Bill Maher's Anti-Pharma Rant

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
pretty much lost respect for him when he went against vaccination

He's against vaccination? What a complete moron.

some vaccines trigger autism and/or neurological/mitochondrial issues shortly after their use in babies.

google it.

BS.

I can google "proof" that the moon landings never happened as well.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade
Didn't listen to the rant... I am of the opinion that we are a nation of drug addicts thanks to over zealous doctors getting kick backs and the pharmaceutical companies looking to make a buck.

Actually, he had a better theory: It's because of lazy people who want a pill to fix everything rather than actually working to prevent their maladies.

He made a point at the end that exercise can cure depression and obesity and all the problems associated with obesity.

Diet and activity modification can also help with a great deal of other problems from cholesterol to hyperactivity.

The problem for doctors is this: Patients don't WANT to work for their own cures. They want an easy and quick pill.

For the OP:

Not once did he blame medicines for causing disease. He blames PEOPLE for being lazy and irresponsible with their own body's maintenance and upkeep. He blames a lack of preventative medicine.

It is not the drug company's fault for filling a demand. It is not the doctor's fault for throwing up their hands and giving up when patients will not get off their asses and modify their diet and exercise. What are they to do for people who refuse to exercise and change their diets? Let them die?

They cannot, of course... so they try to medicate them in place of the preventive measures the patients refuse to participate in.

for amused:

not once did i blame medicines for causing disease in the op. i simply agreed with his rant. i, too, blame a lack of preventative HEALTH CARE (not just medicine).

the demand is fake. the demand is made up in order to receive money from the fda. since the fda and big pharma are in bed together, the fda is more than willing to hook it up to people who want to discover new disorders so that big pharma can create a pill or 10 for it.

in other countries, doctors get paid bonuses by getting their patients to work out more, stop smoking, etc... they don't get anything for throwing pills at a patient's open mouth and seeing what sticks. we need to start doing that here. it will cut down on lawsuits against pharma, fda, etc. it will increase personal responsibility and activity, thereby increasing health and prevention.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
pretty much lost respect for him when he went against vaccination

He's against vaccination? What a complete moron.

some vaccines trigger autism and/or neurological/mitochondrial issues shortly after their use in babies.

google it.

A while back mercury used to be used as a preservative for multi-use vaccinations. The practice of multi-use vaccinations is no longer used and rather now single-use ampules are used. It was the mercury has been tied to neurological disorders.

Originally posted by: eits

:roll:

there's a huge difference between the cessation of creating fake disorders in order to get fda funding for the creation of a new drug for said fake disorder and living in the medical stone-age.

That's not really fair to say. I tend to think that most pharmaceutical companies, both large and small, get their funding either internally through cash reserves or from venture capitalist.

do yourself a favor and see just how many disorders were "discovered" in the past 20 years and how many medications have been created for each.

Again, this isn't a very astute thing to say. Through analytical technology more disorders can indeed be detected. Things like genomics got involved, and now there is a technology called proteomics that can, in a sense, detect disease states based on the relationships of proteins in the body. The point of me saying this is that new technology has allowed the diagnosis of diseases that we were unaware of. Now granted without a doubt the marketing gurus with the pharma companies may force disease diagnosis down the throats of unwitting consumers via adverts but that still does not preclude advances in technology.

Do you seriously think we should have made no new advances in disease detection in 20 years? And you have the audacity to claim that it is the pharma companies living in the stone age. . .

Edit: My quotes were all jacked up.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Sedition

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: Farang
The worst I see is anti-depressants as a cure for sadness and aderall as a cure for laziness.

They're prescribed because they work (in general). However, a big part of the issue is that doctors are responding to the desires of their clients, which often entails finding a pill to cure the problem.

Which they are told they need from Tv and webmd. On my clinic rounds, people have actually brought in printoffs from prescription drug ad websites and told me they need "that one". When I go to do a work up, they literally read the list of symptoms associated and say they have all of them.

There is a common situation in Medical School called First Year Hypochondriasis. That first year with all the stress and all the learning about crazy horrible diseases everyone at some point starts to convince themselves that they have something.

My good buddy during our HENNT section had himself convinced he had either throat cancer or a goiter. He really just has a normal variant that gives a fourth pyramid shaped thryoid lobe. You should have seen him freaking out. We picked on him of course, but that is only because we have all been there.
Anyway, my point is that we have started a generation of TV-Ad Hypochondriacs. We start throwing around common symptoms and ailments and by the end of the 30 sec spot people are convinced they need the pill.

