Questions about LSD use

[IJesusChrist]

Peach, do you know what a hippie is?

Tah dah, there was the change. We aren't all hippies but they pulled an asymptote to our population away from aggressive destruction & death. You have to see the small changes, the inabsolutes.

Thats what I see with pharma. Sure, the shit can increase your survival rate by 35% (I've been watching CTIC's market claims for the past year) but what the fuck does it do if you're not in that 35%? I doubt it's neutral effect.

The thing is, these drugs don't always cause direct harm, i.e. you take it and you get a heart attack. The problem is with the conditions in which they are presented, and that the possibility for not taking them may be much better. You go to your doctor, he prescribe syou something, if you are an ignorant american, you take it and think along with alot of placebo you will do alot better. Lets say you do improve. Your body was not intended, however, to take any drug for the rest of your life. The biological systems in your body are so complex, that if your DNA is malfunctioning comparable to the rest of the population, you are going to have trouble for the rest of your life. The cure may subside the poison, but the cure can certainly become the poison.

Lets look at cancer, one the the biggest Big Pharma markets.

How do you think you die from esophogele cancer? Or Lung cancer? It's a tumor, its a ball that grows bigger and bigger until you fail to take in enough oxygen. you fall asleep one night and don't wake up, or you may be the unlucky one to struggle one day on the couch and slowly pass out...

Lets take big pharmas approach. Got some radioactive chemicals, we will inject them right into the tumor. There is a chance the radiation may kill important cells near by, or even spread the cancer some more, but its a chance WE'RE Willing to take. Ah shit, that didn't work, there is still some cancer, alright we're going to pump you full of chemicals that make you tired as fuck all day, that makes yoru hair fall out and lose weight and can't eat. You may be miserable, but we hope your motivation to live will last long enough that we can pump some more stuff into you. Glad you want to live. Alright this is an experimental technique, and it will be harder to cope with than chemo, we're going to couple chemo with a cancer binding agent, that will increase your survival rate 30%! Nice huh? good something to look forward to. OK OPEN UP!

Oh.

I've had 2 family members pass away from cancer, and I expect it's not over with. They both had undergone extreme therapies, many weeks of chemo and radiation, but both weren't able to make it. Finally, in their last days, they quit all their stupid bullshit therapies, and passed away quitely, but unfortunately due to all the damage done by the chemo and radiation...

Cancer is a market, it pains me to explain to family members that yes, they should take the therapy, that yes it will help them, when in the back of my mind I know how horrible it is.

Now havinig said all this. We are the lab rat stage, chemo & radiation are blessings to those who come out completely clean. But the problem is is that they are ridiculously reckless treatments. They are put in the body to DESTROY living tissue. It disgusts me, but i must admit they are necessary in some cases, but they aren't for all. If diagnosed with cancer, I am planning on dealing with it myself. If it is terminal, then I will certainly not undergo therapies. The death by cancer is much more acceptable than feeling your body fried.

Sorry if that was too graphic. I had just read alot of my Aunt's journals last week in her last months...


Beyond that my quote was simplistic. A company will not recall a drug if they lose money compared to if they cna pay the lawsuits. THAT is my point peach. IF a drug has a .1% chance to cause death, and you figure in a recall being 100 mill, but the lawsuits totaling 10 million. Keep the drug out there, redesign it, or maybe (WHOA IDEA... ) have more individualised treatments. Instead of monopolies prescribing shit to everyone.

HATE it.

Examples of cures: meditation, sleep, vegetables, sun (moderation), excercise, spices.

THE BEST CURE IS PREVENTION.

You can't make money off prevention.

 

[spice]

peach, a few different times in your post, you make reference to clinically proven 'facts', pertaining to big pharma



"The derivatives ARE safer for major pain relief. That's clinically proven fact."

(actually thats BS, weed has been 'clinically proven', by independent scientists, to do almost everything bigpharma has lied to us and claimed their products would, but even better)

and


"If they couldn't clinically demonstrate that their products helped remove or cure the effects of a disease, they wouldn't get sold"


What you are doing here is revealing.

