Anyone familiar with the criminal history of organizations like the FDA probably understands why this may constitute a green light that using a zapper has benefits. One can also be fairly confident that if the FDA performed anything along the lines of what is otherwise known as a legitimate study that produced "proof", that as a backdrop, preparation and hedge in their favor for doing such, they also prepared a "legal" document utilizing their own parallel language, from a parallel universe, wherein they defined to their for their own purpose and satisfaction what constitutes "study" and "proof" in this instance....... think similar criminal orgs with their own sordid histoy and similar department of word-smiths creating similar parallel language from the realms of the same parallel universe wherein they create the legal fabrications that define for us the legal terms of otherwise simple words like "income" and "citizen"....... you'll get the idea.
Would you please provide a reference to where one can read the formal document of such FDA/zapper study? Thanks.
Okay, so maybe it can be quite difficult if not impossible to prove a negative, but would it surprise anyone in this litigious world of ours that suing a negative is apparently not all that difficult? ........yep, you guessed it, another criminal org part of the same collective syndicate mentioned above ......their own internal department of word smithery cranking out legal language fabrications, yada yada yada.
"Oakhurst Dairy -- a company that produces milk from cows free of the synthetic hormone rBGH -- was also sued by Monsanto, which claims the dairy should not be allowed to inform its customers that its products do not contain the Monsanto-patented chemical"
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't negative advertising made legal several years ago?