IJesusChrist a dit:
Nature is better than man at curing disease, I cannot stress that enough. IF you believe otherwise you are NOT seeing the big picture here. YOU are nature, you were not designed by man, nor will your ultimate cures be designed by them.
I agree with your points about what's causing these new diseases, but not about pharma.
The derivatives ARE safer for major pain relief. That's clinically proven fact. You can't operate on someone using natural extractions. Also, extracting penicillin from the mold has made it safer, easier to access and to distribute to a mass audience. It is the masses themselves who've abused it. As drug users end up abusing alcohol, weed, pills and other things. And, as I've said, the newest pharmaceuticals bear little similarity to the things nature can produce. They're not just simple extractions or derivatives, they're massively computed complexes.
you and 'lalle' want to stereotype 'trippers'....what category does this place you in, by default?
You have to believe me, you of all people will know what my involvement with chemicals has been like. The only reason I've chosen that path is the complexity of a total acid synthesis and the ease with which mushrooms can be grown, and how incredible my own choice is. I've been chatting to people on the shroomery for so long I seriously don't remember the numbers; I'd spend all day and night on there in the advanced sections. Of coarse not all of them are the same. But so many "hippies" claim such extreme personalities, that care for every living thing, know so much and are enlightened with regards to the rest of society. Yet they display so little. Or actively display the hypercritical opposite; relying on society to give them the free time to trip and act "unique" and harming nature and life by not acknowledging that science may know better sometimes (e.g. nuclear fusion versus wind power). A lot of what they're using to advanced their drug growing is based on science. Acid came from pharma companies. I can't go into detailed reasons for how I've come to that conclusion. But it's there. Some of them are the best people on Earth. But it's like religion, it's not the bible, jesus or god doing the harm, it's the believers. Who twist it up for personal gain and excuses. "I know better than a scientist because I've had a few 1/8th trips." I love tripping. And I love nature. But tripping does not give someone the right to the kinds of things so many of them claim. It's like a flag on someone else's country. You might be able to help in some way, but you're not the person living there. And, quite often, you might end up harming the people there. Trippers who don't know the difference between a volt and an amp can fuck off when they start talking about green power. As far as this tripper is concerned. The very basics of the physics they're trying to claim they know more about than physicists who understand energy at it's most fundamental levels. It's like someone claiming they know more about reduction than Spice because they know what a solvent is. Most of the questions on the shroomery are to do with how to sterilize something, inoculate, spot contaminations, spawn or fruit. All explained, countless times over, in other threads. They're lazy. It's back to my rants about references. I mean shiiiiiiiiit. I don't mind helping people, I'm still trying to help gcteman (despite, along with others, tearing into the guy for not listening to experienced advice). But the same questions repeated endlessly and you have to question how true to the cause that person is.
The last time i saw anyone stand up to the US government, with any degree of success at all, was a bunch of unwashed hippies in the 60's.
What did hippies change? We still have nuclear weapons. And they're working on newer ones that are still classified. Like antimatter weapons, special chemical agents and new biological weapons. The developed west then sets up treaties within it's self to "ban" lower forms of testing so others can't compete with their Z-machines and national ignition facilities. Anyone at the basic stages, like Iran, is a terrorist making WMDs. Iran doesn't even have enriched uranium, let alone plutonium or fusion bombs or antimatter weapons. Neither did Iraq. The world is still at war. What about black people standing up and saying "You can fuck off! I'm sitting where I like!", knowing they could be murdered by some pricks who won't even show their faces as they're killing them. I'd say that took quite a lot of courage from a single woman on her own and changed a lot more than hippies ever did.
4)There's no such thing as a bad trip, only someone who strives for too much control
OH YEAH! Can't agree anymore. Crashing a "bad trip" means you shouldn't have taken it in the first place. Bad... good... it's all part of the lesson. And a lesson you've invited to be lectured to you over 6-12h. I am most definitely of the opinion that people who have "bad trips" haven't learned the lesson, and perhaps may never learn it as they munch through their trip crashers.