First, you are being naive and trusting, by believing in the 'clinical trials' process, a process which I just explained is SUBVERTED AND PERVERTED by the pharma lobby to their own purposes. This equates to the fact that once you involve economic factors, science is untrustworthy. Not science itself, but the reporting of it IS FOR SALE!!!! (when you tie MONEY to SCIENCE science will ALWAYS be subverted to money in this world)

Secondly, by saying

"If they couldn't clinically demonstrate that their products helped remove or cure the effects of a disease, they wouldn't get sold"

You imply strongly that people are making intelligent decisions, based on anecdotal evidence and good information....tell me this peach, why would they be able to do this, when they have been hypnotized by advertising, and misled by the very agency (FDA) they have been taught to trust?

You have made an outrageously uninformed assumption, that being that people buying pain meds are buying them without being conditioned (by repetitive ad campaigns, such as the one for Yaz, making claims that go beyond the scope of what the product can actually do)


It sounds to me like you're VERY willing to trust them.

I can't see why.

 

[spice]

copied from natural news;


(NaturalNews) Health freedom has just been handed a significant victory by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which ruled last week that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) violated the First Amendment rights of a nutritional supplement company when it censored truthful, scientifically-backed claims about how selenium can help reduce the risk of cancer.

See the ANH announcement at: http://www.anh-usa.org/court-finds-...

Essentially, the FDA applied its doctrine of censorship to these selenium supplements in the same way it oppresses truthful and scientifically-supported health claims across all dietary supplements. The purpose of the FDA's censorship of truthful information about the health benefits of dietary supplements, as NaturalNews readers already know, is to keep the American people nutritionally illiterate and protect the profits of the pharmaceutical industry.

In this court case, ALLIANCE FOR NATURAL HEALTH, et al. vs.
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, et al., the judge ruled that the FDA violated the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs by restricting their free speech about the anti-cancer benefits of their selenium supplements.

As explained by health freedom attorney Jonathan Emord who argued the case before the Court:

"The decision... reaffirms that FDA is subject to the strictures of the First Amendment in its evaluation of health claims and it faults FDA for failing to follow that standard, holding its suppression of the selenium-cancer risk reduction claims unconstitutional."

Emord goes onto explain:

"The Court concludes that the FDA... has not provided any empirical evidence, such as 'studies' or 'anecdotal evidence,' that consumers would be misled by... plaintiffs' claims were they accompanied by qualifications. Moreover, the explanation the FDA offers to demonstrate that plaintiffs' claims are misleading – that the claims leave out pertinent information – is not support for banning the claims entirely..."

Attorney Jonathan Emord from Emord & Associates is widely regarded as one of the most successful and influential attorneys battling the FDA over free speech and health freedoms.


Emord is also the author of a hugely important book that I strongly recommend. It's called Global Censorship of Health Information, and you can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Global-Censor...

What it means for health freedom
The upshot of this decision is that the FDA has just been handed a significant defeat that will set a precedent for other dietary supplement companies to make their own truthful, scientifically-supported health claims.

The FDA, of course, recognizes no law other than its own, so it will likely continue to try to terrorize nutritional supplement companies with its usual threats of imprisonment of company founders and seizure of products unless companies voluntarily agree to comply with the FDA's censorship schemes. However, this court decision may finally turn the tide against the FDA's campaign of ignorance that has, for decades, sought to keep the American people nutritionally illiterate while suppressing the dietary supplements industry.

But achieving a lasting victory over the FDA will require nutritional supplement companies to stop being intimidated by the FDA and start making truthful, scientifically-supported claims -- and then stand behind those claims with a commitment to sue the FDA if they are threatened with censorship. Until now, most nutritional supplement and vitamin companies have been so intimidated by the FDA that they dared not challenge the FDA's authority -- even when they knew the FDA was flat-out wrong!

The FDA, you see, can always threaten a company using "terrorism-style" tactics such as sending threatening letters that promise to arrest the owners, imprison them, destroy their business, seize their customer records, confiscate their inventory, etc. These tactics have all been used by the FDA to threaten health product companies operating in the United States. See how the FDA runs its own criminal extortion racket right here: http://www.naturalnews.com/024567_h...

Read about how the FDA kidnaps people from other countries in order to incarcerate them for their non-crimes in the USA: http://www.naturalnews.com/027750_G...

Or view more articles about the FDA here: http://www.naturalnews.com/the_FDA.html

These Gestapo-style FDA tactics have been frighteningly effective, given that most U.S. companies don't have the financial resources to engage in a lengthy legal battle with the FDA in order to stand up for their First Amendment rights. That's why this victory by the Alliance for Natural Health is so important: It provides a legal wedge by which other companies can now begin to stand up for their own First Amendment rights, too.