People are stupid, even med students (shock) and we are easily lead on. It doesn't take much to work into our fears of illness and overall health. This ads go straight for that.



Maher was very right about the fact that usually rare diseases are suddenly becoming very mainstream and much of it has to do with medications becoming available.

Acid Reflux disease was an extremely rare condition where nerve issues cause sphcinter problems near the esophogeal junctions. Now it is commonly occuring ailment that is cured with now defunct ulcer medications. Stomach ulcers were once thought to be acid pump problems until two kiwi's proved without shadow of a doubt that it was caused by bacterial infections. Ulcer meds that inhibited pumps were now useless and common antibiotics could clear out the issue within weeks.

Surprise Surprise, the same time the Nobel Prize was awarded to them was when Acid Reflux disease was making its huge debut in American Culture. Amazing coincidence that a rare disease would make such a huge showing right around the time when the drugs that fix it had suddenly lost a huge market.

:thumbsup: to this post.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Sedition

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: Babbles
I think Bill Maher is a clueless douche that oversimplifies complex issues. He really shouldn't be giving out his opinion, because people may actually listen to him thinking he knows what's going on.

Ah, and with this cogent and informative post, you've clearly demonstrated why we should listen to you.

Originally posted by: Fayd
"20 years ago children didn't get diabetes."

yes they did.

while i agree that some things are overdiagnosed (mental ailments), things like diabetes need to be diagnosed. and you either have it or you dont.

i dont think maher understands that.

He said "Type 2 Diabetes." Remember how we use to have Juvenile Diabetes, etc? Kids are getting Type 2 now in incredibly high numbers, whereas before it was far, far less common.

and with either tyoe of diabetes, you either have it or you dont.

if there's a massive influx of type 2, then it's indicative of a different problem than overmedication.

There are quite a few studies that have shown losing as little as 20 pounds of weight causes a complete cessation of symptoms associated with Type 2.

i actually read two studies a couple weeks ago pertaining to that exact premise.

 

[darkxshade]

"Ask your doctor if getting off your ass is right for you?"

:laugh:

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
pretty much lost respect for him when he went against vaccination

He's against vaccination? What a complete moron.

some vaccines trigger autism and/or neurological/mitochondrial issues shortly after their use in babies.

google it.

There is not a peer reviewed study that supports your BS post.

Complete and utter BS. It is anti-science and completely false.

 

[Sedition]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
pretty much lost respect for him when he went against vaccination

He's against vaccination? What a complete moron.

some vaccines trigger autism and/or neurological/mitochondrial issues shortly after their use in babies.

google it.

BS.

I can google "proof" that the moon landings never happened as well.

The Autism-like symptoms in kids who already have rare mitochondrial diseases is being seriously looked at and studied. You can find it in many peer reviewed sources that look into it. This is, however, EXTREMELY RARE.

I personally think that whole Vaccines cause Autism movement is based on fear mongering and on bad science (the guy who did the first studies is being investigated for fraud).
It isn't the media's job to scare the shit out of already stupid people people and give them suggestions that they have absolutely no training to give.

With that said, I don't think it is a bad idea to investigate the side effects of vaccines to make sure they are safe for all in the public. I just think this is best left to science, not populist reporting.

 

[Chunkee]

Why would the pharmaceuticals place any money in research for cures? Are you all that fucking stupid...? The answer is yes...quit drumming up all the fucking stupid theories...it is real simple.

It is driven by money/profit alone...there is no philanthropy there. And...we have gotten unhealthy because of technology and our chosen lifestyles.... you have to be a complete idiot to think that common sense, exercise and proper nutrition will NOT stave most of the problems seen today in youth, adolescence and adult onset problems...other than genetic pre-dispositions, and infections, you keep feeding yourself the bullshit they keep dolling out...

It is amazing how many on here are so influenced by the nonsensical thought process spoon fed to you via the web and tv panel... perhaps you should take a fucking pill to turn back on the common sense filter that has been shut off by your pop intellect.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: bignateyk
Magic? Where exactly do you think most drugs come from? I'll give you a hint: nature.

This is becoming less and less true as science advances. We take our cues from nature, sure, but small molecules and designed proteins/antibodies are the wave of the future.

