"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
The only possible way to prove the stuff was harmful would've been to
wait and see if kids got sick from it. That means you're using kids as
test subjects without consent. I believe that's illegal, and it's
certainly unethical. Instead, the opposite happened: The formulation was
changed.
...
That's just absolute nonsense. It was in _WIDESPREAD_ use for years. The
test subjects were already there. Effects (if any) were there to be
observed (or not).


So you're saying doing a posterior study would be illegal is why the
epidemiology isn't available? That's simply ludicrous at best.


Ludicrous? If you cannot enlist test subjects, how can you conduct a
controlled study? Perhaps I'm not seeing something here. What would you
study if you didn't have a population to study?

Never mind. I suppose you're right. If there are doubts about a product's
safety, especially for kids, we should do nothing.