Calling people who are anti-quackery "pro-big pharma" is dishonest and wrong.

[FLAprogressive]

I have noticed that, without fail, if you question the scientific validity of beliefs such as the anti-vaccination movement, homeopathy, etc., you are immediately labeled as someone who is a shill for "big pharma". This strawman argument is repeated ad nauseum and rants against big pharma do not prove anything, they certainly don't prove that the attackee is "for" "big pharma".

There is a belief, grounded in logical fallacy, that guides them: "Big Pharma is bad. (insert quackery of choice) is not big pharma. (quackery of choice) is good."

Not buying into junk science does not make you "pro-big pharma", it just means you use common sense. Big pharma and big quackery (it's a big business too) are just two evil sides of the same coin.

[Richardo]

1. "...big quackery (it's a big business too) ..."

Thank you for that. :applause:

A big business with ZERO accountability, except to the 'Food' part of the Food & Drug Administration.

I'll cast my lot with science, thank you.

[FLAprogressive]

5. Big companies have found a subset of people who hold these *beliefs* and make lots of $$$ off

of them. They just don't see it.

[Mojeoux]

108. Ha Ha! Big Companies still have to factor in the Placebo Effect.

It can account for 30 to 40 percent of positive or negative findings medicinal studies. It wouldn't be the first time the P.E. has been misinterpreted or exploited.

Someday we will harness this power, not now.

[jobycom]

2. That's what strawman arguments are for.

When you don't have facts, you make straw men. All sides of every issue do it--it's just a way to shut someone up or put them on the defensive when you have no response. It means "You win, but hopefully no one sees that."

[arcane1]

3. +1000000K!

:toast:

[superduperfarleft]

4. "The dietary supplement industry comprises a diverse set of products, with annual consumer sales of

over $20 billion every year since 2004. The industry grew from $22.5 in 2006 and to $23.7 billion in 2007, turning in growth of 5.9 percent."

http://www.naturalproductsfoundation.org/clientuploads/economicimpact/Econ_Summary_20090526.pdf

Seem those complaining about "Big Pharma" should take a look at the other billion-dollar industry that is thriving in a mostly unregulated environment.

[FLAprogressive]

6. add quack medical practices to that and it probably adds up to even more!

[Capitalocracy]

7. I have no love for an industry whose business model is retention of treatment

for the poor and inflated prices for those who can find a way to pay them. And yet I'm considered "pro-big pharma" because I believe in actual science. Glad I'm not alone in feeling a bit frustrated about it.

[FLAprogressive]

8. Yep, one uses actual science and scams people, the other uses pseudoscience to scam people.

[defendandprotect]

147. And that's not doing exactly what the OP is complaining about ... ?

Honey is "pseudo-science"?

Vitamin C and D -- ?

We have a private for-profit medical system -- NOT based on preventive health care --

which has led us to this period of deteriorating health of our citizens.

And the greed of this for-profit health care industry has now left 50 million citizens

uninsured --

[kimmerspixelated]

35. So there's no science behind what vitamins and minerals can do for the body?

There's no science about Vit. C??, The B Vits? Vit. D??? There's no science behind the power of antioxidants of Broccoli and Blueberries? There's no science behind Garlic? Just examples.

I believe it was the Father of Medicine who said:

"Let Food Be Thy Medicine and Medicine be thy food."

Didn't he also say, First Do No Harm?

You are right to say that there is science behind Big Pharma.

Every single drug is scientifically synthesized from a plant of some kind (an herbal!!) that they KNEW worked for ailment X. They can't profit from plants so they have to make their own form.

[Capitalocracy]

38. Nutrition is important.

And in many cases, they're good for preventative medicine. There are diseases vitamins don't cure, however.

[kimmerspixelated]

40. Scurvy-Vit C!

I'm sorry you are mistaken. The cure for Scurvy IS Vit. C. In most cases serious diet changes with nutritional therapy WILL cure anything that ails you!

[Capitalocracy]

41. You're using one example of a disease caused by lack of a specific vitamin

as proof that all diseases can be cured by vitamins?