However, I very much agree that holistic medicine (in the sense of "eat right, exercise, and do things to reduce stress and increase your satisfaction in life") is a much better way to reduce medical problems and cure a bunch of hard-to-nail-down problems that Western medicine isn't great at. But the "accupuncture and organic linseed oil massages cured my cancer" crowd are totally nuts.

and as science in medicine (the actual medicine, not the profession) advances, it seems that public health declines... which makes the public think they're not taking enough medicine...

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Sedition

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: Babbles
I think Bill Maher is a clueless douche that oversimplifies complex issues. He really shouldn't be giving out his opinion, because people may actually listen to him thinking he knows what's going on.

Ah, and with this cogent and informative post, you've clearly demonstrated why we should listen to you.

Originally posted by: Fayd
"20 years ago children didn't get diabetes."

yes they did.

while i agree that some things are overdiagnosed (mental ailments), things like diabetes need to be diagnosed. and you either have it or you dont.

i dont think maher understands that.

He said "Type 2 Diabetes." Remember how we use to have Juvenile Diabetes, etc? Kids are getting Type 2 now in incredibly high numbers, whereas before it was far, far less common.

and with either tyoe of diabetes, you either have it or you dont.

if there's a massive influx of type 2, then it's indicative of a different problem than overmedication.

There are quite a few studies that have shown losing as little as 20 pounds of weight causes a complete cessation of symptoms associated with Type 2.

There are more than quite a "few" studies that show taking drugs, in addition to diet and exercise can help much more than diet and exercise can alone.

typically for genetic hypertension, were diet and exercise alone can't bring the blood pressure numbers down to below pre-hypertensive.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Sedition

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Sedition

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: Babbles
I think Bill Maher is a clueless douche that oversimplifies complex issues. He really shouldn't be giving out his opinion, because people may actually listen to him thinking he knows what's going on.

Ah, and with this cogent and informative post, you've clearly demonstrated why we should listen to you.

Originally posted by: Fayd
"20 years ago children didn't get diabetes."

yes they did.

while i agree that some things are overdiagnosed (mental ailments), things like diabetes need to be diagnosed. and you either have it or you dont.

i dont think maher understands that.

He said "Type 2 Diabetes." Remember how we use to have Juvenile Diabetes, etc? Kids are getting Type 2 now in incredibly high numbers, whereas before it was far, far less common.

and with either tyoe of diabetes, you either have it or you dont.

if there's a massive influx of type 2, then it's indicative of a different problem than overmedication.

There are quite a few studies that have shown losing as little as 20 pounds of weight causes a complete cessation of symptoms associated with Type 2.

There are more than quite a "few" studies that show taking drugs, in addition to diet and exercise can help much more than diet and exercise can alone.

My point was more on the comment of "you either have it or you don't". Diabetes Mell Type 1 and other forms like Insipidious are actual diseases. They have a pathological route and a pretty clear etiology. If you have them you have them or you don't. You have a hypothalmus issue or you don't. You have an immune issue or you don't. There is a pretty clear line.

Diabetes Type 2 is a little different and research is beginning to show that is is more of a blanket term that is covering a pretty wide variety of different diseases and conditions with similar presentation of symptoms.

The probably most common and well known/talked about being age-related and weight-related. In both cases for a variety of possible reasons the body becomes desensitized to insulin. Studies have shown that they both do not have to be a "have or have not disease" because with a change to good diet and exercise with weight lose you can "cure" yourself of Diabetes Type 2. Not every case because like I said there are other issues involved in different cases, BUT in the average American presentation of Diabetes Type 2, as little as 20 lbs can cease symptoms effectively ending the disease.

With that said, if your treatment method only relies on medication, then yes, it is a have or have not. Current medications DO NOT cure Diabetes Type 2. They allow the individual to survive with the disease and help to lessen the symptoms associated with it.

Let me repeat this. THERE IS NO DRUG OR MEDICATION CURE FOR DIABETES. Just like there is no cure for hypertension or heart disease or cancer that can be found in a pill. Medications allow you to live with the disease. They lessen symptoms. They keep you kicking. But they DO NOT CURE it. And in that sense, this disease is a "have or have not".

I am talking cure. You are talking pharm living. You wouldn't believe all the fun Drug stuff doctors get to deal with on a daily basis. I can't wait to start writing scripts to counter the side affects of scripts I have already written. We have gotten into an absurd cycle.

We just had a big series in Pharm about Polypharmy.
It was quite the eye opener, but what do I know... I guess more pills is the (easy) answer.