This could be the beginning of the end of FDA censorship of truthful, scientifically-supported health claims.

What we want: Free Speech, not fraudulent speech
As the editor of NaturalNews, I want to be perfectly clear what we stand for here. I do not support a Wild West approach to free speech about supplements where any company can claim anything they want whether it's true or not. That can get entirely out of hand, and it would only encourage the kind of marketing fraud we now see rampant in the pharmaceutical industry.

What I support is truthful health claims that can be backed by a minimum of three articles published in peer-reviewed science journals. This threshold of scientifically credibility is high enough to avoid outright fraudulent quack claims while still allowing truthful claims to be reasonably met through scientific inquiry. If such a rule were adopted, it would open the industry to making a wealth of truthful claims about the beneficial effects of foods, herbs and supplements.

The FDA's current oppression of health claims about cherries and walnuts, for example, would cease. Both the FDA and FTC have been attempting to suppress the truth about cherries for many years, intimidating cherry product companies with all sorts of threats to try to force them to remove any links to scientific information about the health benefits of cherries. To learn more, see: http://www.naturalnews.com/019366.html

The federal government has also declared war on truthful speech about the health benefits of walnuts. Read more here: http://www.naturalnews.com/028879_c...

Why Free Speech can save America from sick-care bankruptcy
Most U.S. consumers have no idea that the FDA is operating as a rogue agency, attempting to destroy nutritional knowledge and intentionally keep consumers in the dark about the health benefits of natural products.

Given that our nation's sick-care system is driving us all into bankruptcy, it would seem more important than ever to allow consumers to learn how to prevent disease and improve their own health through safe, natural and low-cost therapies involving healing foods and nutritional supplements.

In fact, I would argue that any nation that expects to have a viable economic future MUST protect free speech for its health products companies. If Big Pharma and the disease industry is allowed to monopolize all health knowledge while oppressing truthful health claims on competing products, it will only drive that nation into medical bankruptcy. Coincidentally, that is exactly where America is today: Living under an oppressive, monopolized sick-care system that attempts to criminalize truthful speech about the health benefits of natural products.


http://www.naturalnews.com/028929_FDA_h ... laims.html



Trust should be carefully placed.

 

[spice]

"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."

what they did was very courageous, but it didn't equate to the same thing as what I described.


What they did was stand up and say 'we have had enough'

what the hippies did was stand up and say 'we have had enough' as well, but the hippies weren't doing it just for themselves.
They were going beyond things that just affected 'their kind', they were acting on behalf of people that were not only 'not their kind', but people they had never met, had nothing in common with, except that they were human beings being murdered.

They weren't acting selfishly, quite the opposite.


Taken in context, you have made another blanket statement which I don't think holds up to scrutiny.....and why begrudge a tripper the right to babble on about 'green energy'?

All grass-roots movements began with two people talking.

(lalle, where are you, I have something for you)

 

[spice]

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/528 ... increasing


According to a little noticed January report from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), drug overdoses killed more than 33,000 people in 2005, the last year for which firm data are available. That makes drug overdose the second leading cause of accidental death, behind only motor vehicle accidents (43,667) and ahead of firearms deaths (30,694).

What's more disturbing is that the 2005 figures are only the latest in such a seemingly inexorable increase in overdose deaths that the eras of the 1970s heroin epidemic and the 1980s crack wave pale in comparison. According to the CDC, some 10,000 died of overdoses in 1990; by 1999, that number had hit 20,000; and in the six years between then and 2005, it increased by more than 60%.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/files/naloxone.jpg
naloxone, the opiate overdose antidote
"The death toll is equivalent to a hundred 757s crashing and killing everybody on board every year, but this doesn't make the news," said Dan Bigg of the Chicago Recovery Alliance, a harm reduction organization providing needle exchange and other services to drug users. "So many people have died, and we just don't care."

Fortunately, some people care. Harm reductionists like Bigg, some public health officials, and a handful of epidemiologists, including those at the CDC, have been watching the up-trend with increasing concern, and some drug policy reform organizations are devoting some energy to measures that could bring those numbers down.