I guess the last time I got a cold it was because I had a misbalance of humours.

[FLAprogressive]

49. I'm not even sure what vitamins have to do with all of this.

[kimmerspixelated]

57. One thing for certain, your body was not deficient

in any of the ingredients in Robutussin. Most maladies are the result of a deficiency. If your car needs oil to run properly, why would you ever put anything else in it, that could hurt it?

[FLAprogressive]

61. Is that a belief or a scientific fact? It sounds more like a belief to me.

[superduperfarleft]

83. Huh. It just sounds kind of nuts to me. n/t

[FLAprogressive]

103. Open your mind.

you obviously love big pharma! Come on, waste your money on homeopathic stuff! There's NO side effects!

[GoneOffShore]

110. Yes indeed - Open your mind but be careful that your brain doesn't fall out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFO6ZhUW38w

[defendandprotect]

153. Understand right wingers truly believe that happens ... ???

:rofl:

[REP]

98. You do understand how viral and bacterial infections work, right?

Even a well-nourished person may become infected with a viral or bacterial upper respiratory infection, which can cause symptoms such as productive or unproductive cough, fever, headache, sore throat, upper airway congestion, etc. These symptoms are unpleasant and can interfere with sleep. Proper sleep is very important, especially when one is sick. Old fashioned remedies like slippery elm tablets can soothe a sore throat, but not alleviate other symptoms. Modern remedies, such as the Robotussin you mentioned, can alleviate more symptoms and perhaps allow more meaningful rest.

No one is suggesting you avail yourself of such modern remedies; you are free to grow coneflower and brew your own echinicea or use copper bracelets and willow bark for your arthritis. You are incorrect, however, to suggest that colds, flus or arthritis are caused by vitamin deficiencies, or that there is no modern medicinal treatment appropriate for any illness.

[Heddi]

105. So please tell me (a ER RN) which nutritional substances I should be using

for a patient who has overdosed on Heroin, who has no gag reflex, who is choking on their own secretions, whose blood pressure is 60/palp, and who is rapidly becoming unable to breathe on their own.

Because my knowledge, skill, and training (as well as the dozens upon dozens of RN's, MD's, ARNP's and PA-C's around me) tell me that the things that will reverse those deficiencies are pharmaceutical and interventional measures, such as a dopamine IV drip to raise the blood pressure, an endotrachial tube to provide an airway, a mechanical ventilator to actually make the lungs work, Nalaxone (narcan) to reverse the effects of the heroin.

What herbs and vitamins should I give to someone who has aspiration pneumonia from breathing in their own vomit? I generally go with a powerful antibiotic like Levaquin, or Vancomycin, because that is what has been proven to keep people from dying from aspiration pneumonia.

When a 2 year old comes in to the ER with 2nd degree burns over 80% of their bodies, should I not be giving them IV fluids? Perhaps you can reccomend a multivitamin that would do the job that the Parkland Formula for Fluid Resuscitation does instead.

Last night I had a woman who was drugged, and raped by several assailants. We gave her Plan-B to prevent pregnancy, and a host of medications to help her body fight any exposure to HIV. Do you have any homeopathic tinctures or salves that we could have used instead?

What about for the gentleman who was transferred from an outside hospital because of a massive subdural hematoma (type of bleeding on the brain). Instead of sending him for emergency surgery, should we have consulted a homeopath? Perhaps acupuncture would have been more effective at stopping the severe swelling of the brain and resultant change in mental status than emergent brain surgery would have.

Oh, and since I work at a trauma center, any pointers for people who are in high-speed motor vehicle accidents, who present with massive internal bleeding and multiple fractures of long bones? Generally we send these folks to surgery right away, give them massive amounts of blood products (red blood cells, platelets, cryoprecipitate, fresh frozen plasma), and we reduce their fractures through splinting or traction. We give them high doses of narcotics for pain relief because, well, they've got compound verterbral fractures, bilateral femur fractures and bilateral humeral fractures.