:applause;

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: bignateyk
Magic? Where exactly do you think most drugs come from? I'll give you a hint: nature.

This is becoming less and less true as science advances. We take our cues from nature, sure, but small molecules and designed proteins/antibodies are the wave of the future.

However, I very much agree that holistic medicine (in the sense of "eat right, exercise, and do things to reduce stress and increase your satisfaction in life") is a much better way to reduce medical problems and cure a bunch of hard-to-nail-down problems that Western medicine isn't great at. But the "accupuncture and organic linseed oil massages cured my cancer" crowd are totally nuts.

and as science in medicine (the actual medicine, not the profession) advances, it seems that public health declines... which makes the public think they're not taking enough medicine...

Yeah that is why the lifespan of people continues to increases........

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Sedition

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Sedition

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: Babbles
I think Bill Maher is a clueless douche that oversimplifies complex issues. He really shouldn't be giving out his opinion, because people may actually listen to him thinking he knows what's going on.

Ah, and with this cogent and informative post, you've clearly demonstrated why we should listen to you.

Originally posted by: Fayd
"20 years ago children didn't get diabetes."

yes they did.

while i agree that some things are overdiagnosed (mental ailments), things like diabetes need to be diagnosed. and you either have it or you dont.

i dont think maher understands that.

He said "Type 2 Diabetes." Remember how we use to have Juvenile Diabetes, etc? Kids are getting Type 2 now in incredibly high numbers, whereas before it was far, far less common.

and with either tyoe of diabetes, you either have it or you dont.

if there's a massive influx of type 2, then it's indicative of a different problem than overmedication.

There are quite a few studies that have shown losing as little as 20 pounds of weight causes a complete cessation of symptoms associated with Type 2.

There are more than quite a "few" studies that show taking drugs, in addition to diet and exercise can help much more than diet and exercise can alone.

My point was more on the comment of "you either have it or you don't". Diabetes Mell Type 1 and other forms like Insipidious are actual diseases. They have a pathological route and a pretty clear etiology. If you have them you have them or you don't. You have a hypothalmus issue or you don't. You have an immune issue or you don't. There is a pretty clear line.

Diabetes Type 2 is a little different and research is beginning to show that is is more of a blanket term that is covering a pretty wide variety of different diseases and conditions with similar presentation of symptoms.

The probably most common and well known/talked about being age-related and weight-related. In both cases for a variety of possible reasons the body becomes desensitized to insulin. Studies have shown that they both do not have to be a "have or have not disease" because with a change to good diet and exercise with weight lose you can "cure" yourself of Diabetes Type 2. Not every case because like I said there are other issues involved in different cases, BUT in the average American presentation of Diabetes Type 2, as little as 20 lbs can cease symptoms effectively ending the disease.

With that said, if your treatment method only relies on medication, then yes, it is a have or have not. Current medications DO NOT cure Diabetes Type 2. They allow the individual to survive with the disease and help to lessen the symptoms associated with it.

Let me repeat this. THERE IS NO DRUG OR MEDICATION CURE FOR DIABETES. Just like there is no cure for hypertension or heart disease or cancer that can be found in a pill. Medications allow you to live with the disease. They lessen symptoms. They keep you kicking. But they DO NOT CURE it. And in that sense, this disease is a "have or have not".

I am talking cure. You are talking pharm living. You wouldn't believe all the fun Drug stuff doctors get to deal with on a daily basis. I can't wait to start writing scripts to counter the side affects of scripts I have already written. We have gotten into an absurd cycle.

We just had a big series in Pharm about Polypharmy.
It was quite the eye opener, but what do I know... I guess more pills is the (easy) answer.

Diet and exercise is not a "cure" for diabetes(or any of those other disease states you mentioned) either.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: Chunkee
Why would the pharmaceuticals place any money in research for cures? Are you all that fucking stupid...? The answer is yes...quit drumming up all the fucking stupid theories...it is real simple.

It is driven by money/profit alone...there is no philanthropy there. And...we have gotten unhealthy because of technology and our chosen lifestyles.... you have to be a complete idiot to think that common sense, exercise and proper nutrition will NOT stave most of the problems seen today in youth, adolescence and adult onset problems...other than genetic pre-dispositions, and infections, you keep feeding yourself the bullshit they keep dolling out...