But as youth sociologist and long-time critic of the drug policy establishment's overweening fascination with teen drug use Mike Males noted back in February, the official and press response to the CDC report has been "utter silence." That's because the wrong people are dying, Males argued: "Erupting drug abuse centered in middle-aged America is killing tens of thousands and hospitalizing hundreds of thousands every year, destroying families and communities, subjecting hundreds of thousands of children to abuse and neglect and packing foster care systems to unmanageable peaks, fostering gun violence among inner-city drug dealers, inciting an epidemic of middle-aged crime and imprisonment costing Americans tens of billions of dollars annually, and now creating a spin-off drug abuse epidemic among teens and young adults. Yet, because today's drug epidemic is mainly white middle-aged adults -- a powerful population that is "not supposed to abuse drugs" -- the media and officials can't talk about it. The rigid media and official rule: Drugs can ONLY be discussed as crises of youth and minorities."

The numbers are there to back up Males' point. Not only are Americans dying of drug overdoses in numbers never seen before, it is the middle-aged -- not the young -- who are doing most of the dying. And they are not, for the most part, overdosing on heroin or cocaine, but on Oxycontin, Lorcet, and other opioids created for pain control but often diverted into the lucrative black market created by prohibition.

Back in October, CDC epidemiologist Leonard Paulozzi gave Congress a foretaste of what the January report held. Drug death "rates are currently more than twice what they were during the peak years of crack cocaine mortality in the early 1990s, and four to five times higher than the rates during the year of heroin mortality peak in 1975," he said in testimony before the House Oversight and Investigations Committee.

"Mortality statistics suggest that these deaths are largely due to the misuse and abuse of prescription drugs," Paulozzi continued. "Such statistics are backed up by studies of the records of state medical examiners. Such studies consistently report that a high percentage of people who die of prescription drug overdoses have a history of substance abuse."

But there is more to it than a mere correlation between increases in the prescribing and abuse of opioid pain relievers and a rising death rate, said Dr. Alex Kral, director of the Urban Health Program for RTI International, a large nonprofit health organization. Kral, who has been doing epidemiological research on opioid overdoses for 15 years, said there are a variety of factors at work.

"There hasn't been a big increase in heroin use," he said. "What's changed has been prescription opiate drug use. Oxycontin is probably a big part of the answer. The pharmaceutical companies have come up with good and highly useful versions of opioids, but they have also been diverted and used in illicit ways in epidemic fashion for the past 15 years."

But Kral also pointed the finger at the resort to mass imprisonment and forced treatment of drug offenders as a contributing factor. "What happens is that people who are opiate users go into prison or jail and they get off the drug, but when they come out and start using again, they use at the same levels as before, and they don't have the same kind of tolerance. We know that recent release from jail or prison is a big risk factor for overdose," he said.

"The last piece of the puzzle is drug treatment," Kral said. "Besides the tolerance problems for people who have been abstaining in treatment, there has been an increase in the use of methadone and buprenorphine, which is a good thing, but people are managing to overdose on those as well."

There are means of reducing the death toll, said a variety of harm reductionists, and the opioid antagonist naloxone (Narcan) was mentioned by all of them. Naloxone is a big part of the answer, said the Chicago Recovery Alliance's Bigg. "It's been around for 40 years, it's a pure antidote, and it has no side effects. It consistently reverses overdoses via intramuscular injection; it's very simple to administer. If people have naloxone, it becomes much, much easier to avoid overdose deaths."

"Naloxone should be made available over the counter without a prescription," said Bigg. "In the meantime, every time a physician prescribes opioids, he should also prescribe naloxone."

"For a couple of years now, we've been talking about trying to get naloxone reclassified so it's available over the counter or maybe prescribed by a pharmacist," said Hilary McQuie, Western director for the Harm Reduction Coalition. "The problem is that you don't just need congressional activity, you also need to deal with the FDA process, and it's hard to find anyone in the activist community who understands that process."

Harm reductionists also have to grapple with the changing face of drug overdoses. "We're used to dealing with injection drug users," McQuie admitted, "and nobody really has a good initiative for dealing with prescription drug users. In our lobbying meetings about the federal needle exchange funding ban, we've started to talk about this, specifically about getting naloxone out there."

But while the overdose epidemic weighs heavily on the movement, no one wants to spend money to bring the numbers down. "This is a very big issue, it's very present for harm reduction workers," said McQuie. "But we haven't done a lot of press on it because there is no funding for overdose prevention. We have a very good program in San Francisco to train residential hotel managers and drug users at needle exchanges. It's very cheap; it only cost $70,000, including naloxone. But we can't get funders interested in this. We write grants to do this sort of work around the state, and we never get any money."