I mean, I certainly wouldn't want to be denying these folks equal access to vitamins and minerals and such, instead of the greedy, non-therapeutic "big pharma" answers to these seemingly simple questions. I mean, since you claim that "most maladies are the result of a deficiency" certainly you'd be able to point out the deficiency in all of the cases I presented above, and which supplement you'd highly recommend instead of the pharmaceutical options that we seemingly just choose out of ignorance and convenience.

I look forward to your answers.

[REP]

114. Duh. If they had been taking the proper vitamins, none of that would have happened to any of them!

:sarcasm:

Funny thing is I am on Rx vitamin D - I have a severe deficiency caused by hyperparathyroidism due to nephrotic syndrome ... but it's only treating a symptom, and won't cure my FSGS. Might clear up the chondromalacia, though :-)

[bluestate10]

185. Well...... You nailed it. nt.

[defendandprotect]

148. Take it the other way around ... we are diseased because of poor nutrition .....

and foods polluted with petroleum fertilizers that have destroyed the

natural nutrition of our fruits/vegetables --

[FLAprogressive]

47. What do vitamins have to do with quack bullshit like homeopathy and chelation therapy?

[kimmerspixelated]

60. For those that have used them and been successful

for which there are many, chelation therapy and homeopathy are NOT QB! Do you think for one minute that there would be return customers to thousands of health food stores, if these remedies didn't work?? No one is telling you that YOU have to take them. But don't knock those that find success in treating their own health in holistic ways.

[Capitalocracy]

63. Yes.

Just like there are return customers in church.

[kimmerspixelated]

66. HA!

Well, anyway, good luck to you. I would hate to be so narrow minded when it came to choices for health if all I had to do was listen to mainstream medical folks. That is surely sad .

[FLAprogressive]

68. I guess we should all open our minds and count on faith healers....after all, some people swear by

them. Both offer the same amount of proof of efficacy.

[Hannah Bell]

120. which is about the same amount of efficacy some prescription drugs have.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/28/the-depressing-news-about-antidepressants.html

[defendandprotect]

144. +1000%

[Capitalocracy]

69. why are you calling me narrow-minded?

I'm saying that vitamins and medicine both have their place, you need vitamins for some diseases and for general health, and medicine for others. You're saying that vitamins can cure everything. Sounds to me like your point of view is both narrow-minded and erroneous.

[FLAprogressive]

67. Alternative medicine is, unfortunately, just another bullshit religion.

reminds me of a quote from a comedian "You know what they call alternative medicine that works? Medicine."

[defendandprotect]

150. How about Big Pharma's return customers ... ??? And the constant ads for drugs on TV??

Doctors prescribing more and more "super" antibiotics at huge costs -- ?

Doctors who are being lobbied to prescribe Big Pharma's drug -- ?

There are a long list of side effects of these drugs -- and, indeed, the

side effects aren't even a complete list because it only includes what shows

up in original tests and not what patients eventually experience in taking

the drugs. Those side effects when experienced by patients are responded to

by doctors prescribing more drugs with yet more side effects - and on and on.

[blondeatlast]

159. You got something against insulin? And of course, you do realize there are two types

of diabetes; I know you do.

[defendandprotect]

162. Do you know the role that animal/dairy products play in creating diabetes?

that your body's cells are often shut/blocked because of animal fat?

Making it impossible for natural insulin to penetrate the cells?

Don't know why you chose this particular subject --

but there's a partial answer!


What I'm sure you also know is that Big Pharma is selling drugs for diabetics

here in America at 3X, 4X, 5X and 6X what people in other nations are paying

for the same drugs!

Unfortunately, the for-profit health care system we are struggling with isn't

serving the needs of our citizens -- MEDICARE FOR ALL

[blondeatlast]

168. I don't "know" anything; that link has yet to be proven--and it is to non-insulin dependent

diabetes. Somehow I was certain you wouldn't know the difference. If it interferes with your worldview, it's just too damn difficult, isn't it?

Had I tried the homeopathic remedies offered to my mom and dad almost four decades ago and continuing since--I'd be dead. Period.

