J.C.MacSwell

Wouldn't this make you some kind of "Incel +" that should be executed? (Right after me perhaps for suggesting this)

Most agree with free enterprise...at least when they are buying... Most agree capitalism is a two edged sword that needs government constraints against abuse... But most also conflate the two...

Good points. Traders can of course gouge when they own the product but not the brand. You might hold it against them but not the brand if you can in the fiuture get it elsewhere. Seems odd that it could be that low for a typically marked up good, especially if compared to ones significantly higher marked up already.

@CharonY No drop in potency =/= allowable drop. You can claim an allowable drop of 5 or 10% is insignificant, except as you state...when it is, but you can't claim an allowable drop is not a drop. Not allowing any drop during shelf life would make many drugs unaffordable. If you can't understand that that would be detrimental to health care I can't help you. There is a reason with some drugs that the potency requirements are stricter at manufacture or release than at later times during their shelf life. Some degradation is expected, so time left to expiration date is a factor. This is a simple concept but feel free to continue to gaslight the Hell out of it.

It's well known the 19th hole is the clubhouse...when Trump's on the course, I think we know what the twentieth is...

Just as an aside, any general guideline that would require "no drop in potency" through the expiration date would, especially with regard to certain drugs, be of significant detriment to health care.

Again. That is not a blanket requirement in any link you provided, or quoted. Read and try to understand the wording. If you can't get passed that what's the point of my going through your other requests based on what you think I might be insinuating?

Me backpedalling? I was simply trying to help you out, as you were more factually incorrect than wrong. If you had taken the chance to add context you could have simply been more accurate, but instead doubled down with a narrative that you felt justified your position. Next time read what I posted and do less assuming.

Not necessarily. It depends on the nature and test protocol for the particular drug. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7040264/ "Medication's potency gradually decreases starting from the moment of its manufacture." While I'm not sure this is true in all cases it is certainly true generally. (For balance and/or more context) It continues: "This process is not in any way spontaneous after the expiry date. Expired drugs have not necessarily lost their potency and efficacy. The expiration date is only an assurance that the labeled potency will last at least until that date. Ongoing research shows that stored under optimal conditions, many drugs retain 90% of their potency for at least five years after the labeled expiration date, and sometimes longer. Even 10 years after the expiration date many pharmaceuticals retain a significant amount of their original potency.2 Solid dosage forms, such as tablets and capsules, are most stable past their expiration date. Drugs that exist in solution or as a reconstituted suspension may not have the required potency if used when outdated."

Thanks CharonY. If you read what you quoted you will realize it refers to allowable drop in quality, not no drop in quality.

Is this factually correct? I'm going to go out on a limb and claim you can't provide a link that peak quality is required to be maintained to that point in time.

He just needs to fire his advisors that he didn't listen to, and hire new ones he won't listen to. All will be good, because unlike Harris and the Biden administration he knows how to hold people accountable.

I guess Trump, having clearly won Tuesday's debate (personally I thought Harris handed him his ass...but then I might have just been suffering from the effects of eating too much dog and cat), has decided one debate with Harris is enough. From Trump on Truth Social (it must be true because truth is right there in the name) "When a prizefighter loses a fight, the first words out of his mouth are, “I WANT A REMATCH.” Polls clearly show that I won the Debate against Comrade Kamala Harris, the Democrats’ Radical Left Candidate, on Tuesday night, and she immediately called for a Second Debate. She and Crooked Joe have destroyed our Country, with millions of criminals and mentally deranged people pouring into the USA, totally unchecked and unvetted, and with Inflation bankrupting our Middle Class. Everyone knows this, and all of the other problems caused by Kamala and Joe - It was discussed in great detail during the First Debate with Joe, and the Second Debate with Comrade Harris. She was a no-show at the Fox Debate, and refused to do NBC & CBS. KAMALA SHOULD FOCUS ON WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE DURING THE LAST ALMOST FOUR YEAR PERIOD. THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!"

So if correct they have significantly more mass. Do they have more volume also? Proportionately or disproportionately?

Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to commit crimes...

...careful not to step in a poodle...

From Slate News describing the reaction at Fox News: https://slate.com/business/2024/09/debate-donald-trump-kamala-harris-winner-fox-news.html "Brit Hume, the network’s chief political analyst, was starker. “Make no mistake about it: Trump had a bad night,” Hume told the Fox viewers. “This was pretty much her night.” Sounding exasperated, Hume complained that Trump had been repeatedly baited by Harris, leading Trump to relitigate “so many of the old grievances that we had long thought Trump had learned were not winners politically.” Harris, meanwhile, was composed and prepared, Hume said: “She kept her cool.” “You’re saying she had a good night?” host Bret Baier asked him. “I’m saying she certainly did,” Hume said sternly."

I like to think of it as an American problem, but I have to admit I see immigrants here buying "pet food"...I've heard rumours some of them even feed it to their pets!

Meanwhile in the rest of the World pets are now flourishing...those that used to eat them are all now in America...

Harris clearly won...she accomplished what she needed to do...though I am a little concerned that if she gets in she'll come back to Canada and eat my pets... If Trump accomplished anything new...he accomplished that...

Well...that debate certainly went better than the last one!

Related to this, Biden himself is polling much better now than he has since becoming President. He's becoming more of a campaign asset than one might have expected IMO, even while Harris works to distance herself on some aspects of policy toward mitigating some of the negative views of his administration. (The economic one's are a little unfortunate, given the hand he was dealt from Covid) https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/02/politics/biden-reemerges-as-top-surrogate-for-harris-campaign/index.html? iid=cnn_buildContentRecirc_end_recirchttps://www.cnn.com/2024/09/04/politics/harris-separate-biden-economy-trump/index.html I also think Harris's "tack toward the middle" might help not just by encouraging Republican's that dislike Trump to not hold their nose and vote for him anyway, but to in fact vote for Harris. Who knows? Maybe this campaign could help end the plague of rampant political polarization so prevalent lately...

The catch 22 is the necessity of recognizing the physiological differences, often statistically, on one hand, with the importance of recognizing that not only might some assumed differences be exaggerated or off the mark entirely, or might not apply at all to an individual, on the other. Many are incapable of holding opposing thoughts in their heads. They like to generalize. Generalizing can still be an important tool, as long as it doesn't lead to mental blocks. There is a lot of truth to this post of course, along with the obvious bias. I'm not sure what OP list you are referring to Phi. My statement certainly wasn't limited to it in any case.

Somewhat of a catch 22. Especially where in health care where both economics and efficiency are almost always essential, even while personal stakes can be very high.

Are there reasons mental health might be harder for men? Also, of course! As others have implied it's important to understand the differences while not assuming they apply to a particular individual.