Of mice and men
-
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
-
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I just squeeze it out of my own tea tree. Doesn't everyone?
What is a tea tree?
John Carson
-
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.
Remember that next time you have an potentially lethal infection that could be easily cured up by antibiotics. I also hope you keep a card with you informing the medical tecnicians not to give you any fluids or blood transfusions (the IVs are batch tested). If you ever have to go under the knife, make sure they know not to use any anesthetics as well most of their surgical equipment. A block of wood in the mouth and a hacksaw is all you get.
-
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
Right and yet we still have higher life expectancies ... the point being that medical care stalls the main killer and removes that which would kill us before that time. If we didn't have this evil nasty medical care the majority of us would die from some little infection in our childhood that in modern times we dont't even remember as we get older because it's so uneventful.
-
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.
Remember that next time you have an potentially lethal infection that could be easily cured up by antibiotics. I also hope you keep a card with you informing the medical tecnicians not to give you any fluids or blood transfusions (the IVs are batch tested). If you ever have to go under the knife, make sure they know not to use any anesthetics as well most of their surgical equipment. A block of wood in the mouth and a hacksaw is all you get.
And you remember my words when you're lying on your death-bed stuffing ever more usekess pills down your throat, each to counteract the effects of the last, and wondering why you're still dying. And meanwhile you are betraying your ignorance if you think that the only alternatives are a block of wood and a hacksaw. You have been suckered by the hype that any drug or procedure that hasn't been tested on animals must be useless. Just as a statement on it's own, can't you see the illogicality of that?
-
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
Red Stateler wrote:
Cuba's life expectancy ranks 37th in the world, and everybody knows that they have the best health care system in existence.
link? :P you keep repeating this and I have no clue what your on about ... atleast provide some sort of backing.
-
And you remember my words when you're lying on your death-bed stuffing ever more usekess pills down your throat, each to counteract the effects of the last, and wondering why you're still dying. And meanwhile you are betraying your ignorance if you think that the only alternatives are a block of wood and a hacksaw. You have been suckered by the hype that any drug or procedure that hasn't been tested on animals must be useless. Just as a statement on it's own, can't you see the illogicality of that?
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Cuba's life expectancy ranks 37th in the world, and everybody knows that they have the best health care system in existence.
link? :P you keep repeating this and I have no clue what your on about ... atleast provide some sort of backing.
originSH wrote:
atleast provide some sort of backing
Why? I'm pretending to be a liberal, so there's no need.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Have you been to see a psychiatrist? I don't think they have been tested on animals so you should be alright on that one :P
originSH wrote:
a psychiatrist? I don't think they have been tested on animals
If only.... read on (this is a repost of mine from an earlier thread some weeks ago) for an example of the sue of animals for (supposedly) psychiatric research. And when you've read it ask yourself who it is needs their head examined. These people are sick. ... For many years during the 1970's, the New York Museum of Natural History had been conducting experiments on cats which involved (according to the museum's own accounts) the infliction of a wide range of mutilations on sexually "experienced" male cats and on three-month old kittens, including the removasl of the eyeballs, the surgical destruction of the sense of hearing ans smell, lesionings of the brain, castration, severence of the spine, and more... I won't go into the details of how this was done, it is too disturbing... In 1978 Hans Ruesch was able to interview on radio the then president of the National Society for Medical Research, a Dr Dennis. HR asked DD what the purpose of such experiments was. This was his reply, verbatim: "You remember that rape is a serious problem, and you know that there are abnormalities in sexual behaviour that play a role in developing rape. I believe what they were working on was to try to figure out, working with cats, which in some respect have a brain that is comparable to the human - I know, I know it's not nearly as complex but in mnay respects for this sort of purpose it is - and they were studying, I believe, with this end in view. That is what they have been working on."
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I just squeeze it out of my own tea tree. Doesn't everyone?
What is a tea tree?
John Carson
Its a big wooden thing with leaves. :~
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 hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
originSH wrote:
a psychiatrist? I don't think they have been tested on animals
If only.... read on (this is a repost of mine from an earlier thread some weeks ago) for an example of the sue of animals for (supposedly) psychiatric research. And when you've read it ask yourself who it is needs their head examined. These people are sick. ... For many years during the 1970's, the New York Museum of Natural History had been conducting experiments on cats which involved (according to the museum's own accounts) the infliction of a wide range of mutilations on sexually "experienced" male cats and on three-month old kittens, including the removasl of the eyeballs, the surgical destruction of the sense of hearing ans smell, lesionings of the brain, castration, severence of the spine, and more... I won't go into the details of how this was done, it is too disturbing... In 1978 Hans Ruesch was able to interview on radio the then president of the National Society for Medical Research, a Dr Dennis. HR asked DD what the purpose of such experiments was. This was his reply, verbatim: "You remember that rape is a serious problem, and you know that there are abnormalities in sexual behaviour that play a role in developing rape. I believe what they were working on was to try to figure out, working with cats, which in some respect have a brain that is comparable to the human - I know, I know it's not nearly as complex but in mnay respects for this sort of purpose it is - and they were studying, I believe, with this end in view. That is what they have been working on."
As stated earlier I'm not a full supporter of animal testing ... What was the outcome of this study? We're they vindicated and obtained information that greatly helped the profiling of rapists or were they just clutching at straws and a good example of why animal testing should be *very* careful thought about before use?