No fan of obscene profits I, but as long as I can get my hands on insulin, I will, even if I support Novo Pharmaceuticals.

[defendandprotect]

170. Who is suggesting you can't have insulin except YOU ... ???

The information I gave you is about distribution of natural insulin in the body --

and the problems that arise from animal fat blocking cells from receiving natural

insulin. Your body will RAISE the amounts of natural insulin to try to deal with

the problem of unreceptive cell, but only to a certain point -- which would otherwise

poorly impact your health.

This is why we need a system of preventive medicine -- not one based on "cures."



If it interferes with your worldview, it's just too damn difficult, isn't it?

You seem to have quite a set worldview -- don't ever try honey -- or Vitamin C -- or

vitamin D - and certainly never discover D-Mannose!



:eyes:

[blondeatlast]

171. You don't seem to understand that there are TWO types of diabetes.

Does synthesized DNA insulin save lives, or does it not? You can't have it both ways. It's one of the most lifesaving treatments available that is remarkably free of side-effects once dosages are calibrated properly.

Please, please, don't lecture me about something I've lived with my entire life.

[defendandprotect]

172. You don't seem to understand I am talking about PREVENTING diabetes ....

Again, only YOU think anyone is keeping you from Big Pharma insulin --

[bluestate10]

186. So. You can prevent children from being born with diabetes?

Please tell us how? The disease runs in my family. I wait with baited breath.

[FLAprogressive]

65. Millions of people attribute the curing of disease to Jesus Christ, does that mean we should all go

to church?

Just because someone believes something works does not make it true. Ever heard of the placebo effect?

[defendandprotect]

143. "Bless the Bees" -- !!

[Mimosa]

126. A patented vitamin formula CURED my hair loss (twice!)

Right after we moved to Atlanta after Katrina I started having hair loss (alopecia, I believe it's called) caused by stress and extreme anxiety.

I started going to a salon where my niece worked. it was there we noticed I had a couple of small bald spots. And I'd noticed my hair was falling out in the shower.

The owner of the salon strolled over and told me about how she'd been through chemotherapy. And she's lost lots of hair. But she started taking a vitamin/herb supplement made by NIOXIN called 'Recharging Complex' and her hair grew back quicker than for most cancer patients. *No, the salon did not sell the product.*

I went to ULTA and bought a couple of bottles. I began taking the vitamins. Within 45 days my bald spots had disappeared. My hair got 'good' again and my partner and I made a habit of taking the Nioxin Recharging tablets until late last year. We were cutting back. Although we took other supplements we'd buy at Costco, I figured Nioxin's Recharging Complex was just too expensive. Early in the summer, my partner noticed a bright bald spot at the back of my head. (I couldn't see it.)

Then a couple of months ago I got a growing bare spot on the side of my head. From stress, worry and anxiety my hair was again falling out.I tried to think what I was doing differently (no changes in diet or hair products) and recalled that we used to use the Nioxin Recharging Complex but quit buying it.

So in early November I ordered a couple of bottles at a good price off Amazon. I started taking them and a week before Christmas went to the hair dresser. Both my bald spots were gone. :D My hair is now thicker by far.

So is my partner's!

I don't need government to get between me and my vitamins. And I know which ones work. Vitamin D, calcium and Fish oil are essential, too, to prevent bone loss and cancer.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Some people won't be happy until the moon bombing is avenged.

Our Harmonic Indigo Brothers and Sisters from the Star Folks Lunar Colony will have their karmic revenge.

[Richardo]

21. !!!

:rofl:

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

160. What's the herbal remedy for spit on one's keyboard? nt

[xchrom]

10. recommend

[pnwmom]

11. Calling people who are pro-safe-vaccination "anti-vaccination" is dishonest and wrong.

Yet it happens all the time around here.

[FLAprogressive]

13. I'm talking about those who are anti-vaccination. I wouldn't call McCarthyers "pro-safe-vaccination"

They are anti-vaccination, they hold the belief that vaccines cause autism.

