"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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?

This futile, of course, but I'll make one last stab at gaining at least a
tiny bit of understanding...

Were the studies of lead ingestion in toddlers and infants in the tenement
housing in Chicago controlled studies?

Since the weren't, I presume they're to be considered bogus? (And,
parenthetically, since the "test subjects" weren't provided the
opportunity to sign a waiver a priori, obviously the authors were guilty
of a crime or at a minimum, grossly unethical behavior in pointing this
out I gather from your previous words?)

What you're obviously missing is observational epidemiology.

When there becomes an occurrence of any medical phenomenon, folks start
looking for root-cause explanations. They start out by collecting as many
cases of similar symptoms from similar circumstances as possible and
looking for patterns and statistically significant incidence rates above
background and correlations w/ conditions.

If these screening studies show up stuff that is the least bit suspicious,
they move on to more and more extensive and detailed analyses.
Eventually, sometimes, as in the case of the lead, they do actually
uncover problems with long-accepted practices and make changes based on
those findings.

OTOH, not always are the studies positive--that is, sometimes despite a
hypothesis that a particular product or action is potentially harmful, an
analysis of results simply doesn't support that conclusion.

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

Ah yes, the ultimate weapon..."Do it for the kids"...

Well, that's what competent parents do. Even many animals do the same.