Perversely, the Office of National Drug Control Policy also opposes making naloxone widely available -- on the grounds that it is a moral hazard. "First of all, I don't agree with giving an opioid antidote to non-medical professionals. That's No. 1," ONDCP's Deputy Director of Demand Reduction Bertha Madras said in January. "I just don't think that's good public health policy."

But even worse, Madras argued that availability of naloxone could encourage drug users to keep using because they would be less afraid of overdoses. And besides, Madras, continued, overdosing may be just what the doctor ordered for drug users. "Sometimes having an overdose, being in an emergency room, having that contact with a health care professional is enough to make a person snap into the reality of the situation and snap into having someone give them services," Madras said.

"The drug czar's office argues that if you take away the potential consequences, in this case, a fatal overdose, you facilitate the use, but betting someone's life on that is just cruel and bizarre," snorted Bigg.

RTI's Kral noted that there are now 44 naloxone programs run by community groups across the country. "It would be wonderful if there were more of them, because they are staving off a lot of deaths, but they are controversial. The ONDCP says they condone drug use, but you can't rehabilitate a dead drug user."

While battles over naloxone access continue, said Bigg, there are other things that can be done. "We need to engage people, and that means overcoming shame," said Bigg. "Every couple of months, I get a call from a family that has lost a member to drugs and I ask them if they're willing to come forward and talk to reporters to stop it from happening again, and they say 'let me think about it,' and I never hear from them again.

Another means of reducing the death toll would be to start local organizations of people whose friends or family members have died or are still using and at risk. "We could call them 'First Things First,' as in first, let's keep our folks alive," he suggested.

"When people found out naloxone is out there, that it's this medicine that has no ill effects -- it has no effect at all unless you're using opioids -- and that it can't be abused, and that their family member could have had it and still be alive, that's a hard thing to realize," said Bigg. "Everyone who has lost a loved one wants him back, and to think he could still be alive today if there were naloxone is a bitter, bitter pill to swallow."

Despite the apparent low profile of drug policy reform groups, they, too, have been fighting on the overdose front. "We worked to pass groundbreaking overdose prevention bills in California and New Mexico," said Bill Piper, national affairs director for the Drug Policy Alliance. "We're working to advance overdose prevention bills in Maryland and New Jersey. We had a bill in 2006 in Congress that would have created a federal grant program for overdose prevention," he said, pointedly adding that not a single federal dollar goes to overdose prevention. "We've tried to introduce that in the new Congress but can't find someone to take a lead. To be frank, few politicians care about this issue. Their staff care even less."

A massive public education campaign is needed, said Piper, adding that DPA is working on a report on this very topic that should appear in a few weeks.

In the meantime, while politicians and drug war bureaucrats avert their gaze and deep-pocketed potential donors keep their purses tightly closed, while the nation worries about baseball players on steroids and teenagers smoking pot, the bodies pile up like cordwood.


peach, that shit ain't safe, period.

 

[IJesusChrist]

http://www.afronets.org/archive/200508/msg00103.php

In 2001 30 Nigerian families sued another US pharmaceutical com-
pany, Pfizer, in New York over trials of Trovan, an antibiotic
to combat meningitis. In the course of the study, during an epi-
demic in 1996, 11 children out of 200 died and others suffered
brain damage and paralysis (2).

http://www.manufacturing.net/News-FDA-Warns-Pfizer-For-Lax-Drug-Testing-042010.aspx

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal regulators say the drugmaker Pfizer has failed to correct problems with its testing procedures that resulted in overdoses of several children during a company trial.

http://www.healthe-livingnews.com/articles/fda_approved_pharmaceutical_drugs_cause_death_.html

In a letter to the Archives of Internal Medicine, Uffe Ravnskov MD, PhD and colleagues showed that in two of the three clinical trials that included healthy people... the chance of surviving was better without treatment of statins. Researchers from the University of Denmark report that about 15% of statin users over the age of 50 will suffer from nerve damage.