[pnwmom]

34. Suppose an academic researcher concluded that a particular

vaccination, the HepB vaccination, for example, increased the risk of autism. Would that conclusion mean that the researcher was "anti-vaccination?" Or could it simply mean that s/he concluded a certain vaccine or vaccine ingredient could contribute to autism in certain children? And that susceptible children should be identified and/or the vaccine changed to eliminate the toxin?

Are these researchers anti-vaccination? Is every researcher concerned with vaccine safety "anti-vaccination"? Are people who cite these researchers "anti-vaccination"? Many people here would say, yes, they are - but I strongly disagree. They are researchers trying to improve the safety of vaccines, or trying to uncover the causes of autism. But every time people like me cite reputable researchers who are working in this field, we are accused of being "anti-vaccination."

1. Goth, Samuel R., Ruth A. Chu, Jeffrey P. Gregg, Gennady Cherednichenko, and Isaac Pessah. "Uncoupling of ATP-mediated Calcium Signaling and Dysregulated IL-6 Secretion in Dendritic Cells by Nanomolar Thimerosal." Environmental Health Perspectives 114.7 (2006).

2. Gallagher, Carolyn, Melody Goodman. Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1-9 years, Journal Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry. 90 (5) (Sep 2008): 997-1008

3. Gallagher, C.M. , M.S. Goodman. Hepatitis B Vaccination of Male Neonates and Autism. Annals of Epidemiology. 19 (9) (Sep 2009): 651-680.

4. Natif, Robert, Corrinne Skorupka, Lorene Amet, Alain Lam, Anthea Springbett, Richard Lathe. Porphyrinuria in childhood autistic disorder: Implications for environmental toxicity. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 214 (2006): 99?108.

5.Burbacher, Thomas M., Danny D. Shen, Noelle Liberato, Kimberly S. Grant, Elsa Cerniciari, Thomas Clarkson. ?Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal?, Environmental Health Perspectives, 113 (8) (Aug 2005): 1015-21.

(CDC has used the ingested methylmercury safey standard to claim that injected ethylmercury is safe. This study demonstrates that methylmercury standards are not a suitable measure for determining risk from injected ethylmercury exposure, as injected ethylmercury becomes trapped in the brain at a much higher rate than ingested methylmercury. )

[FLAprogressive]

52. Just because there have been studies on it does not mean there is definitive proof.

[defendandprotect]

163. Nor do counter studies offer definitive proof that vaccines offer

true safey -- especially for newborns -- and especially given the increased

quantities, doses, and heavier schedule for administering vaccines.

[Spider Jerusalem]

54. Except when the study shows nothing of the kind

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/09/autism-causation-and-the-hepatitis-b-vaccine-no-link/

The data for the Gallagher/Goodman study don't actually show what's claimed; the prevalence overall for the sample size is 0.07 for both vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts with respect to the hepatitis B vaccine.

There are several other studies on potential toxicity from thiomersal; the one you cite isn't the only one. And no childhood vaccines have contained thiomersal in more than a decade, anyway. The only remaining vaccines with thiomersal are some influenza vaccines.

[truedelphi]

127. Thank you for those citations.

The bigger problem about the Hepatitis vaccine is that when it is given to day old infants or any babies, the risk to benefit ratio is so seriously weighted in terms of outright RISK that any sensible person would conclude that it should not be given to members of that group at all.

More one day old to 365 day olds die from the vaccine itself, and are injured by the vaccine itself, than would ever be harmed by the disease itself.

Hepatitis B is a disease that afflicts people who share needles, who have unsafe sex. Babies don't do that.

Although there are babies whose mothers have the disease, that situation can be screened for, if the mom actually comes in contact with a pre-natal doctor or nurse during her pregnancy. The that infant can be given the vaccination. But giving that vaccine to all babies has simply transferred the risk from the lower income set to the middle class.

[defendandprotect]

151. No one on the thread this responds to is "anti-vaccination" ....

that's a distortion --

Nor does holding a concern that vaccines may have contributed to the huge

rise in autism equate to being "anti-vaccination."

What we are saying is there should not be automatic acceptance of anything

that Big Pharma puts out there -- time and experience shows that is unwise.