6)LOL....no....flashbacks are BS, you troll
Agreed. I have seen indescribable things whilst tripping. I've remembered them. But none of it has come back to perpetually haunt me. All you need do to avoid "bad trips" is look straight at what's scaring you and smile. It really is that easy. Confidence and wanting to meet what scares you, as opposed to running away. The more you run, the worse it gets. It's like running from an angry dog. It's going to catch up with you. If you just stand still, it'll calm down too. There in lies the lesson for me. Not the visions and trippy things, but being able to confront something you don't agree with and say hello with a massive smile.
It's not different brains. It's different attitudes. A trip can't hurt you if you don't want to harm anything yourself. The harmless are invulnerable to being harmed themselves when it comes to tripping. A lot of people would say I'm a harmful person, being interested in what I am. I've never had a bad trip in my life. The harmlessness comes from the very deepest part of yourself, not what you publicly display as innocence and naivety.
Yep
And that intention clearly collides with broader issues like serving humanity or actually healing people. To be more specific, if you teach people how to PREVENT cancer, heart disease or diabetes (three diseases that are at least 90% preventable, by the way), then you lose billions of dollars in profits as a drug company (because people who aren't sick don't need drugs). Thus, the idea of teaching disease prevention stands opposed to the obligations of the corporate leaders: to make more money! This is one reason why disease prevention is simply not taught in this country."
That's not entirely correct. If they couldn't clinically demonstrate that their products helped remove or cure the effects of a disease, they wouldn't get sold. They get sold because they do that. And some of those diseases are simply far beyond things you can cure with a pill at present, or are inherent to the way humans operate. For example, metabolism is the primary requirement of life, and also causes most of the diseases that kill people. That is a monumental system to start messing around with.
I can also agree with some of your increases in problems. E.g. cosmetic companies sell products that strip the oils from your skin and hair. Then sell you exfoliants to scrub skin off. Then antimicrobials that aren't needed or don't work as well as a teaspoon of bleach diluted down (bleach fucking kicks ass in terms of safety and germ killing). Then sell you moisturizers that fail to put the natural oils back in place. But the cosmetics industry is not pharma. It's a joke by comparison. Diabetes hasn't risen due to pharma, it's risen due to fast food. Cancer has risen due to smoking. Sexual dysfunction has risen due to rising social pressures. They're all due to the public buying into them. They're not caused by pharma. It also doesn't account for the increasing rate of diagnosis. People with diseases that would have previously gone unnoticed can now be identified. Cancer rates, for example, have risen because we know what cancer is and can give it a name when we see it. But yes, that can go too far, as in the case of ADHD and Ritalin (something I despise).
In terms of pharma making money for it's self. Look at it from the other side. The people posting journal entires and working for the government aren't producing none profit cures. Why is that?
Come on, smartness.....bring it
Will do!
Can you list off a significant number of these naturally occurring, none patentable alternatives that are as effective or more so than pharma derivatives when it comes to clinical trials and in hospital use? E.g. having some poppy seeds or extract will not mean you are fit for deep surgery.
I lost around $1200 taking part in a rain forest plant classification project. The kind of thing that finds natural remedies. But the minute a monkey picked up a rock and used it to break something open, humanity was saying "We can do better than nature".
Don't get me wrong. I know the doctors are over diagnosing and over prescribing in a lot of cases. I hate it as well. But for a lot of others, nature just isn't good enough. There are a lot of people for who nature would kill them before letting them get better. And, when they've over prescibing, it's because the public are overbuying into the idea that they need it. It's not one persons fault, and the public certainly have some blame to bear for asking for it in the first place. Just don't go to the doctor asking or forcing it from them with annoying complaints that don't need the pharmaceuticals. Problem solved.
As I've said, outside of the US, it's actually illegal for pharma companies to market directly to the public in numerous countries.
The number one poison you put in your body consists of prescription and nonprescription drugs!
