FDA Goes After Fake Cancer Treatments

[TZ]

WASHINGTON (June 17) - The Food and Drug Administration is cracking down on teas, supplements, creams and other products that falsely claim to cure, treat or prevent cancer even though they are not agency-approved drugs. All are available for sale on the Internet.

The agency has sent 25 warning letters to companies and individuals marketing these products, FDA officials said Tuesday. Twenty-three of the letters went to domestic companies and two to foreign individuals.
FDA officials said the statements made about these products are dangerous because they could prevent a patient from seeking proper treatment for cancer. They could also harm a cancer patient by interacting with other drugs the patient is taking.

"FDA is very concerned that consumers will purchase these products on the Internet and use them instead of products that have been proven safe and effective," said Michael Levy, director of labeling the agency's new drug division.

http://news.aol.com/health/story/_a/fda-goes-after-fake-cancer-treatments/20080617163109990002
So..who wants to post this in the Health Scare Forum...I bet you it won't take long for the woos to start screeching "Big Pharm is taking our magic pillz away!":eyes:

[Orrex]

1. You should post it right now

While they're still having their Norwegian/Swedish anti-amalgam orgasm.

[TZ]

3. I hate you.

I hadn't even so much as looked in the HSF for awhile and now I went and HAD to post in response to a certain Dr. Google.

I did post this article though.

[Orrex]

4. Aw, shucks!

I'm just glad that I could give you something to do with your evening.

Have fun! :evilgrin:

[realisticphish]

2. here's hoping it works

people really do respect the FDA, at least the average person does

[enki23]

5. all they are going to do is go after them for making specific treatment claims

the snake oil industry will just fall back on their so-called "structure-function" claims, as well as the tried and true tactic of writing articles for woo magazines that make all their treatment claims for them without specifically mentioning their product.

[CanSocDem]

6. Of course...

...you can take the 'agency-approved' method of having your breasts removed or your reproductive organs or any part of your body for that matter, and kept alive by a machine if necessary to demonstrate, if nothing else, the superiority of technology over 'woo'....

Just sayin'.....


.

[TZ]

7. You know

there are many people on this board who have been successfully treated by chemotherapy.
I would advise you agaisnt saying this crap in front of them

[CanSocDem]

8. There are many people in my life....

...who have dealt or are dealing with chemo or other forms of conventional treatment and they don't think I'm being 'indifferent' or insensitive when I promote personal strength.


It's mostly the medical industry that finds these ideas offensive.


.

[TZ]

9. most of the people here

are NOT in the medical industry (of course I am) and I think we've seen they are pretty offended by your comments.

[CanSocDem]

11. If you could explain....

....why?? (...offended by your comments...) in some other way than calling me insensitive or indifferent, I would think you had a case.

Otherwise, I have to think you are just maligning non-market based treatment in favour of 'Cadillac' treatment.


.

[TZ]

14. "non-market" based treatment

I spent plenty of time in academia...and they do a lot of similar research. Tell me why medical research done by non-profits is less than valid either?

Perhaps you missed it, but I worked for a scientist who was looking for a malaria vaccine (and I would still like to hear how a postitive attitude keeps the mosquito from transmitting the parasite to the host) where they were trying to develop a vaccine where ONE or two people could get rid of a whole local population of malarial parasites! Does that sound like its market based? Give a handful of people a shot and thousands benefit?
He also injected himself with malaria to produce the blood needed for his vaccine experiments. Guess he "thought" his way into his blood hosting the parasite?
I object to "non market" medicines because one: they have no scientific evidence they work
two: the market for them is JUST AS BIG AND PROFITABLE as any pharmaceutical market (I believe the alt med market is about 3 billion dollars per year) but they have NO REGULATION, anybody can just give you a sugar pill (or worse..there is one so called cure that contains CYANIDE) and charge you an arm and a leg and tell you its a cancer pill. And when the person really dies of cancer..there is no backlash because there is no way to license these witch doctors!

