Can anyone explain this?
(www.newsweek.com)
Comments (11)
sorted by:
for anyone not wanting to be a faggot and give clicks to newsweak: https://archive.is/wip/Wstue
TBF the archive probably still loads their click tracking scripts but i agree with the idea of archiving informative items
They put these drugs IN the tea?
The tea naturally contains these "undeclared drugs?" (GOD! PAGING GOD!)
Is this some kind of way to pass extremely expensive drugs bought from elsewhere to people who need it i.e.Dallas Buyers Club?
Maybe I'm just fucking stupid. It makes zero sense to me like it's a completely made up story.
There's an article that suggests that diclofenac might be used in constructed wetlands to improve efficiency. So depending on what's in the tea maybe it gets uptaken by plants and stored in the leaves?
This is interesting for sure. Thanks. It's definitely a dot, but still doesn't make any sense of the article itself. To me it sounds like there are very specific non-psychoactive meds in the tea. Like it was a transport method. Like things "aren't for human consumption" but....are? Sort of.. I have no concrete answer and that's why I was wondering what you guys took from this cryptic article.
Moral of the story is don't ingest shit when you don't know where it's from or how it's processed. Most people here alrrady seem to get that for food and water. I don't know why tea would be surprising (also tea leaves tend to hold onto the fluoride that's in the water you use on the plants).
If you want tea, organically grow a camillia bush and some herbs.
I read the article and supposed this already. It's just super fucking weird and really unclear. Even you agree to this above :
I get the feeling the people bought this tea to have these substances.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that can't figure this out.
I'd like to see the outline of what this article was supposed to get across because I can't understand it in this form.
I'm also with the FDA IF it is as it seems and not some bullshit power move to keep drugs people need away from them based on their profit margin, but I think most moves the FDA makes in this respect are to benefit it in the long run, so im.just curious what prompted this or how this even got on the FDA's radar.
It doesn't appear that there was an adverse reaction, this appears (from this article anyway) to be a proactive move "just in case." But is it really or is it based on some drug about to come onto the market? That would be more in line with their M.O. in most scenarios.
This article, like most news, as Haruki Murakami once said, "tells me everything except what I want to know."