And to think liberals crave more of this...

[NYcarbineer]

Wow - that is one of the most egregious lies ever posted on USMB (and illustrates my point about Dumbocrats defending illegal and immoral government).

Direct from the article linked in the OP:

Consent forms they got didn’t mention cancer because the agency considered the risks minimal from short-term exposure, the agency’s Office of Inspector General said in a report yesterday.

If [MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION] were capable of shame and embarrassment he would drown in it. We certainly know he's capable of ignorance considering his failure to read an article before commenting on it and his spelling of "embarassment"

1. Did the Inspector General say the EPA was compliant or not?

2. Where was anyone forced to participate in the study? That was YOUR claim.

Bwahahahah! Where did I say participants were "forced"? Please cite the post number and quote it. I'll wait....

(this is twice in the last two posts that I have proven you were egregiously lying)

As far at the IG - considering he reports to the same Dumbocrat as the EPA does, what do you expect him to say? He sure as hell not going to tell the truth - people in the Obama Administration get fired (or worse) for doing that.

It's the title of your link you imbecile. Jesus what is wrong with you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once again the difference between Rottweiler and the truth is a chasm of Grand Canyon proportions.

This is the relevant statement from the actual Inspector General's report:

The EPA obtained informed consent from the 81 human study subjects before exposing them to pollutants.

If Rottweiler were capable of shame and embarassment he would drown in it.

And the Mengele apologist ignores the fact that a CHILD CAN'T GIVE INFORMED CONSENT. Dude, you really are a scumbag.

That's an interesting claim that if true would make all surgery on children in the US illegal. You should let someone know about that.

lol

 

[P@triot]

Testing using humans is done all the time. Rarely does anyone know the full risks, which is why we are, ------------ wait for it -------------------, "testing".

Except that they lied to the people about what they were testing. They never said they were testing CANCER and yet they pumped these people full of carcinogens.

Keep defending it stupid. You're showing everyone on USMB what a scumbag you are who defends his government masters at all costs (in exchange for handouts). Partisan hack much???

You're also proving what a selfish dirtbag you are - you'd rather sell out children to heinous experiments than risk losing your government table scraps.

They weren't testing cancer, that was one of the risks that they thought was too small to disclose. I would have disclosed everything. It's better that way.

And try not to be such a drama queen next time.

Bingo! He walked right into it like the lying Dumbocrat that he is...



You tried to use the excuse that "they don't know the risks which is why they were ------------ wait for it ------------------- testing". But you just admitted that they weren't testing for cancer. Therefore, you're lying when you say they couldn't have disclosed it because they didn't know and was hence the reason they were testing.

You got tripped up in your own lie junior. Trying to defend them knowingly pumping carcinogens into adults and children is despicable.

 

[P@triot]

Once again the difference between Rottweiler and the truth is a chasm of Grand Canyon proportions.

This is the relevant statement from the actual Inspector General's report:

The EPA obtained informed consent from the 81 human study subjects before exposing them to pollutants.

If Rottweiler were capable of shame and embarassment he would drown in it.

And the Mengele apologist ignores the fact that a CHILD CAN'T GIVE INFORMED CONSENT. Dude, you really are a scumbag.

That's an interesting claim that if true would make all surgery on children in the US illegal. You should let someone know about that.

lol

Wait...you think it's NOT true that children can't give informed consent in the U.S.?!? Holy shit are you one dumb uninformed little monkey....

 

[P@triot]

1. Did the Inspector General say the EPA was compliant or not?

2. Where was anyone forced to participate in the study? That was YOUR claim.

Bwahahahah! Where did I say participants were "forced"? Please cite the post number and quote it. I'll wait....

(this is twice in the last two posts that I have proven you were egregiously lying)

As far at the IG - considering he reports to the same Dumbocrat as the EPA does, what do you expect him to say? He sure as hell not going to tell the truth - people in the Obama Administration get fired (or worse) for doing that.

It's the title of your link you imbecile. Jesus what is wrong with you?

I didn't write the articles or name the links you imbecile. Jesus, what is wrong with you?!? You said in all caps (and I quote) "that was YOUR claim". That was the claim of the author (and it was accurate incidentally as they were forced to inhale something that was not mentioned in the consent forms).