[CanSocDem]

18. self-knowledge

"True self-knowledge is indispensable for health and vitality. The recognition of the truth about the self simply means that you must first find out what you think about yourself subconsciously. If it is a good image, build upon it. If it is a poor one, recognize it as only the opinion you have held of yourself and not an 'absolute state.'"


http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5484/seth1.htm



.

[Orrex]

16. I don't think you're insensitive or indifferent; just ignorant and ill-informed

You also have the kind of pollyanna, rose-colored "it's all what you make of it" philosophy that is seldom seen in rational people over the age of 15.

"Non-market based treatment" is just a euphemism for "bullshit pseudocures" that operate blissfully free of regulation or empirical evidence.


The part that we find offensive about your chatter is that you're passing yourself off as someone who's really concerned about the human condition, but every claim you make is utterly at odds wiht that stated concern. It's not that you're indifferent or insensitive (which you might be, for all I know); it's that your postings are hypocritical and nonsensical.

[CanSocDem]

17. ...as someone...

...who's really concerned about the human condition....

""You are here to aid in the great expansion of consciousness. You are not here to cry about the miseries of the human condition, but to change them when you find them not to your liking through the joy, strength and vitality that is within you; to create the spirit as faithfully and as beautifully as you can in flesh."

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5484/seth1.htm


.

[LeftishBrit]

20. 'You are here to aid in the great expansion of consciousness.

You are not here to cry about the miseries of the human condition, but to change them when you find them not to your liking..'

Well, isn't that a rather good description of medical science? 100 years ago, one-sixth of babies died before their first birthday, and most people didn't live to old age. Instead of 'crying about it', medical scientists 'changed it'. And good for them!

Perhaps 'the joy, strength and vitality that is within' people might work best through actually leading them to discoveries and actions that truly change the human condition.

[CanSocDem]

21. It wasn't JUST med-sci....

that improved life expectancy. You would also have to give credit to social science, food science and political science. But I get your point.

However when there are gigantic myths fuel ling fear and desperation, it is time to discover a new way. I think that would be good for the "human condition".


.

[TZ]

22. Once again

I want to know, why YOU are right and the thousands of HIGHLY INTELLIGENT and motived and dedicated scientists are wrong? Ever consider the fact that maybe science is accepted because it actually WORKS?

[rexcat]

27. But unproven "therapies" like those being sold on the internet...

when tested don't work. I work on new drugs in oncology (phase 1-3 clinical trials under FDA New Drug Applications) and even a lot of new drugs being tested prove the null hypothesis and are taken out of clinical trial. These creams and things being hawked on the internet have no basis for their claims. That is what the FDA is concerned about. The claims have not been proven. If the people and/or companies think they work set up legitimate clinical trials to prove the hypothesis. To deny someone of approved drugs for snake oil cures is criminal (at least in the US, Canada, EU countries, etc.).

[Orrex]

23. Every time you quote that "Seth Speaks" garbage, your claims look more absurd

Anyone with a keyboard and half a brain can crank out a bookful of pleasantries about "consciousness" and the "human condition." Reciting them in place of actual discussion seems more than a little cultish.

[Random_Australian]

25. Evidence for those claims.

Got any?

[CanSocDem]

28. What claims....???

I don't want you to think I've been ignoring you, but ever since another poster called you "Dr.Logic", I've been waiting around to see if there was some justification for that nickname.

"So, which illnesses do you think are caused by suggestion, and why?"

But here ya go......

A friend of mine in college was the ultimate jock (athletic goof), sports reporter for the campus paper, and all around sport supporter. Great guy, short hair, politically & socially conservative, inter-varsity wrestler, big-time cheerleader...

He graduated in '72. I didn't see him again for about 3 or 4 years. He came into a bar I was working at and I hardly recognized him. He had long shoulder length hair, a full, 'unkempt' beard, long black coat and a thirst no amount of beer seemed to quench. It wasn't til later that I noticed he also had a prosthetic arm.

I watched discreetly, wondering how I would approach him. I found out he was teaching life skills at our local federal penitentiary which is a tough gig no matter who you are or what you've done. When I finally sat down with him and we renewed our acquaintances, he told me this:

"....I spent the first 25 years of my life thinking sports was what life was all about. It took losing my arm to realize there was more in the world..." This is a condensed version of a very eloquent speech.

