Of mice and men
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Even though Wal-Mart is evil.
Now that does surprise me, I'm warming to you man :laugh: It is, as mentioned, none of my business but I do find it interesting when people are so blind that they don't even see a problem exists. But hey, there isn't anywhere where problems don't exist.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
It is, as mentioned, none of my business but I do find it interesting when people are so blind that they don't even see a problem exists.
The US health care industry does have problems. Not with quality (as it tops the world in that respect), but cost. The Lamisil example was intended to illustrate the supposed absurdity of the industry, but really just highlighted market ignorance. If health care is treated more like a free-market industry (it currently uses a model closer to socialism, even though it's private), then perhaps more people would spend $4 on a prescription instead of $1,300.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
fat_boy wrote:
Wait till you have something nasty. You will be the first to turn to whatever medcines 'they' produce.
No, I won't. I will die before taking anything that has been tested on animals. In fact, I would probably die sooner if I did. I habe no objection to making money - but I don't charge my clients ridiculously over-the-top fees; and I don't give them a bad product either. What "workd" for the pharmaceuticals is not their products, but their hype, your adulation of men in white coats, and your fear of death and disease - all of which which they play on like Segovia played guitar: masterfully.
Fred_Smith wrote:
No, I won't. I will die before taking anything that has been tested on animals. In fact, I would probably die sooner if I did.
That might upset your children.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
fat_boy wrote:
Wait till you have something nasty. You will be the first to turn to whatever medcines 'they' produce.
No, I won't. I will die before taking anything that has been tested on animals. In fact, I would probably die sooner if I did. I habe no objection to making money - but I don't charge my clients ridiculously over-the-top fees; and I don't give them a bad product either. What "workd" for the pharmaceuticals is not their products, but their hype, your adulation of men in white coats, and your fear of death and disease - all of which which they play on like Segovia played guitar: masterfully.
Hasn't virtually every drug been animal tested? Most antibiotics ... so one good infection should be enough to knock you out ... Also most anaesthetic's ... so if you require surgery your doubly fucked ... Something as simple as testicular cancer which is very easy to cure would be extremely life threatening to you. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of animal testing, but there are some situations where I believe in it, and medical testing for life saving stuff is one of them. I think more could be done to allow terminal human patients to go on early drugs trials too, if they choose to use the last of thier time here helping to see if potentially life saving drugs are ok then I don't think anyone should stop them ... and that would be a good step towards reducing the amount of animal testing.
-
So, whats the fantasy? Super hero? Defender of the earth? Independant Man? Believe me, you are a lot less special than you think you are.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
What's your problem? It never ceases to amaze me how angry people get when you question their belief in being able to (ab)use aniumals in whatever way they want. It really does touch a raw nerve in people. Makes me wonder what it is they're hiding from. I mean, it rarely gets beyond a couple of minutes before the spit stsrts flying out their mouths... Take a deep breath FB and calm down. It's bad for your heart, you know... (free medical advice, no pills required.)
-
Hasn't virtually every drug been animal tested? Most antibiotics ... so one good infection should be enough to knock you out ... Also most anaesthetic's ... so if you require surgery your doubly fucked ... Something as simple as testicular cancer which is very easy to cure would be extremely life threatening to you. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of animal testing, but there are some situations where I believe in it, and medical testing for life saving stuff is one of them. I think more could be done to allow terminal human patients to go on early drugs trials too, if they choose to use the last of thier time here helping to see if potentially life saving drugs are ok then I don't think anyone should stop them ... and that would be a good step towards reducing the amount of animal testing.
originSH wrote:
Hasn't virtually every drug been animal tested?
Yes, they have - with worse than useless results. Thalidomide (remember that?) was specifically targeted at pregnant women as a result of animal tests... ...penicillin would, had it been tested on guinea-pigs (to whom it is fatal) as intended, never been allowed near a hiuman being; it was only a "happy" accident that none were available and mice (I think it was) were used instead. ..such lists are almost endless; there is case after case after case documenting the bad science that is animal testing, irrespective of any moral issues. I will take my chances elsewhere. Personally, I rate my chances higher than yours.
-
originSH wrote:
Hasn't virtually every drug been animal tested?