This is now the THIRD lie I've caught you in on this thread (and out of 4 posts), bitch....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Except that they lied to the people about what they were testing. They never said they were testing CANCER and yet they pumped these people full of carcinogens.

Keep defending it stupid. You're showing everyone on USMB what a scumbag you are who defends his government masters at all costs (in exchange for handouts). Partisan hack much???

You're also proving what a selfish dirtbag you are - you'd rather sell out children to heinous experiments than risk losing your government table scraps.

They weren't testing cancer, that was one of the risks that they thought was too small to disclose. I would have disclosed everything. It's better that way.

And try not to be such a drama queen next time.

Bingo! He walked right into it like the lying Dumbocrat that he is...



You tried to use the excuse that "they don't know the risks which is why they were ------------ wait for it ------------------- testing". But you just admitted that they weren't testing for cancer. Therefore, you're lying when you say they couldn't have disclosed it because they didn't know and was hence the reason they were testing.

You got tripped up in your own lie junior. Trying to defend them knowingly pumping carcinogens into adults and children is despicable.

Cancer was a risk they should have disclosed. I said that above little puppy. If you weren't so busy trying to attack me you might actually pull one off, but I very much doubt it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And the Mengele apologist ignores the fact that a CHILD CAN'T GIVE INFORMED CONSENT. Dude, you really are a scumbag.

That's an interesting claim that if true would make all surgery on children in the US illegal. You should let someone know about that.

lol

Wait...you think it's NOT true that children can't give informed consent in the U.S.?!? Holy shit are you one dumb uninformed little monkey....

What he's saying little dummy is that their PARENTS give consent, and that's all that is necessary.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well of course laws on exhaust emissions should be taken out of the hands of the government and placed in the hands of those private companies that produce the products that produce the emissions...

...no chance of pollution ever happening under those circumstances.

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bwahahahah! Where did I say participants were "forced"? Please cite the post number and quote it. I'll wait....

(this is twice in the last two posts that I have proven you were egregiously lying)

As far at the IG - considering he reports to the same Dumbocrat as the EPA does, what do you expect him to say? He sure as hell not going to tell the truth - people in the Obama Administration get fired (or worse) for doing that.

It's the title of your link you imbecile. Jesus what is wrong with you?

I didn't write the articles or name the links you imbecile. Jesus, what is wrong with you?!? You said in all caps (and I quote) "that was YOUR claim". That was the claim of the author (and it was accurate incidentally as they were forced to inhale something that was not mentioned in the consent forms).

This is now the THIRD lie I've caught you in on this thread (and out of 4 posts), bitch....

So now you're repudiating your own link, or supporting it? lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

"I didn't write the articles or name the links you imbecile..."

That's Rottweiler's spirited defense of the credibility of the material he used to support his own thread.

lolol

 

[P@triot]

It's the title of your link you imbecile. Jesus what is wrong with you?

I didn't write the articles or name the links you imbecile. Jesus, what is wrong with you?!? You said in all caps (and I quote) "that was YOUR claim". That was the claim of the author (and it was accurate incidentally as they were forced to inhale something that was not mentioned in the consent forms).

This is now the THIRD lie I've caught you in on this thread (and out of 4 posts), bitch....

So now you're repudiating your own link, or supporting it? lol

The information is 100% accurate. I merely pointed out your lies and misinformation. You've been caught lying 3 times now and if you had an ounce of decency your shame and humiliation would cause you to retract your previous statements.

Sadly, being a Dumbocrat you lack all decency and class....

 

[P@triot]

They weren't testing cancer, that was one of the risks that they thought was too small to disclose. I would have disclosed everything. It's better that way.

And try not to be such a drama queen next time.

Bingo! He walked right into it like the lying Dumbocrat that he is...



You tried to use the excuse that "they don't know the risks which is why they were ------------ wait for it ------------------- testing". But you just admitted that they weren't testing for cancer. Therefore, you're lying when you say they couldn't have disclosed it because they didn't know and was hence the reason they were testing.

You got tripped up in your own lie junior. Trying to defend them knowingly pumping carcinogens into adults and children is despicable.

Cancer was a risk they should have disclosed. I said that above little puppy. If you weren't so busy trying to attack me you might actually pull one off, but I very much doubt it.