He was in a transition stage at that time but since then, he has bought into a small business, runs marathons and continues to be an inspiration to those around him.

And my own father is another example....

When WW11 broke out and the call went out for recruits in Canada, my dad thought he'd like the adventure. He was a 20-something god-fearing farm boy who loved animals, cars and motorcycles. He spent the first part of the war stationed in Britain, working as a driver and courier and avoiding carrying a gun. However, he was notified that he'd have to ship out to the front lines in a week. A couple of days before getting on the boat he was diagnosed with polio and was pulled from active service and sent back to Canada.

The case of polio was mild with no lingering problems but it got him out of having to shoot at someone that he was convinced he'd never be able to do.


These are just two examples but I see evidence everywhere. You just have to know where to look.


.

[Random_Australian]

29. Easy enough.

A) What claims? The seth ones.

B) "I've been waiting around to see if there was some justification for that nickname. " waiting is probably not the best idea. In the back and forth of ideas, we find the truth. Moreover, when I'm not responding, you've nothing to see and thus no way to learn.

C) You know, we actually kind of knew that people with prosthetic limbs could go well, and that large, sudden changes on the scale of losing an arm change people a lot. In fact, that's a fairly well-known response.

"So, which illnesses do you think are caused by suggestion, and why?"

The question is: What was the illness? Was it cured? (In your story about the amputee) 'cos I'm not seeing anything that could be sensibly classified as an illness that was caused by suggestion. Becoming depressed when losing something to vital is normal, not an illness. Some people learn to cope, and some don't. This is also normal.

D) Your father had polio at an opportune time, and this is evidence illness is caused by suggestion?

Now, it is very interesting that you consider this evidence. Because a lot of things happened before your father became ill, but you've chosen a particular one. This is known as confirmation bias.

Actually, it might not be. Do you have any reason to suspect one particular cause over any other? If so, what?

[CanSocDem]

30. Simply....

....I believe we create our reality. Our health, our life and our death. For evidence all you need to do is gaze upon my smiling face. I love life....perhaps too much for a culture that has made a virtue out of deprivation.

.

[cosmik debris]

31. .

[Random_Australian]

34. Mine. Get your thieving mitts off!

Mine! All mine, and you can't have any of this conversation.

Mine.

Mine!

:) I'm kidding around, but the sentiment remains the same: find your own adjective noun.

[cosmik debris]

37. You have to tag it if you want to claim it.

Or you could just cheat. It's the honor system you know.

[Random_Australian]

38. No, I mean no responding to something I have claim to respond to.

The only tag I need is that they respond to me, thus starting what could be called a discussion (if only by baboons on a peyote-fueled rampage through a cakeshop) and you're interrupting it.

In that sense, O cosmik, remove thine THIEVING HANDS from MY.... thing that resembles a discussion almost as much as a discussion resembles a bowl of fruit. Painted by Picasso. Using only his elbows. On a walrus.

[cosmik debris]

40. Every post is a target.

Or, you could make up some new rules. It is rather fluid you know.

[Random_Australian]

42. New Rule: When another poster is enjoying a little back-and-forth

let them. Your average woo will already makes for themselves enough opportunities to avoid defending their claims entirely without anyone adding them.

Plus, it's far more entertaining when a woo says something along the lines of "Well, your objections are grounded in rationalism. As a post-rationalist, I don't believe they apply" than whining at what people say to them.

[TZ]

39. ..

And I'm enjoying the show greatly....No complaints from me!
All yours....
:popcorn:

[Random_Australian]

35. Yeah, that tactic was never going to go well for you.

Me: "Evidence for those claims.

Got any?"

You: I know a guy who lost his arm. He changed.

Me: How is that evidence for "suggestion creates illness"? It sounds a lot like someone had a life-changing experience and their life changed. You know, like happens all the time. In fact, given that it was also supposed to be evidence that suggestion creates illness, the lack of an illness that someone recovered from seems a bit odd, to tell the truth....