In 1998 the FDA attacked retail suppliers of Red Yeast Rice (RYR), a food that is known for lowering cholesterol. FDA squads and U.S Marshals raided numerous supplement providers and stole the product from their shelves... Interestingly, clinical trials demonstrated RYR to be more effective (by 17-21%) at lowering total cholesterol and inhibiting HMG-CoA reductase (the enzyme that produces cholesterol in the body) than the aforementioned life-threatening statins.

THE LIST GOES ON AND ON AND ON...

I think this discussion is over now.

 

[peach]

I'm no longer even interested in this topic, and my argument isn't with you, peach. We can discuss it, and come to the agreement that we do or don't disagree.

I'm going to have to agree and bail out, I've been putting off looking at this thread (and dreading it) since I end up spending hours in here and know I'll get stuck again.

Suffice it to say, I appreciate true hippies, but don't think the majority of trippers are genuinely of that mindset. And I don't like the way they read so much into things or treat it as something holy when they end up using it mainly to escape.

I'm going to try not to check back myself, as I need to get on with 'the higher goal'. Taking the odd moment out to post pictures related to Jenkem, an important issue in the modern go-getter lifestyle.

Of coarse I realize this has all just been a friendly discussion, I'm not forming evil opinions about anyone because they don't agree with my own on this. I think just think you're all pricks who don't know about the AWESOME POWA of the second saviors, the pharma companies.... j/k

But if you want to blame someone, look at the drug reps and the laws regarding direct contact with the public first.

 

[ophiuchus]

But if you want to blame someone, look at the drug reps and the laws regarding direct contact with the public first

i totally agree. but it can never be that easy. i must pick out some things that i assumed were apparent, yet obviously not clear enough in the view i presented to you.

Regarding poppy seeds. They've had to illegalize them because too many idiots are using them to make and distribute opiates in a form that will send people into the worst spirals a drug can. It's not that they're trying to stop you accessing them so they can sell the pharmaceuticals, it's because wrongersdoers are abusing them.

a "wrongdoer" will do "wrong" regardless of whether or not something is illegal, and so you say, punish the "right-doers" for their mistakes. illegalization does the exact opposite of fixing this problem.

(me)" you defeat your own statement by describing what those opiates you are prescribed are mixed with"

Harmless binders that most of us are snorting up our noses for the most part, which they wouldn't recommend.

no, not talking about binders. ibuprofen, aspirin, codeine and/or paracetamol. we already talked about this. they give me a painkiller that is raping my organs. i dont even wanna talk about snorting shit.

List some genuinely significant herbal alternatives that can perform as well as pharmaceuticals, based on clinical trials or in operating theatres, that they've made illegal.

well, for starters, WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN TALKING ABOUT ONE. poppy plants. marijuana is another one. go to gnc, the store is fucking full of them. there are lists of substances that are used in curing ailments. modern society doesn't even know alot of them anymore because we demonized and annihilated, for the most part, the societies that held this information.
the real fundamental aspect of this is FOOD. food, as we ALL can agree on, is of more use to us than any pharmacuetical as far as prevention and redirecting the course and intensity of many diseases and ailments. (poppy seeds are food, for example, if you didn't see that connection)
so even further, this about personal freedom more than anything. i am being punished, EVERYONE is being punished for something that they didn't even do, in a way that DOES NOT even effectively target the people who would possibly DESERVE this punishment. this fails simply because that person does not give a fuck; illegal means nothing to someone who has done something long enough to have gained an addiction from it. not to mention the fact that now they can aid their addiction even more by gaining a legal prescription... so the question left is, 'who is really being targeted then?' when it's apparent that this move doesn't work, the next question becomes, 'what is the real motivation of a move like this?" as i believe spice has pretty much covered now...

i dont mean to start another debate, my only point is (one that i think we can agree on): i should be able to put whatever the fuck i feel like in my body, especially considering that i CARE about what goes into my body. aka let ME decide what works for ME. let me have those options, should i desire them. im not saying the pharmaceutical industry shouldn't exist, it should, as it's proven itself useful no doubt, just not in the sense that it does now, which is repressive and pretty preachy in their advertising.

on a side note, our birth rate increases, yet our death rate decreases, and we wonder how we ever became so overpopulated...

 

[IJesusChrist]

Morphine and Other Pain Relief Drugs Used in Cancer Surgery May Spur Return of Malignancy

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... rgery-pain

 

[IJesusChrist]

Evidence mounts against Anti-diabetes medication

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=avandia-diabetes-drug