It is amazing how many on here are so influenced by the nonsensical thought process spoon fed to you via the web and tv panel... perhaps you should take a fucking pill to turn back on the common sense filter that has been shut off by your pop intellect.

Oh the irony . . .

The pharmaceutical companies like to find "cures" - what they are looking at is treatments, by the way, but I am sure you knew that - because there is indeed money to be made in treatment. Some things, at least short-term, will never really be "cured" in that there will not be 100% eradication. Sepsis from the hospital, for instance is a good example in that there will always be need for medications to treat high resistant variants of bacteria. Tissue transplant patients will always need medication - these things really are not "cures" per se but rather treatments.

You just seem to so mis-understand the entire topic that it boggles my mind that you seem to think that you have the answer.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Sedition

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
pretty much lost respect for him when he went against vaccination

He's against vaccination? What a complete moron.

some vaccines trigger autism and/or neurological/mitochondrial issues shortly after their use in babies.

google it.

BS.

I can google "proof" that the moon landings never happened as well.

The Autism-like symptoms in kids who already have rare mitochondrial diseases is being seriously looked at and studied. You can find it in many peer reviewed sources that look into it. This is, however, EXTREMELY RARE.

I personally think that whole Vaccines cause Autism movement is based on fear mongering and on bad science (the guy who did the first studies is being investigated for fraud).
It isn't the media's job to scare the shit out of already stupid people people and give them suggestions that they have absolutely no training to give.

With that said, I don't think it is a bad idea to investigate the side effects of vaccines to make sure they are safe for all in the public. I just think this is best left to science, not populist reporting.

i think most causes of autism have to do with the increasing number of parents waiting until later in life to have children, but the link between vaccinations and autism, whether rare or not, cannot be ignored (even though it was covered-up for a long time). would i vaccinate my children? absolutely, especially if i didn't have any familial history of autism.

also, you can't deny that the movement for vaccination was also based on fear in it's hayday. any new development and movement that arises alarm and awareness has a basis of fear involved.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: bignateyk
Magic? Where exactly do you think most drugs come from? I'll give you a hint: nature.

This is becoming less and less true as science advances. We take our cues from nature, sure, but small molecules and designed proteins/antibodies are the wave of the future.

However, I very much agree that holistic medicine (in the sense of "eat right, exercise, and do things to reduce stress and increase your satisfaction in life") is a much better way to reduce medical problems and cure a bunch of hard-to-nail-down problems that Western medicine isn't great at. But the "accupuncture and organic linseed oil massages cured my cancer" crowd are totally nuts.

That is not entirely accurate. "Small molecule" has effectively been the standard for Big-Pharma; most drugs that we consume are small molecules. Doing goofy things like using bacterial spores, genetically modified viruses and/or bacteria, and so forth is the new direction.

I admit that my experience is more academic-level, but there is plenty of small molecule design going on, and as for the viruses, they are simply delivery vectors for the designed proteins/DNA/RNA that provides the actual therapeutic value.

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
pretty much lost respect for him when he went against vaccination

He's against vaccination? What a complete moron.

some vaccines trigger autism and/or neurological/mitochondrial issues shortly after their use in babies.

google it.

WRONG!

Not a single study has shown that, other than the thoroughly-discredited Wakefield paper. The autism link is not just misinformation, but it is highly damaging misinformation. In my mind, spreading this lie is criminally negligent and should be treated as such, unless any actual, scientific evidence can be found to support this ludicrous belief. A 30-fold increase in the measles rate in the UK is just RIDICULOUS.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: bignateyk
Magic? Where exactly do you think most drugs come from? I'll give you a hint: nature.

This is becoming less and less true as science advances. We take our cues from nature, sure, but small molecules and designed proteins/antibodies are the wave of the future.

However, I very much agree that holistic medicine (in the sense of "eat right, exercise, and do things to reduce stress and increase your satisfaction in life") is a much better way to reduce medical problems and cure a bunch of hard-to-nail-down problems that Western medicine isn't great at. But the "accupuncture and organic linseed oil massages cured my cancer" crowd are totally nuts.

and as science in medicine (the actual medicine, not the profession) advances, it seems that public health declines... which makes the public think they're not taking enough medicine...

Yeah that is why the lifespan of people continues to increases........

uh, do yourself a favor and look at where our life expectancy ranks in the world... compare it to countries that give kickbacks to doctors who work hard to get their patients to quit smoking and exercise more to cure their ailments as opposed to giving them drugs.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: bignateyk
Magic? Where exactly do you think most drugs come from? I'll give you a hint: nature.