You: I believe we create our own reality.

And I'll admit you managed to skip the next installment of "evidence for that claim: got any" and go straight to the bit why I ask you "why do you consider that evidence?" by saying

"For evidence all you need to do is gaze upon my smiling face"

And since you wanted to discuss what makes a claim rational, I'll show you the method of showing that someone's standards of proof and evidence are poor by using their standards to come to false conclusions.

Like this:

I henceforth believe that trees make us happy and heal us and lack of trees causes all illnesses.

For evidence, all you need to do is gaze upon my smiling face.

Question 1: Do you think that I provided sufficient proof that lack of trees is the root cause of all illnesses, or do I have to also make the claim that trees cause all illnesses with the same evidence for you to see that taking "someone smiling" as evidence is insufficient to support the claim?

Question 2: Is there any fundamental difference in the standard of proof and evidence used to say that lacking trees cause all illnesses and the one used to say "I believe we create our own life and death. Sufficient proof is that I smile"

In other words, your standards of proof and evidence were insufficient.

I don't think I need to point out the obvious but I shall do so anyway. You've not managed to support any of your claims thus far, unless you can show that either your stories or the fact that you have at some point smiled is evidence for what you say. This means that your claims are not rational.

[CanSocDem]

43. It could also mean...

...that I don't have the time or energy to educate you.

"All roads lead to the godhead"

Let that be your guiding principle until you can work your way through worrying about the beliefs of others.

Like I said to someone else..."evidence is in the eye of the beholder"....

What this place seems to be about is claiming to be....THE EYE....and that sets a lot of us off.

Many of us have experienced alternative realities and whether or not they were stress induced, drug induced or vivid dreams they have a validity that seems lost on your 'core' group. That your pals are dogmatic ideologues in their own way, at times, seems lost on you.

What is quite evident is that a few of your group use 'woo-bashing' as a pretext to airing their own obsessions. Chief among these was the fear of alternative health care. As a citizen of the first jurisdiction in North America to institute socialized medicine, I can attest to the fact that the AMA came to Sk. and told the people that their health would be in danger...(unless they paid good money to the doctors and hospitals). Well, turns out that "alternative" turned out quite well, eh??


"...I henceforth believe that trees make us happy and heal us and lack of trees causes all illnesses."

You really should get in touch with your intuitive side because that belief has some merit. A few years ago, one of your vaunted social scientists, published a study showing that urban neighborhoods with trees and green space had lower crime rates. And before you start complaining that "crime" isn't an "illness", understand that I see them all on a continuum that starts at bad self image, goes through social unrest and ends up with what everybody recognizes as a treatable illness. Sadly, it is only at this point that people notice so TREATMENT gets all the attention.

So, no, I don't think western medicine is the pinnacle of science. If it were, it would be looking for the cause of dis-ease, instead of getting rich from it and absolving themselves of blame and responsibility.

As I said in another short-lived post, I don't think photographs (including one of my own 'smiling face') enhances ones' position so forgive me if I don't give you photographic evidence.

But who cares eh...??!! I have faith that my health will be good for many years to come. If that makes me a believer in 'faith healing', I'm good with that.


.

[semillama]

44. ...

[Random_Australian]

45. Ha! Bwahaha! That was great.

Of course you have no need to defend your beliefs. They are simply correct, and I am silly to not know that.

"All roads lead to the godhead"

Well, that is interesting. First, you make a lot of claims. Then, you refuse to back them up. Then you make some more claims.

And I'm supposed to believe that not only are the new ones true, but they should guide me.

Not gonna happen. Foremostly because my own guiding principles are way ahead of that, but even if they weren't, something like "examine your own beliefs to find and reject those that are not true" would come along and I would promptly stop believing something so meaningless as "all roads lead to the godhead", the kind of feel-good crap that couldn't even cope with the existence of serial killers. (Whose paths are apparently leading to the godhead)

"way through worrying about the beliefs of others"

Yes, then misrepresent what I'm doing. Also, science is all about writing symbols on chalkboards.