And, in the case of vaccinations where the number and doses and practices

have so increased now in regard to what newborns get and when, caution seems

wise.

[bluestate10]

88. The fact is the anti-vaccine people go over the top.

The simple reason that a large phama make the vaccines is enough to set the anti-vacs off, they see that as a scheme of world conquest. The arguments of many of them are filled with catch phrases and paranoia.

[Odin2005]

12. People seem to forget that the peddlers of "alternative" crap are in in for the money, too.

[bluestate10]

92. NO, NO!! You don't say? The peddlers are progressive.

Progressive is good, anyone that challenges progressive is bad, regardless of merit. Didn't you get the memo?

[defendandprotect]

152. Nothing in the natural remedy field equates to the greed of Big Pharma ....

You can price any prescription for Big Pharma drugs and it will be vastly

overpriced in relationship to what other nations are paying for the same drugs --

and far more costly than any natural medication.

[kimmerspixelated]

174. +1000!!!

Touche'!

[nemo137]

183. Except the "Big Pharma" products have a chance in hell of actually working

You know, based on evidence, rather than anecdote and flimflam.

[bluestate10]

187. Some supplements work.

I take two supplements for a medical condition over the big pharma alternatives. All the stuff worked, but the supplements are easier on my total body function. Having said that, when choosing the supplements, I did extensive research and relied on sane presentations that had sound scientific practice behind them, the bluesky, left wingy testimonials.

[SidDithers]

14. Yup...nt

Sid

[ThatPoetGuy]

15. It's more complicated than that.

On the whole, your argument makes a lot of sense; but the system is skewed in a way that favors what you call "big pharma." The laws in the US are skewed in a way that makes it harder for "natural" options to gain equal consideration.

I'm not saying "natural" is better. I'm saying "natural" can't be patented.

Suppose you find a naturally-occurring substance that cures eczema. Before you can sell it as an actual medicine, you have to send it for seven years' of safety and effectiveness testing; and then, if it's safe and effective, you can sell it as a medicine. But so can anyone else. You don't own the rights to a naturally-occurring substance. So why would you -- why would anyone -- invest millions of dollars into researching the safety and effectiveness of any single naturally occurring substance?

On the other hand, I've developed a new chemical in my lab. It's a tiny bit different from some other chemical currently on the market, and this difference means it's an intellectual property. So I sell it for $500,000 to BigPharmaCo., who spend the next seven years testing it; they release it into the pharmaceutical world and earn $30 million a year off of it. Even if it's less effective than your natural substance.

I'm no fan of those who profit off swindles, who sell false hopes to those who are suffering and desperate. But the system as it is now, driven by profit and favoring research into the synthetic over the naturally-occurring, is diseased.

[FLAprogressive]

18. if that were true makers of homeopathic "natural remedies" would be under strict regulation

As opposed to NO regulation.

[derby378]

64. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938

Passed in Congress and signed by President Franklin Roosevelt largely through the efforts of Sen. Royal Copeland (D-NY), a homeopathic physician and public health/sanitation advocate. Regulates homeopathy in short by restricting homeopathic remedies to those found in the United States Pharmacopeia, the National Formulary, and/or the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States. Without this law in effect, homeopathy in America could have been outlawed altogether.

Hope this helps...

[FLAprogressive]

70. "Without this law in effect, homeopathy in America could have been outlawed altogether."

As it should be.

Just because homeopaths lists an ingredient as a "Remedy" doesn't mean it works.

[derby378]

77. I'm not debating whether homeopathy works, here...

I am a skeptic of homeopathy, yes, but I'm also a would-be historian of the movement as well.

The main reason that the 1938 law was passed was in response to the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906, which was the first piece of legislation to target quack medicines such as Clark Stanley's Snake Oil Liniment and Shiloh Consumption Cure, and the Sherley Amendment, which came ten years after the original bill and declared a medication to be misbranded and therefore illegal "...if its package or label shall bear or contain any statement, design, or device regarding the curative or therapeutic effect of such article or any of the ingredients or substances contained therein, which is false and fraudulent." Together, these laws prevented homeopaths from marketing or distributing their remedies as "cures," but there was also growing concern that the interpretation of the laws could be used to outlaw homeopathy.

