Now, what if you test the milk and it did contain something extremely abnormal?
That's when the real fun happens.
That's the part the woo-woos don't get. Pretty-much every scientist in the world would be thrilled for that to happen. An odd result that flies in the face of everything we know? Holy shit! Let's test that! SCIENCE IT!
The fact that no scientist has every found anything like that is testament to the fact that it's woo-woo. Any scientist worth his salt, upon finding seemingly magical results that were reproducible reliably, would have trouble continuing his research over the sound of his own throbbing erection.
"The experiment was a success, but the results were lost when my suddenly engorged science dick flipped the table."
So, most of you know that I work in a state food testing lab. One of my department's policies is to serve the good people of the state with any concerns they might have about the safety of their food. To this end, we periodically receive consumer complaints about food products, and we almost always take some kind of action - investigate the item and figure out what, if anything, is going on. Once in a while, it's a productive investigation. The vast majority of the time, we're simply placating the consumer.
Today, we received a complaint regarding some milk. The consumer did not have gastrointestinal symptoms. However, the consumer had tested their milk and believed it to contain something wrong.
The inspector prodded the consumer for information as to the nature of the testing. After some time, the consumer revealed that they had mixed vinegar, baking soda, and the milk together. They observed bubbles and a slight pink color, and concluded that the milk must contain something.
I'll give you a moment to digest that one.
The inspector pointed out the flaw in the experiment, and continued prodding for more information. That's when the consumer dropped the hammer:
They'd confirmed the results. With something called a "pengulum" or "pengalum" or something like that.
Yes, a divining pendulum. The consumer divined that there was an issue with the milk, and that we should test it to avert an outbreak.
I fucking quit science.
I hope the scientist laughed the consumer out of the building. with everyone else pointing and laughing as well. There's no other way to stop this shit.
It was an inspector, not a scientist. And no, she didn't. I mean, it was at his house anyhow. That would be odd.
From what I have been told, the milk displaying the abnormal behavior contained vinegar and baking soda. That's extremely abnormal for milk. Did you tell him that?
Well, he mixed a bit of it with baking soda and vinegar. It was a test to figure out if something was wrong with the milk. I have no idea what he was looking for, or what that was supposed to even indicate. This is a guy who believes in divining with pendulums.
If the FDA instituted a protocol that essentially said, "We will not accept complaints based on methods testing that are not supported by peer-reviewed research," they could do that. However, if I'm reading into Pete's post correctly, the reason they won't is to avoid extra backlash against the FDA by anti-intellectuals and loons who believe that wishbones can detect mycobacteria.
If the FDA instituted a protocol that essentially said, "We will not accept complaints based on methods testing that are not supported by peer-reviewed research," they could do that. However, if I'm reading into Pete's post correctly, the reason they won't is to avoid extra backlash against the FDA by anti-intellectuals and loons who believe that wishbones can detect mycobacteria.
I don't work for the FDA. I work for the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. We function at the state level like a kind of cross between the FDA and the USDA.
I often collaborate with the FDA, USDA, CDC, and DHS. But no, I mean that my agency would catch direct flack for not placating idiots. Because idiots make noise that nobody wants to hear, and they apparently never get tired of making it.
Can't you just lie to the idiots and say you checked it out without actually checking it out? Just send them a form letter.
You're right, clearly the agency should forego its legal obligations and lie to the public about the work it's claiming to do. That never goes badly!
Data falsification is the one thing that can actually get me fired.
Start a blog documenting these dumb cases. You'll be a hit.
We talked about that. The department frowns on that, what with our guarantee of the confidentiality of customers. It could open us up to lawsuits.
It's actually kind of amazing how limited I am in the things I can talk about. This whole thing right here? This is actually pushing the limits of what I can say. In fact, I probably crossed a line or two. I should've contacted our department's PR person to sanitize any public discourse about our activities.
And yet the industries I regulate can say all manner of things about me.
Data falsification is the one thing that can actually get me fired.
That's some crazy job security.
Welcome to civil service, where you can't be fired for something small like "refusing to do your job" or "threatening to blow up your building" or "gross incompetence."
There's a joke that you're allowed one homicide in civil service. It might not be that much of a joke.
I think the point becomes, yeah they should investigate any potential for serious illness, but if the lead proves to be false then the consumer who called it in should get the bill.
Gill, who is not a doctor, gave the women phony homeopathic treatment for their phonily-diagnosed cancer...
[One] victim, who had experience of and was interested in alternative therapies, told the court that Mr Gill had examined her internally before telling her she had cancer and that he could "get rid of most of it today".
Initially the victim had told police that she didn't think Mr Gill was getting any sexual gratification but she later said his heavy breathing suggested he was.
W.T.F.? At what point should a person think: "this seems rather odd..." I know everyone here would say that they wouldn't have seen the guy to begin with, but seriously "people" must not think at all.
Comments
(ಠ益ಠ)8==D彡┻━┻
I often collaborate with the FDA, USDA, CDC, and DHS. But no, I mean that my agency would catch direct flack for not placating idiots. Because idiots make noise that nobody wants to hear, and they apparently never get tired of making it.
Data falsification is the one thing that can actually get me fired.
It's actually kind of amazing how limited I am in the things I can talk about. This whole thing right here? This is actually pushing the limits of what I can say. In fact, I probably crossed a line or two. I should've contacted our department's PR person to sanitize any public discourse about our activities.
And yet the industries I regulate can say all manner of things about me. Welcome to civil service, where you can't be fired for something small like "refusing to do your job" or "threatening to blow up your building" or "gross incompetence."
There's a joke that you're allowed one homicide in civil service. It might not be that much of a joke.
I shouldn't be surprised, yet I am when I read articles like this:
http://boingboing.net/2012/04/18/elderly-perv-gave-women-bogus.html W.T.F.? At what point should a person think: "this seems rather odd..." I know everyone here would say that they wouldn't have seen the guy to begin with, but seriously "people" must not think at all.