Yes, they have - with worse than useless results. Thalidomide (remember that?) was specifically targeted at pregnant women as a result of animal tests... ...penicillin would, had it been tested on guinea-pigs (to whom it is fatal) as intended, never been allowed near a hiuman being; it was only a "happy" accident that none were available and mice (I think it was) were used instead. ..such lists are almost endless; there is case after case after case documenting the bad science that is animal testing, irrespective of any moral issues. I will take my chances elsewhere. Personally, I rate my chances higher than yours.
Who cares about all that though? According to the scientifically-proven Talking Snake Theory, God gave us dominion over all the animals. If animal testing helps keep someone alive so they can hear the gospel and not go to hell forever, it is worth it don't you think?
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
No, I won't. I will die before taking anything that has been tested on animals. In fact, I would probably die sooner if I did.
That might upset your children.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
That might upset your children.
Not as much as seeing me die stuffing useless pills in my mouth in some hospital bed with drips and feeds and needles coming out of me - all doing nothing ecxcept make me worse, and made at the expense of millions of animals lives. If that's how you want to die, that's your choice. Just remember those animals that didn't have one, while you're taking your last breath, and ask yuoself what was it all for...
-
originSH wrote:
Hasn't virtually every drug been animal tested?
Yes, they have - with worse than useless results. Thalidomide (remember that?) was specifically targeted at pregnant women as a result of animal tests... ...penicillin would, had it been tested on guinea-pigs (to whom it is fatal) as intended, never been allowed near a hiuman being; it was only a "happy" accident that none were available and mice (I think it was) were used instead. ..such lists are almost endless; there is case after case after case documenting the bad science that is animal testing, irrespective of any moral issues. I will take my chances elsewhere. Personally, I rate my chances higher than yours.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
That might upset your children.
Not as much as seeing me die stuffing useless pills in my mouth in some hospital bed with drips and feeds and needles coming out of me - all doing nothing ecxcept make me worse, and made at the expense of millions of animals lives. If that's how you want to die, that's your choice. Just remember those animals that didn't have one, while you're taking your last breath, and ask yuoself what was it all for...
You're nuttier than a Carter farm.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Personally, I rate my chances higher than yours.
If recieving no treatment is better than recieving treatment how come life expectance is highest where the best medical care is avalible?
originSH wrote:
If recieving no treatment is better than recieving treatment how come life expectance is highest where the best medical care is avalible?
I hope that is not a serious question. Why is life expectancy higher in the US than Uganda, for example? Come on... wake up.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Personally, I rate my chances higher than yours.
If recieving no treatment is better than recieving treatment how come life expectance is highest where the best medical care is avalible?
That's obviously not true. Cuba's life expectancy ranks 37th in the world, and everybody knows that they have the best health care system in existence.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Trollslayer wrote:
Gee, so why are cancer survival rates going up?
Depends on what statistics you choose to look at - and remember: there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics". I never said stem cell research was bad, or geneteic engineering - in fact I explicity said the opposite.
Trollslayer wrote:
There is no one 'cancer', it is a wide range of conditions so you deal with them one at a time.
Agreed. Just that I never heard of anyone catching cancer from a mouse. Plenty of drugs will cause it though. cheers Fred
Fred_Smith wrote:
Depends on what statistics you choose to look at - and remember: there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics".
An incredibly lame response --- used routinely by people in denial of the facts.
John Carson
-
What's the matter? Too scared to stand up for something in case somebody laughs at you? Call yourself a man? You don't need a dress (your insinuation is insulting to women, by the way) - but perhaps a nappy would do. Pah!
Fred_Smith wrote:
Too scared to stand up for something in case somebody laughs at you?
I'll stand up for a nice bit of NY Strip or good Pork Chop and I don't give a damn about who laughs at me.
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
-
originSH wrote:
Whilst we are still dying from stuff that was promised to be cured years ago we now arn't dying from a vast range of nasty ailments that have been eradicated, cured or succefuly combatted.
Nice soundbite. Are you a politician by any chance? We are dying now from a whole host of diseases that no one ever heard of a century ago, and most health improvements since then have come about as much as to improved access to clean water and education as anything the drugs companies have thrown at us. The chemical/medical industry just pushes one palliative after another at us and tells us it's curing us. It isn't.
