Barbara Loe Fisher looks like a sweet grandma, doesn't she? She starts off with her personal story, so you'll feel sympathy for her.
AoA runs her story, without her video and footnotes, today. You should, if you've got seven minutes to kill, you really should go to her site, linked above, to watch her. She's dressed in a soft pink dress suit (well, at least the blazer; she could be in shorts, for all I know). After giving you her personal story so your sympathy is invoked, she pushes her non-profit organization (don't forget, this non-profit gives her a 40K salary a year so that she can make these you-tube videos).
She goes on for quite a bit, keeping just the right tone and inflection to convince the reader that she is in earnest about protecting the public, that industry and government are in collusion with each other to add that dangerous stockpiled squalene.
Here's what the register actually shows:
"Constituent materials regulated under Sec. 610.15 (21 CFR 610.15) include ingredients, preservatives, diluents, adjuvants, extraneous protein and antibiotics that are contained in a biological product. FDA is proposing to amend the regulation for constituent materials at Sec. 610.15 to allow the Director of CBER or the Director of CDER, as appropriate, to approve an exception or alternative to the requirements under Sec. 610.15, when data submitted with the exception or alternative establish the safety, purity, and potency of the biological product. This proposed rule provides manufacturers of biological products with flexibility, as appropriate, to employ advances in science and technology as they become available, without diminishing public health protections. Examples of how the proposed rule would provide flexibility to manufacturers in the use of preservatives and aluminum in biological products are provided below. However, the proposed rule would also provide flexibility to the existing requirements regarding extraneous protein and antibiotics (Sec. 610.15(b) and (c)), provided that each request for an alternative or exception to these requirements is submitted with data that establish the safety, purity, and potency of the biological product."
Okay, it's fair enough to call attention to the proposed change, to request folks take the time to offer their opinions on how they feel about this proposed change. I really don't have a problem with that in and of itself. Is Fisher over the top? Yeah, a bit, but not much compared to the anti-vaccine folks at AoA. In fact, she looks reasonable in comparison.
I mean really, really reasonable in comparison:
"Tis better to poison and infiltrate the population so that they too can join the sickened and dependent on the next new miracle drug, which never cures, but makes you a long term customer. There agenda is showing. Are we listening to it, or taking part? We are if we say a vaccine can be made safer!!!!! Because that still gives them liscence to hide and propogate more vaccines on us. Until we understand the converse relationship of consumerism and profits, we shall have new vaccines introduced every year for our stupid consumption....For the sheeple, they line up for anything without question. The dumbing down eugenics routine sure is working...." --#1
"While you can confidently predict that the end is coming for this system - it has over-reached itself - it is just terrible to think of the carnage on the way." #2
"Okay, it's official, they simply want us dead." #3
"good god.. this is bad...so a manufacturer could propose adding paint thinner to vaccines or completely alter the ingredients altogether and all it takes is the approval of one person." #4
That isn't even the cream of the crop of the crazy over there. Not even close. But, hey, Stagliano's right; they do provide a fair share of my material. Yes, as if I wanted the world to have in its midst crazy conspiracy theorist driven nuts who really think the government and industry is intentionally maiming and killing its citizens. To what frakking end would that serve? Really?