[ThatPoetGuy]

78. If what were true?

I think you were too busy giving hostile responses all over this thread to craft a coherent sentence.

[closeupready]

180. LOL - "it's HARD WORK presidentin', and it's HARD WORK being a hater."

:rofl: ;) :hi:

[Tumbulu]

33. You have described the problem accurately

and the same problem exists in the realm of pest management tools- the natural and biological controls are also not patentable, either.

[bluestate10]

94. Many of those products don't work.

People on the natural bandwagon don't see that everything is a chemical, even natural products. I can see their argument if they attack pharma products that damage people and the environment, and there are plenty of such pharma products. But there are "natural" supplements that hurt people and damage the environment too, an honest broker will strike at all dangerous products whether pharma or natural. I am a person that take some natural supplements after studying their use and side affects carefully and recently suggested that a relative take two of them, so I am not anti the natural supplement and therapy industry, I do exercise reason in my choices. There are products at the store that I buy my supplements from that I would not touch under any circumstances.

[eridani]

118. Why? They'd do it if the government required it, as is the case in Germany

No legal distinction between herbal and pharmaceutical remedies.

[ThatPoetGuy]

122. No, they wouldn't do it if the government required it.

Last I heard, those seven years of tests cost about three million dollars for a single compound. Are there any nature-based supplement companies that can afford that? Most of them would simply close their doors. If a company produces five different herbal products, that would cost about fifteen million dollars for them to simply continue doing business -- and that money would work to help grow competitors as well.

Without changing many laws, the solution you suggest amounts to banning natural products. I wish there were a method to create sponsorships -- say, grant the state of Louisiana a ten-year exclusive right to harvest crop X if Louisiana pays for crop x's testing. But it's hopelessly complex, it'd require an entire rewriting of property rights laws.

[eridani]

124. Come to think of it, I recall that in Germany the government does the testing

It's considered a public good, and active ingredients must be present in minimum amounts before herbal preparations can be sold.

[apocalypsehow]

16. Kick, Rec. n/t.

[closeupready]

17. Unrecced. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

By that I mean, I don't think I have EVER made those accusations, but I HAVE been around for these "quackery" threads, and most anti-'quackery' people are disgusting, and make horribly broad, illiberal statements.

[FLAprogressive]

19. Name-calling and logical fallacies do not constitute "heat". They just make you look like an idiot.

[closeupready]

20. Thank you for making my point by name-calling those who name-call.

:crazy: :rofl:

[FLAprogressive]

22. Show me the proof that the anti-vaccination movement's allegations are scientifically sound.

[closeupready]

28. I don't have any opinions about that issue.

But the maturity level of those who are anti-'quackery' makes me feel like most of them are under 25. Look at the language they employ, for example - "woo woo" "grog" (which, I don't even know what that means), etc. One step out of high school, IMO. Nothing wrong with being young, but I'm not, and at this stage of my life, I'm accustomed to admitting when I have been in error, and apologizing, and revising my beliefs based upon new knowledge and research. And actually, THAT is what reasonable people do.

But if all you want to do is sling shit at people who raise new ideas or post stuff for discussion, go for it, I won't stop you, and I won't call you names. But I'm not sure what your point is. Maybe those who say you are a shill are, like me, confused about your aims.

Cheers.

[FLAprogressive]

30. Would "sham treatments" or "pseudoscience" be more acceptable terms?

[kimmerspixelated]

39. Exactly!

[apocalypsehow]

42. "I don't have any opinions about that issue" - "people who raise new ideas"

:eyes:

[closeupready]

75. Why do you people feel a burning need to antagonize other Democrats here on DU?

I don't get where your animosity comes from, or why, if vaccines are so good, you aren't out there in rural India or Africa vaccinizing kids for polio. Rather than counter bad anti-vaccine arguments with facts and science, you guys just antagonize, use rollie eyes and sarcasm.

