Did the &quot;9 out of 10 doctors&quot; people have to ask exactly 10 people? Let's say I were an advertiser trying to come up with a scientific way to back my gum company's "9 out of 10 doctors recommend xyz gum" claim. Do I need to ask exactly 10 doctors and hope that exactly one of them says they don't recommend it? Can I ask 100 doctors, find one that doesn't recommend it, then choose 9 other doctors that did recommend it for my statistic, ignoring the other 90 doctors that all also recommended it? Most gum is sold nationwide in the same packaging so let's not assume I'm in any specific state.
The original add to make this claim was Trident Sugarless Gum, which basically shopped for dentists to make the claim and stopped when they had four who agreed, and one who didn't. And in fact even then, it was still playing with the exact meaning. The original quote is "Four out of Five Dentists recommend Trident Sugarless Gum to their patients who chew gum." They left out some critical information. First, that the question the doctors were asked was "would you recommend this product if the patient insists on chewing gum?" That insistent patient changed their answer fundamentally... as they would have joined Doctor Number 5, who recommended never chewing gum, even if Trident Sugarless Gum was the least unhealthy gum too chew... cause if the patient is going to to take a full recommendation on gum chewing, any dentist worth their salt would recommend you not chew gum. This appeared in the mid to late 1950s and America instantly realized that 4 dentists out of five who answered a poorly phrased question badly does not speak for the bulk of Dentists who saw the answer for what it is. By 1960, at least one Variety Show parodied the commercial by making a gag commercial for a Chinese Restaurant that insisted that "9 out of 10 doctors recommend eating Chinese food." Cue the Camera focusing on 9 happy looking Chinese doctors and one scowling White Doctor as their panel. As a final note and because I'd be re-missed not putting this in here, 9 out of 10 Doctors insist the 4th Doctor's scarf was way too long.
It may be discrimination; not all discrimination is illegal. Details vary by jurisdiction, for example discrimination on the following bases is illegal in Australia: race colour sex sexual preference age physical or mental disability marital status family or carer’s responsibilities pregnancy religion political opinion national extraction social origin A medical condition like an allergy is not necessarily a physical disability. The school is arguably fulfilling its obligations under WHS legislation by banning nut products if that is what a risk assessment indicates. It may also be necessary to ban milk products if that is required for your daughter's safety. If (and I do not know) nuts pose a greater risk than milk then banning the former and not the latter may be perfectly justified. Ask to see the risk assessment.
The criteria for refusing service in California is the patron being “obviously drunk”. 5 150ml mimosas is not a lot, even in an hour - it has approximately the same alcohol content as 2 425ml beers. I certainly wouldn’t be “obviously drunk” after that. Only 18 year olds and over can serve or act as bartenders for on-premises consumption. Whether someone under 18 can pour drinks for someone else to serve is not clear. However, it’s probably ok as the legislative intention appears to be to put a responsible adult at the point of service. The government authority responsible is Alcoholic Beverage Control.
Not for unqualified use This falls under “possession with intent to dispense”. It’s OK if the first aid kit is for use by: a practitioner authorised to dispense drugs (a doctor, nurse practitioner, paramedic or pharmacist) a person registered under the quoted chapter (which can include first-aid officers in remote or isolated locations, like ships) the specific person for whom the medication was prescribed
Maybe I'm reading Walsh wrong, but it seems to me to be saying that Stout might apply in some cases, but it doesn't in that specific case. I think you are indeed reading it wrong. In the Walsh case, the court says: We have not had occasion to decide the question up to this time, but now that it is presented, we not only reiterate the doubt which we expressed in the McAlpin case (supra), but we think that the question of the defendant's negligence was erroneously submitted to the jury in the Stout case, and that we ought not to follow it as a precedent. It's clearly repudiating Stout here, and not just as it applies to that case. It literally says they think it should not be followed as precedent.
The CDC does not authorize shots or vaccine distribution. The FDA authorizes vaccine distribution, or distribution of medicines in general. A medicine is authorized for use in a certain way, which is an &quot;instruction&quot; directed at the medical professional. So-called &quot;off-label&quot; use is discussed by the FDA here. Such use if legal, it simply stretches the limits of what the FDA was allowed to approve (e.g. was found to be safe and effective for X, was not similarly tested for Y). Patients are free to take whatever medicines they want if they can find them, and if they are not on the Controlled Substances list. Hence it's legal to take DMSO, but it's not legal to peddle it as a cancer cure. The prescription regime for covid vaccinations seems to be somewhat relaxed, in that it is likely that many people get a vaccine without a (meaningful) doctor's exam, instead, you show up and get the shot. This is normal with flu shots. The upcoming 3rd shot approval is addressed to doctors, so they can then recommend third shots.
A partial answer (for a manufacturer) is "look it up" – that may tell you if a determination has been made by the FDA. If so, it is not new and may require a less extensive review the next time it is included in a new drug product. For example, if a particular inactive ingredient has been approved in a certain dosage form at a certain potency, a sponsor could consider it safe for use in a similar manner for a similar type of product (the FDA says). The legal part doesn't explain how it is scientifically determine that an inactive ingredient raises safety concerns but to take on example, wheat gluten is in the Inactive Ingredient Guide. This article gives a bit of analysis of the factors that sponsors have to consider in shouldering their burden of proof. If you want to manufacture a new vaccine, you have to show (the FDA) that it is safe. If you dilute the vaccine with water, that ingredient is not a "safety factor". Benzalkonium chloride could be (you would have to show that it isn't), and if it is, that regulation requires you to list it. What's not specified clearly is how many adverse reactions per million doses constitute being a safety factor.
"I don't recall" will protect you from perjury only if it's true. Let me try an example. You're asked: "Did Mr. Blatter hand you an envelope full of cash?" You say: "Not to my recollection." Now the government introduces a videotape of you receiving and counting the money, and a thank-you note you wrote to Blatter saying "Thanks for the awesome bribe!" You can defend yourself from perjury charges if you can convince the finder of fact that you had forgotten all of those things...but it's not very likely, is it? "I don't recall" isn't a magic bullet. It's like any other statement: it's perjury unless it's true.