If you condemned their actions we wouldn't be having this conversation. You attempted to defend their despicable actions until so many other USMB members jumped in you could no longer keep up.

Then you changed your narrative to "should have disclosed it" but you continue to defend it over all. There is no "they should have disclosed it". They should NOT be testing carcinogens on people - period. And they sure as hell shouldn't do it on children. It's as despicable as you are.

 

[P@triot]

"I didn't write the articles or name the links you imbecile..."

That's Rottweiler's spirited defense of the credibility of the material he used to support his own thread.

The information is 100% accurate. I merely pointed out your lies and misinformation. You've been caught lying 3 times now and if you had an ounce of decency your shame and humiliation would cause you to retract your previous statements.

Sadly, being a Dumbocrat you lack all decency and class....

By the way, are you claiming Bloomberg is not credible???

 

[P@triot]

"I didn't write the articles or name the links you imbecile..."

That's Rottweiler's spirited defense of the credibility of the material he used to support his own thread.

lolol

NYcarbineer continues to support children being given carcinogens by the U.S. government because his greedy, lazy ass fears speaking out against them might cost him his precious government table scraps.

He's willing to give children cancer to feed his own greed. What a complete fucking scumbag...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And to think

If you believe such moronic nonsense then clearly you’re not ‘thinking.’

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Bingo! He walked right into it like the lying Dumbocrat that he is...



You tried to use the excuse that "they don't know the risks which is why they were ------------ wait for it ------------------- testing". But you just admitted that they weren't testing for cancer. Therefore, you're lying when you say they couldn't have disclosed it because they didn't know and was hence the reason they were testing.

You got tripped up in your own lie junior. Trying to defend them knowingly pumping carcinogens into adults and children is despicable.

Cancer was a risk they should have disclosed. I said that above little puppy. If you weren't so busy trying to attack me you might actually pull one off, but I very much doubt it.

If you condemned their actions we wouldn't be having this conversation. You attempted to defend their despicable actions until so many other USMB members jumped in you could no longer keep up.

Then you changed your narrative to "should have disclosed it" but you continue to defend it over all. There is no "they should have disclosed it". They should NOT be testing carcinogens on people - period. And they sure as hell shouldn't do it on children. It's as despicable as you are.

Read my very first post in this thread little puppy. There's something about Full Disclosure in it.

 

[P@triot]

Cancer was a risk they should have disclosed. I said that above little puppy. If you weren't so busy trying to attack me you might actually pull one off, but I very much doubt it.

If you condemned their actions we wouldn't be having this conversation. You attempted to defend their despicable actions until so many other USMB members jumped in you could no longer keep up.

Then you changed your narrative to "should have disclosed it" but you continue to defend it over all. There is no "they should have disclosed it". They should NOT be testing carcinogens on people - period. And they sure as hell shouldn't do it on children. It's as despicable as you are.

Read my very first post in this thread little puppy. There's something about Full Disclosure in it.

Ok....lets do that chief.

Your "very first post in this thread" was post #5 HERE (the first 4 posts on this thread were all mine)

"We wanted to murder three million but we're understaffed."​

Your next post was post #8 HERE

"Sure thing little puppy, sure thing."​

Your next post was post #15 HERE

"Testing using humans is done all the time. Rarely does anyone know the full risks, which is why we are, ------------ wait for it -------------------, "testing".."​

Those are ALL of your posts on page 1. So once again, we see that you are a liar. We also see that you did not condemn these despicable actions but in fact tried to defend them through a variety of the typical Dumbocrat techniques (change the subject, be snarky, twist the facts, etc.).

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If you condemned their actions we wouldn't be having this conversation. You attempted to defend their despicable actions until so many other USMB members jumped in you could no longer keep up.

Then you changed your narrative to "should have disclosed it" but you continue to defend it over all. There is no "they should have disclosed it". They should NOT be testing carcinogens on people - period. And they sure as hell shouldn't do it on children. It's as despicable as you are.

Read my very first post in this thread little puppy. There's something about Full Disclosure in it.

Ok....lets do that chief.