"evidence is in the eye of the beholder"

Now that is interesting. Well, "wrong" would be more accurate. If a voltmeter says 30,000 Volts are running through a line, do you think that evidence is in the eye of the beholder?

"Many of us have experienced alternative realities"

Youe're talking to someone who believes in two different realities, you know. Your claims seem lost (and are lost) on me because you never try to back them up. You make a claim, I ask why you think it is true, and your response is to invariably make another claim rather than back up the one you've just made.

"What is quite evident is that" you are making more and more claims, and never backing a single one of them up. Declare something true, move on. It is singularily unconvincing.

"institute socialized medicine"

What you call "socialized medicine" is called normal everywhere else. Like here. No-one here believes the influence of profit-driven bastards is a good thing. We also don't believe that only some of the products put forward by companies should have to undergo testing.

"You really should get in touch with your intuitive side because that belief has some merit."

You do realise that it is arrogant to assume things eg. that skeptics are clueless about the world. I never read the study, but I know quite a bit about the various effects on the human psyche by it's environment, including natural vs. human scenery.

However, I also note that the study you quote only shows correlation, and so cannot be taken as evidence. For effs sake, look up what correlation is before you go posting more studies.

"If it were, it would be looking for the cause of dis-ease"

Holy fucking goodness. NOW you've done it. Jumped straight from "eh?" land to "what the fuck" city.

You seriously think that the every single medsci department at every university along with every researcher in the entire world isn't looking for the cause of diseases because they believe things like bacteria cause infections rather than your own private crap?

"As I said in another short-lived post, I don't think photographs (including one of my own 'smiling face') enhances ones' position so forgive me if I don't give you photographic evidence."

I'm going to have to ask you to
A) Not respond to "smiling is evidence for sweet freak all" with "I know smiling is evidence for whatever claims I want to make, but I don't think photos improve my position, so I won't post one"

B) Warn me before you say something that stupid.


And yes, in case the stunningly obvious needs pointing out, we've now had yet another exchange where you have not been able to back up your beliefs. You said all the evidence I needed was the fact that you can smile. I said that wasn't sufficient evidence, and since you've posted nothing else to back up your claim, you are pretty much finished.

[CanSocDem]

46. Glad you liked it.

Too bad your comprehension wasn't enhanced. If by now you still haven't realized that I find your standards of proof inadequate, let me be direct.

Your standards of proof work for you...and I'm certainly willing to allow you to believe whatever you want. However, when it comes to 'promoting' the status quo in western medicine, I get concerned that you and your pals here, are being less than progressive.

"...For effs sake, look up what correlation is before you go posting more studies."

No need to be rude. If I were "posting a study", I'd probably be more comprehensive. All I was pointing out however was your uncanny ability to swerve in and out of the dark side, with a straight face.


"I said that wasn't sufficient evidence, and since you've posted nothing else to back up your claim, you are pretty much finished.)"

You're putting me on ignore....????? Be still my heart!!

.

[Random_Australian]

47. Me? Ignore you? No fear.

What is quite evident is that you are making more and more claims, and never backing a single one of them up. Declare something true, move on. It is singularily unconvincing.

Does the previous sentence look familiar to you? It should, because after you claimed that smiling was proof of your previous claims, I showed why it really wasn't good enough. Your response? To claim that western medicine was not looking for the cause of disease. My response included telling you that your habit of making a claim, doing nothing to show that it is correct, giving no reasons, and then responding to accusations of doing the same was unconvincing.

I said that no matter how many claims you make, it will never convince me unless you show some indication that these claims are correct. Arguments as to why they are right and such.

In fact, your propensity to do so is quite annoying. So, how did you respond to the argument against your latest claims?

Did you back up what you had said? Show why they are at least reasonable? Or even possible?

No, you made more claims. Sigh.

Going over them, you say that you find my standards of proof inadequate. Please provide an example, even a hypothetical, where the truth is not known and my standards will not lead a person to what is most likely the correct answer.

"However, when it comes to 'promoting' the status quo in western medicine, I get concerned that you and your pals here, are being less than progressive."