This is becoming less and less true as science advances. We take our cues from nature, sure, but small molecules and designed proteins/antibodies are the wave of the future.

However, I very much agree that holistic medicine (in the sense of "eat right, exercise, and do things to reduce stress and increase your satisfaction in life") is a much better way to reduce medical problems and cure a bunch of hard-to-nail-down problems that Western medicine isn't great at. But the "accupuncture and organic linseed oil massages cured my cancer" crowd are totally nuts.

and as science in medicine (the actual medicine, not the profession) advances, it seems that public health declines... which makes the public think they're not taking enough medicine...

Yeah that is why the lifespan of people continues to increases........

uh, do yourself a favor and look at where our life expectancy ranks in the world... compare it to countries that give kickbacks to doctors who work hard to get their patients to quit smoking and exercise more to cure their ailments as opposed to giving them drugs.

Lovely, another numbnuts that doesn't understand correlation versus causation. Get a clue. Until you can actually come back and explain the difference, discussing anything scientific or rationally is a WASTE of time.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: jagec

I admit that my experience is more academic-level, but there is plenty of small molecule design going on, and as for the viruses, they are simply delivery vectors for the designed proteins/DNA/RNA that provides the actual therapeutic value.

Well certainly, I suppose you could say it is the bread and butter of the entire pharma research. It's not like they all got together one day and said, "Okay we're all done with small molecule research - Next!"

 

[Hacp]

Vaccines have not been credibly shown to cause autism. Unless you have both a Doctorate and a multi-year research paper proving Vaccines cause autism, I am not going to believe you.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Vaccines have not been credibly shown to cause autism.

People like eits don't let scientific fact get in their way of misinformation to fit their worldview and agenda.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Vaccines have not been credibly shown to cause autism.

Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

 

[MovingTarget]

YouTube. No transcript.

FAIL.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Chunkee
Why would the pharmaceuticals place any money in research for cures? Are you all that fucking stupid...? The answer is yes...quit drumming up all the fucking stupid theories...it is real simple.

It is driven by money/profit alone...there is no philanthropy there. And...we have gotten unhealthy because of technology and our chosen lifestyles.... you have to be a complete idiot to think that common sense, exercise and proper nutrition will NOT stave most of the problems seen today in youth, adolescence and adult onset problems...other than genetic pre-dispositions, and infections, you keep feeding yourself the bullshit they keep dolling out...

Yeah, I'm sure that Mother Teresa was probably selling off little orphan kidneys out of the back door of her convent, too.:roll:

There is NO SHORTAGE of diseases. If we cure one today, there are three more tomorrow. And unless you're suspecting complete collusion between ALL drug companies and ALL potential entrepreneurs, if one guy comes up with a cure when the other people only offer treatments, guess who's going to sell more pills?

Sure, there's lots and lots of money in medicine. SO much, in fact, that we don't have to scrounge around for extra by milking diseases for all that they are worth. If your theory was true, vaccines would not exist. After all, we have treatments for pretty much every disease which the vaccines prevent! Wouldn't it be smarter to wait for the kids to get sick, and then sell them expensive treatments? Vaccines are a huge money loser.

Finally: So, how much money have you sent Big Pharm for your smallpox meds this year?

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: bignateyk
Magic? Where exactly do you think most drugs come from? I'll give you a hint: nature.

This is becoming less and less true as science advances. We take our cues from nature, sure, but small molecules and designed proteins/antibodies are the wave of the future.

However, I very much agree that holistic medicine (in the sense of "eat right, exercise, and do things to reduce stress and increase your satisfaction in life") is a much better way to reduce medical problems and cure a bunch of hard-to-nail-down problems that Western medicine isn't great at. But the "accupuncture and organic linseed oil massages cured my cancer" crowd are totally nuts.

and as science in medicine (the actual medicine, not the profession) advances, it seems that public health declines... which makes the public think they're not taking enough medicine...

Correlation != causation! Do you really think that Americans getting fatter is due to Grandpa taking more pills than the last generation did? Sure, you can gripe about all the drugs that kids are on these days, and I'm right there with you. But people don't take their cholesterol pills, and then go out and eat tons of bad food--they get fat first, and then they try to medicate their way out of it, instead of just dying off like they used to.

If science in medicine was really such a bad thing, then why does the average lifespan keep going up?