Your "very first post in this thread" was post #5 HERE (the first 4 posts on this thread were all mine)

"We wanted to murder three million but we're understaffed."​

Your next post was post #8 HERE

"Sure thing little puppy, sure thing."​

Your next post was post #15 HERE

"Testing using humans is done all the time. Rarely does anyone know the full risks, which is why we are, ------------ wait for it -------------------, "testing".."​

Those are ALL of your posts on page 1. So once again, we see that you are a liar. We also see that you did not condemn these despicable actions but in fact tried to defend them through a variety of the typical Dumbocrat techniques (change the subject, be snarky, twist the facts, etc.).

My bad, second page little puppy.

Why would the EPA put people in a situation that could possibly harm them in the first place? Doesn't matter if it was voluntary. I'm sure they could get consent for human trials on non lead bullets too but that wouldn't make the test any less repugnant. Why doesn't the EPA test their own employees? Sounds like a good plan.

Testing using humans is done all the time. Rarely does anyone know the full risks, which is why we are, ------------ wait for it -------------------, "testing".

Except that they lied to the people about what they were testing. They never said they were testing CANCER and yet they pumped these people full of carcinogens.

Keep defending it stupid. You're showing everyone on USMB what a scumbag you are who defends his government masters at all costs (in exchange for handouts). Partisan hack much???

You're also proving what a selfish dirtbag you are - you'd rather sell out children to heinous experiments than risk losing your government table scraps.

They weren't testing cancer, that was one of the risks that they thought was too small to disclose. I would have disclosed everything. It's better that way.

And try not to be such a drama queen next time.

 

[P@triot]

Read my very first post in this thread little puppy. There's something about Full Disclosure in it.

Ok....lets do that chief.

Your "very first post in this thread" was post #5 HERE (the first 4 posts on this thread were all mine)

"We wanted to murder three million but we're understaffed."​

Your next post was post #8 HERE

"Sure thing little puppy, sure thing."​

Your next post was post #15 HERE

"Testing using humans is done all the time. Rarely does anyone know the full risks, which is why we are, ------------ wait for it -------------------, "testing".."​

Those are ALL of your posts on page 1. So once again, we see that you are a liar. We also see that you did not condemn these despicable actions but in fact tried to defend them through a variety of the typical Dumbocrat techniques (change the subject, be snarky, twist the facts, etc.).

My bad, second page little puppy.

Testing using humans is done all the time. Rarely does anyone know the full risks, which is why we are, ------------ wait for it -------------------, "testing".

Except that they lied to the people about what they were testing. They never said they were testing CANCER and yet they pumped these people full of carcinogens.

Keep defending it stupid. You're showing everyone on USMB what a scumbag you are who defends his government masters at all costs (in exchange for handouts). Partisan hack much???

You're also proving what a selfish dirtbag you are - you'd rather sell out children to heinous experiments than risk losing your government table scraps.

They weren't testing cancer, that was one of the risks that they thought was too small to disclose. I would have disclosed everything. It's better that way.

And try not to be such a drama queen next time.

So you admit you lied? You first post didn't say that at all. In fact, your first THREE posts tried to deflect and defend such heinous liberal acts.

And it also speaks volumes that you consider people disturbed that the government was giving children cancer while lying to them to be "drama queen".

I guess when you can't dispute the message, the only thing you can do is attack the messenger and hope that distracts people from the issue

 

[P@triot]

The irony of course is that liberals will march, riot, and commit heinous acts of terrorism to prevent animals - including lab rats - from being subjected to studies, but they have no problem subjecting children to horrific experiments.

Here is the latest bombshell from the disgusting and unethical history of liberals experimenting on children and babies as if they were animals....

“I remember them telling me they were a support group who would pretty much hold my hand through the developmental process,” Cook says.

Bernita Lewis, then a 22-year-old student, says she enrolled her premature newborn, Christian, after medical personnel told her it simply was to gather data such as weight and height.

And Survonda Banks, then 21, unemployed and on public assistance, says someone handed her the consent form on her way in for an emergency C-section at 28 weeks of pregnancy. Banks remembers being told only that it was a way to help her baby, Destiny.

All three women now say they never would have agreed to take part if they had known the NIH-funded study’s true nature—to randomly manipulate preemie oxygen levels. They discovered that just last year.

Did Government Experiment on Preemie Babies Hide Risks?