No, it's food and oxygen. Virtually all major diseases can be traced back to metabolism and the act of living it's self. This is why addressing the cause of root, wide scale disease is so difficult. Nothing us chemists struggle with even comes close in comparison to messing with something like metabolism at a genetic level. There are so many stages involved in the transitions from breaking down your dinner, through metablism to death it's uncountable, and each change you make at that level needs to filter through it all and affect each stage in a positive way. For example, you could increase radical scavenging ability in metabolism, then simultaneously take out an enzyme downstream that relies on radicals. People are working backwards towards that goal, but to go from knowing balls all about humans to messing with what makes them live in the first place is a monumental jump. Anyone taking that jump at present would be a fool and hurt people. We deal with optimizing a couple of steps in a workup. Now imagine thousands involving tens, hundreds or thousands of interactions each, gigantic molecules that'll fail with one atom out of place and with a result that equals the harm or death of a person. That's curing the root of disease.
Just as the tobacco industry (anyone want to defend them, while I'm here, playing iconoclast?) knew that smoking cigarettes were addictive and could cause lung cancer, yet lied for decades about this fact, the pharmaceutical industry today knows that all drugs have negative side effects and can cause further illness in the body! The pharmaceutical industry knows that the drugs people are taking are actually causing or contributing to the increases in cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and dozens of other diseases.
True. And not good when the risk is significant. But it can also be extremely rare and the general public (I mean, the journalists in particular) will blow it out of proportion with regards the good things can do. To create drama and sell their own (brutally harmful) product, biased broadcasts. There are guys in Africa, who own vitamin companies, scaring people into not taking anti-HIV drugs because they have some listed negatives. Suggesting they take their vitamins rather than the free drugs, to cure HIV. The government it's self is playing along, suggesting vitamins over the antiviral drugs. Whilst those in the west blame the poor uptake on pharma companies trying to kill blacks. I'm a big believer in a healthy diet, but vitamins will do fuck all against HIV.
One of my own family members died of cancer. They had an entire lung removed. They also were prescribed chemo and radio therapy. And it absolutely tore them apart. To the point of them not being able to swallow jello. They wouldn't have gotten any better on their own.
There are people selling bottled water as something that'll heal all your ills. Vitamins and fish oils that they near guarantee to make you super smart and live forever. The art is in balancing the two. Some pharma, some vitamins. The general public are shit at it when it comes to both.
I entirely agree pharma can be and is being abused for profit. But at the same time, the none profit organizations haven't done anything better. I know the law regarding patents inside out, and those people could develop cures or treatments if they knew how to or had the motivation. They could also protect the ideas for free distribution by publishing them, so they couldn't be patented. They don't. There is a lot you can do naturally to help yourself, a lot of disease is caused by lifestyle choices and a lot of people don't need the drugs they're prescribed. But ultimately, pharma has produced a number of life saving compounds nature simply can't provide. And it's the publics own fault for allowing them to market it directly to them and then lapping it up when they have headache.
All of my water tastes of iodine.
A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
No. Because the pharma industry has just about everyone involved with medical science watching it. If a drug is seriously harmful and doesn't produce clinically significant, positive effects for someone, it'll be forced off the market. It's already gone even further with people like the Cochrane Collaboration conducting meta-analyses against every published study involving a drug or treatment. If some of your cars fail and 99.999....% of them work, do you modify the design or recall them all? Recall them all and you don't have enough money to produce the next series of safer models. Pretty much everything around you that's been produced by humans has failed at some point during it's development, sale and use. Is it a good thing some people are harmed or loose out in the process? No. Is it a good thing we have the technology they've developed? Yes. That is also a poor statement to quote. It tries reducing things to pure math. Then tries to bias the discussion emotionally by talking about being burnt alive. Dead would suffice. It also doesn't connect deaths to failure rates. Indicating it's using the idea of death and then being burned alive to emotionally bias the math discussing failure rates, not death or burning alive. You shouldn't be involved with science if you can't spot that very obvious attempt. They have a point to prove. If A number of cars were produced and B resulted in a number of deaths. And B equaled a low ratio when compared with A. Those cars wouldn't be on sale anymore. And that's an even more simpler bit of math not involving the bias.
I know where that statement came from. And, if you liked that, you'll love Bad Science by Ben Goldacre.
You can't expect perfection in an imperfect world, other than from strange experiments being run by the highest order of ultra nerds in physics that strive for exactly 0 or 1 as a result.
as you would call it, illegal?