Ok, now you go over what bits of the status quo were are promoting (note: American system of finance in medicine is not supported here, rigorous testing of products and procedures that cure to see that they actually do so is) and show why it is wrong to do so.

No, you don't get to claim that progressives support a particular side and therefore it is wrong to do so. (Well, except for the financing thing which is fairly clean cut)

What you do get to do, however, is provide an argument why doing something or other causes hurt. No, you don't get to claim we reject things because we are closed minded unless there is proof for something and we still reject it.


Eh, I'm bored. Time to put your quotes together and let you work out what I am saying.



You: "You really should get in touch with your intuitive side because that belief (that a lack of trees heals people) has some merit. A few years ago, one of your vaunted social scientists, published a study showing that urban neighborhoods with trees and green space had lower crime rates"

Me: Correlation is worthless. Please look that up before posting more studies.

You: "No need to be rude. If I were "posting a study", I'd probably be more comprehensive"

Of course. Silly me. The fact that you claimed that crime was similar enough to be considered an illness, then claimed that the idea that trees prevent it has merit, then it seems you accidentally mentioned a study. I say accidentally because of course you never did so. You said so yourself!

In fact, it's probably crazy-talk to even consider the idea that studies about places with more trees having less crime have anything to do with you arguing that places with more trees have less crime.

Argh.

Here is some extra stuff you've managed to not answer throughout this little interchange - you know, questions about the validity of your claims. If you don't get one, please refer to it in its original context.

******************

The question is: What was the illness? Was it cured? (In your story about the amputee) 'cos I'm not seeing anything that could be sensibly classified as an illness that was caused by suggestion. Becoming depressed when losing something to vital is normal, not an illness. Some people learn to cope, and some don't. This is also normal.

D) Your father had polio at an opportune time, and this is evidence illness is caused by suggestion?

Now, it is very interesting that you consider this evidence. Because a lot of things happened before your father became ill, but you've chosen a particular one. This is known as confirmation bias.

Actually, it might not be. Do you have any reason to suspect one particular cause over any other? If so, what?



For evidence all you need to do is gaze upon my smiling face"

And since you wanted to discuss what makes a claim rational, I'll show you the method of showing that someone's standards of proof and evidence are poor by using their standards to come to false conclusions.

Like this:

I henceforth believe that trees make us happy and heal us and lack of trees causes all illnesses.

For evidence, all you need to do is gaze upon my smiling face.

Question 1: Do you think that I provided sufficient proof that lack of trees is the root cause of all illnesses, or do I have to also make the claim that trees cause all illnesses with the same evidence for you to see that taking "someone smiling" as evidence is insufficient to support the claim?

Question 2: Is there any fundamental difference in the standard of proof and evidence used to say that lacking trees cause all illnesses and the one used to say "I believe we create our own life and death. Sufficient proof is that I smile"

In other words, your standards of proof and evidence were insufficient.

I don't think I need to point out the obvious but I shall do so anyway. You've not managed to support any of your claims thus far, unless you can show that either your stories or the fact that you have at some point smiled is evidence for what you say. This means that your claims are not rational.

"evidence is in the eye of the beholder"

Now that is interesting. Well, "wrong" would be more accurate. If a voltmeter says 30,000 Volts are running through a line, do you think that evidence is in the eye of the beholder?

However, I also note that the study you quote only shows correlation, and so cannot be taken as evidence.

You seriously think that the every single medsci department at every university along with every researcher in the entire world isn't looking for the cause of diseases because they believe things like bacteria cause infections rather than your own private crap?

"As I said in another short-lived post, I don't think photographs (including one of my own 'smiling face') enhances ones' position so forgive me if I don't give you photographic evidence."

I'm going to have to ask you to
A) Not respond to "smiling is evidence for sweet freak all" with "I know smiling is evidence for whatever claims I want to make, but I don't think photos improve my position, so I won't post one"

B) Warn me before you say something that stupid.
****************************************


Let me also take a guess at the next bit of our interchange. Going over this, you will see numerous times were you have made a claim and I've questioned its validity. You will then ignore it all, and make more claims.

