -- jerking around the empathy emotion that is tethered to mans good nature. (Which is true and why ultimately I want to help the FDA.) It's not nice to jerk around with man's nature.
In reality, all you did was identify two common human characteristics; 1) no person is perfect. 2) every person has inadequacies. Where you erred, and erred big time was in the implied juxtaposition that because of our common human characteristics our actions are equal in competence. The difference between the value of my work product and work ethics and the "value" of the FDA filed agents' work product and work ethics are at opposite ends of the spectrum. For sure that is a less than honest tactic. Though I still hold on the outside chance that you may have been unaware of how to construct a reasoned argument thus you're comfortable using emotional arguments due to repeated use or habit. I do hope it's the later because if it's one thing to err and be able to correct the error so as not to repeat it; but quite another thing to knowingly be less than honest thereby defaulting to being one's own worst enemy.
You are very naive if you think we should have a medical free-for-all.
I'm not naive and I don't think there should be a medical free-for-all. I do wonder if you could be so naive as to think everything is just hunky-dory with how the FDA conducts itself. And heaven forbid that you would think to ask me for additional information. We're beyond that now; you had your chance but you chose to flaunt your true colors. It just never crossed your mind to ask yet you were quick in your intent to, IMO protecting something you harbor that is again, most likely you being your own worst enemy, or worse, having a vested interest in not allowing the FDA be exposed for defrauding Americans.