Fred_Smith wrote:
We are dying now from a whole host of diseases that no one ever heard of a century ago, and most health improvements since then have come about as much as to improved access to clean water and education as anything the drugs companies have thrown at us.
Hogwash. On the clean water thing, you are a century of two out of date. Life expectancy in Australia has gone up by about 10 years during the course of my lifetime and it is just loony tunes to attribute that to "clean water and education".
John Carson
-
originSH wrote:
If recieving no treatment is better than recieving treatment how come life expectance is highest where the best medical care is avalible?
I hope that is not a serious question. Why is life expectancy higher in the US than Uganda, for example? Come on... wake up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate[^] The majority of deaths are from medical reasons, so medical reasons have the greatest effect on life expectancy. As you can see heart disease is right up at the top, something which doesn't effect people (generally) until older age if people were dying from stuff like smallpox or cholera or even flu then there would be a lot less heart disease and the life expectancy would be a lot lower.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
I would stake money that a $10 botle of Tea Tree Oil from his local health store
Ten bucks for a bottle of tea tree oil?!!!! Those evil capitalistic bastards!!!
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Ten bucks for a bottle of tea tree oil?!!!! Those evil capitalistic bastards!!!
Judging by your remarks, it must be cheaper in the US than in Australia. Ten bucks would be a bargain.
John Carson
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Depends on what statistics you choose to look at - and remember: there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics".
An incredibly lame response --- used routinely by people in denial of the facts.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
An incredibly lame response
No worse than yours. Just saying that whatever statistics you choose to "prove" your pet theory I could find others to "prove" mine. The medical/pharmaceutical industry will show you lots of pretty numbers to show you how they are curing us of our illnesses - I could show you lots to prove they aren't. That stats quote may be something of a cliche, but like many such, it has only become one becuawe it does happen to point out a truth: you can use statistics to "prove" virtually anything; like a lot of things, the answer you get is wholly dependent on the question, and until we agree on that there's little point in bandying numbers about. And without knowing an awful lot about where those numbers came from and how they were obtained... I tend to steer clear of simple number arguments.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Ten bucks for a bottle of tea tree oil?!!!! Those evil capitalistic bastards!!!
Judging by your remarks, it must be cheaper in the US than in Australia. Ten bucks would be a bargain.
John Carson
I just squeeze it out of my own tea tree. Doesn't everyone?
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate[^] The majority of deaths are from medical reasons, so medical reasons have the greatest effect on life expectancy. As you can see heart disease is right up at the top, something which doesn't effect people (generally) until older age if people were dying from stuff like smallpox or cholera or even flu then there would be a lot less heart disease and the life expectancy would be a lot lower.
originSH wrote:
The majority of deaths are from medical reasons, so medical reasons have the greatest effect on life expectancy. As you can see heart disease is right up at the top, something which doesn't effect people (generally) until older age if people were dying from stuff like smallpox or cholera or even flu then there would be a lot less heart disease and the life expectancy would be a lot lower.
Your example (heart disease) is caused by a poor diet and lifestyle and not by an inadequate health care system.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
John Carson wrote:
An incredibly lame response
No worse than yours. Just saying that whatever statistics you choose to "prove" your pet theory I could find others to "prove" mine. The medical/pharmaceutical industry will show you lots of pretty numbers to show you how they are curing us of our illnesses - I could show you lots to prove they aren't. That stats quote may be something of a cliche, but like many such, it has only become one becuawe it does happen to point out a truth: you can use statistics to "prove" virtually anything; like a lot of things, the answer you get is wholly dependent on the question, and until we agree on that there's little point in bandying numbers about. And without knowing an awful lot about where those numbers came from and how they were obtained... I tend to steer clear of simple number arguments.
Fred_Smith wrote:
No worse than yours. Just saying that whatever statistics you choose to "prove" your pet theory I could find others to "prove" mine.
If your notion of "proof" involves an abandonment of all intellectual standards, then you are right. That, however, is not an interesting test. In serious intellectual discussion, evidence counts and it does not equally support all hypotheses. Your claims to the contrary belong to the underworld of cranks and charlatans.
John Carson