[Random_Australian]

48. For anyone coming into the conversation now, here is it in condensed form.

C = Cansocdem
R = me, random.

C: "You are here to change the misery of the human condition."
R: Have any evidence for that?
C: I believe we create our own reality - A friend of mine lost his arm. He was depressed for a while, then learned to cope. Also, my father got polio at an opportune time, and it was mild.

R: Wait, how does that prove we create our own reality?
C: I smile!

R: How is that proof for anything at all?
C: I don't have time or energy to educate you. I'm going to say some things now, and I want them to be your guiding principle - it's what you should follow. It's more important and more accurate than your own principles, ok?

R: Not ok. You've not even attempted to give any reason that any of your claims are correct. As such, I don't believe them.

C: I'd like to claim your standards of proof and evidence are inadequate. I'd also like to give absolutely no reasoning for my claim, and no indication that I haven't just decided they are inadequate because I don't like the number of words in your posts.

R: Pattern recognition sense, tingling! I think you might just be making more claims rather than supporting the ones youe've made!

[TZ]

51. !

Bravo...weeks of pointless arguments summed up in one awesome post!
:applause:

[TZ]

50. AHAHAHAHA!

Taking/wanting empirical proof isn't progressive? Thank you, GWBush! Cause thats exactly what he does..Ignore all the scientific data!

As for you educating R_A--thats like a four year old trying to teach a Math professor about Calculus..theatre of the absurd!
God your hilarious in your obliviousness...:rofl:

Your beliefs hold about as much water as Christian fundamentalists..and you defend them the same way..I'm right cause I say I'm right!

[moggie]

41. "For evidence all you need to do is gaze upon my smiling face"

Yeah, that's compelling.

[LeftishBrit]

33. Because...

(a) You are implying that our or our relatives' illnesses are the result of personal weaknesses or even something we've/ they've *chosen*.

(b) You are implying that we should NOT have a right to the medical care which revolutionizes our quality of life, and in some cases has saved our lives. Of course, no one should be *obliged* to accept any medical treatment if they feel that the cure is worse than the disease. However, people should also not be put under pressure, for some ideological reason, to NOT accept medical treatment. It's like saying that your ideology trumps our health needs.

(c) Think of things that others have said about health when in the grip of somewhat different ideologies:

The Reagan nominee to the Health Department who wrote that disabled people don't deserve government assistance, as they must be being punished by God for some sin.

Rush Limbaugh and others dismissing the needs of people with Parkinson's disease, because they felt stem cell research was immoral.

Michael Savage saying that 99% of autistic children are just naughty and need more discipline.


Do you find these offensive? If so, do you think it might be found similarly offensive to dismiss the needs of people with health problems as the result of a lack of 'personal strength' and to imply that they are wrong in taking advantage of whatever treatments are available?

(Yes, CD, I know I've lost a couple of points by now!)

[varkam]

10. You have a strange definition of personal strength...

[CanSocDem]

12. "...personal strength..."

To the medical industry, there's no such thing.


.

[varkam]

13. It's all in your head, right? eom

[dropkickpa]

19. nevermind

don't feed the bears

[LeftishBrit]

32. How do you know your acquaintances don't find it offensive?

Most patients would find it EXTREMELY offensive to have someone promote 'personal strength' INSTEAD of the medications that help them to survive, and to imply that illness is a personal failing?

You don't need to be part of the 'medical industry' for that, and I am not.

[varkam]

36. Change a few words, and our friend is a Christian Scientist.

Substitute prayer for personal strength, and viola - a freaking lunatic.

[Orrex]

15. Or you could invest in bullshit "power of the mind" pseudocures.

You'll be dead that much faster, but at least you won't have to worry about enriching the evil cancer industry, right?

[Random_Australian]

24. You're pretty good at denial, I have to admit.

Who else would look at the removal of products making false claims and say such a thing?

[trotsky]

49. Well, consider...

that if you operate from the assumption that if people get sick it's their own damn fault because they weren't thinking positively enough, a lot of garbage can "logically" flow from it.

[Random_Australian]

26. Or maybe there aren't any better cures, so people use what they can.

Duh.