Usa Thread

[Flashermac]

Red Bull drinks named in reports to FDA

 

 

Red Bull energy drinks were named in 21 adverse event reports submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration. No deaths were cited.

 

The events date to 2004 and in some cases involved increased heart rate and abdominal pain, according to a list posted on Sunday on the FDA’s website. The reports cited four hospitalisations. The incidents are voluntarily reported and are deemed allegations with no conclusion drawn until investigations are completed.

 

The FDA released reports on Saturday for other energy drink makers -- Rockstar Inc, Monster Beverage Corp (MNST), and Living Essentials LLC's 5-Hour Energy products -- which cited more damning evidence. The agency is making the reports public as they become available, Shelly Burgess, an FDA spokeswoman, said.

 

5-Hour Energy was cited in 92 reports, including 33 hospitalisations and 13 deaths, according to the data covering Jan. 1, 2004, to Oct. 23, 2012. Monster products were in 40 reports, with 20 hospital stays and five deaths. Rockstar was listed in 13 reports, including four hospitaliations. No deaths were attributed to Rockstar.

 

Monster and competitors such as PepsiCo Inc's AMP Energy, for which the FDA has not released data yet, are not bound by the agency's guidelines for caffeine in sodas because energy drinks are often sold as dietary supplements. Soda typically can have as many as 71 milligrammes of caffeine per 12 ounces for the FDA to consider it safe. The FDA may require companies to prove caffeine levels are safe if they exceed the guideline.

 

A Red Bull drink has 80 milligrammes of caffeine, the same as an average cup of coffee, according to the product's website.

 

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/321875/red-bull-drinks-named-in-reports-to-us-fda

[Flashermac]

I wonder if Vettel and Webber drink them.

[Steve]

It's a shame that those with the most sense seem to do the worst in primaries.

 

The problem as I saw it with the Republican primaries was that the leadership wanted Romney because they were all about winning and he polled the best against Obama. The Republican far right wanted Santorum or anyone farther right of Romney hence his rocky road to the nomination.

The moderates or sensible ones of the crowd (Huntsman, Paul, Johnson) were not wanted by the leadership primarily because they did not seem to be able to beat Obama by the leadership (Johnson, Huntsman) or in the case of Paul, someone they could not control nor liked.

The far right didn't want Huntsman because he was a China amabassador for Obama and therefore tainted. Johnson wasn't a religious nut. Pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro pot legalization. Paul? Not sure why the far right didn't want him. Maybe not religious enough.

In any event, all the different factions will presumably come up with a compromise candidate they all support. Jeb Bush could be that person. Christie may not appeal enough to the far right. Jindal may. Rubio has financial issues but may appeal to them. I think Jeb Bush would make a good candidate but family name may polarize things a bit. He'll have to do the I am not my brother's keeper act. His name and the 2000 election are his obvious negatives. They can be overcome though. Plus a latino wife Huge plus.

[unit731]

I just don't see another Bush.

I think folks are just too tired of the legacy of the last Bush.

He may be a nice guy.

 

If these Repubs keep aiming for the Tea Party, Regligous Right, and Fox News, they will loose again.

 

A lot depends on how the health care pans out in 2014 and after.

I hear through the grapevine that many companies find it cheaper to pay the fine and just drop health insurance.

If that happens all should be interesting.

[Steve]

What is up McCain's and Graham's ass with regards to Susan Rice? They are acting as if she engineered the Benghazzi thing herself. She's a minor bit part in all of it. Is it some sort of move to force the President to expend some political capital?

McCain is a hypocrite in the whole thing. When Condi Rice was being nominated for a position, she had the WMD baggage and he attributed the Democratic objections to her as sour grapes over the mid term elections.

Condi Rice had a LOT to answer for. Susan Rice in comparison has been exemplary from all accounts in representing our interests at the UN. Not sure why.

[Bangkoktraveler]

McCain looks like he wants to bring charges against Obama for the murder of

4 people in Benghazzi. Whatever happened to holding responsible

the persons who committed the murders?

 

As for bringing charges against Obama, I hope they do.

Then we can bring charges against GWB for all the deaths in Iraq.

 

Wasn't McCain for the invasion of Iraq whereas Obama objected?

[Flashermac]

It all goes back to that damned Lieutenant George N. Bascom.

[unit731]

McCain is still holding a grudge from the last (previous) election. So that take care of McCain.

Old Lindsey, don't know his motives.

 

There is still a lot of sour grapes.

The Repubs just don't know what to do.

[Steve]

I heard on Hardball with Chris Matthews that with McCain its personal over the '08 election. Thing is Obama has a habit of trying to make friends out of rivals. He made his primary opponents VP and Secretary of State. He publicly said he would appoint Romney to head something and in the process keep him relevant. He made Huntsman the ambassador to China.

 

Romney's comments killed that. McCain was offered a peace pipe right after the election and he kept on talking shit. These personal battles are part of the gridlock.

 

To be fair, Dubya tried to be friendly with Ted Kennedy and invited him to a special screening of a movie involving his family, Ted, ignored it and went after him.

[unit731]

"Late last month, conservative media lit up with a video of an African-American woman excitedly praising President Barack Obama because he supposedly gave racial minorities in Cleveland free telephones. The video received prominent placement on the pro-Romney Drudge Report and spawned a popular #Obamaphone hashtag on Twitter. Although there is indeed a federal program which provides low-income people with free or reduced-cost cell phones, it began in 2008 under President George W. Bush. The idea of providing subsidized phone service to low-income individuals originated with a program started under President Ronald Reagan."

 

LINK