[apocalypsehow]

79. Now, what was I reading just a sec ago? Oh, yeah:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=127670&mesg_id=127989

Money quote:

"Unrecced. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

Geese, ganders, all of that.

[blondeatlast]

161. "...you people." Siiiiiigh... nt

[earth mom]

82. You should post that as an OP because I am sick to death of the immature name calling

here on DU whenever there is a thread about autism.

:grr:

[closeupready]

116. On 1/1, I took everyone off ignore. Looks like I made a mistake, don't you think?

;) This thread is useful, in correcting that error. :D :hi:

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. Are you admitting you were name-calling DUers in #17?

[closeupready]

73. Absolutely not. Describing someone as disgusting (which is strong, for me) is

NOT calling them puke or a turd or whatever. There are adjectives and there are nouns. I used an adjective to describe someone specifically engaging in a type of speech. I did not insult.

Do you disagree?

[muriel_volestrangler]

129. Yes, I disagree; you called the DUers 'disgusting', and that is insulting

It may not be crude, like 'puke', 'turd' etc. but it is still insulting. You applied it to people. Adjectives are still insulting.

Furthermore you claim that most DU anti-quackery people "make horribly broad, illiberal statements". Ironically, that is "horribly broad", and, since this is a liberal site, you are attacking their basic political philosophy too - not a specific statement, but their statements in general.

I am amazed you think it's acceptable for you to do this. Being anti-quackery is a good thing in itself - no-one should be in favour of charlatans who pretend to have medical knowledge or cures that they don't really possess. Being a liberal actually involves being concerned for others' wellbeing, and that can (and perhaps should) include calling out the professional quacks who peddle homeopathy, and men like Wakefield who make up their data, hide their payments from lawyers and their financial interests in the alternatives to the valid treatments they are lying about, and who are thus primarily responsible for the outbreaks of measles who have killed people.

You seem to think it's OK for you, and other DUers, to call DUers names, but that DUers can't call the dangerous con-artists names because that's "illiberal". Go and read the DU rules, and Skinner's recent threads on how strong opinions can be expressed on DU. Attack public figures, but don't make it about DUers. You have got it 100% wrong.

[closeupready]

132. And the Oscar goes to ....

:sarcasm:

[muriel_volestrangler]

134. And your point is?

That this is all a game to you? You're OK with insulting DUers, because they call out dangerous con artists?

[bettyellen]

179. thank you Muriel.

[kimmerspixelated]

37. DINGDINGDINGDING!!

[fascisthunter]

23. calling people quacks while telling us its wrong to.... jayzus

[FLAprogressive]

25. Would "pseudoscience" be more politically correct?

[fascisthunter]

27. "politically correct"... how about just flame bait

and your use of "politically correct" has been noted.

[FLAprogressive]

29. Well the word "quackery" obviously offends your belief system...so clearly more PC word is in order.

Don't want to offend anyone based on their beliefs!

[fascisthunter]

31. Political Correctness has nothing to do with it... you are deflecting

I think your approach to the issue is representative of your immaturity and that you purposefully used "Quakery" to piss off people who think there might be danger in vaccines. In truth, I don't know one way or the other whether they are dangerous or not, but what I do know and see is an effort by you to marginalize them while telling those folks and everyone here to speak to you differently, as in not calling you a pharma shill. Is that hard for you to grasp?

[closeupready]

74. Thank you. That is exactly my position, and you put it very eloquently.

+1000.

[fascisthunter]

136. thanks

[FLAprogressive]

76. Nope, it's people who use concerns over vaccines to promote quack treatment and those who support

them.

People who actively support the promotion of chelation therapy for autism, like Jenny McCarthy (and those who follow her) deserve to be marginalized.

[defendandprotect]

176. Actually, the only person I can see who got "marginalized" by this thread is YOU ....

I have no idea who Jenny McCarthy is, but quite obviously the objection of Big Pharma

to Jenny McCarthy would be the built-in assertion that vaccines have left autistic

children with MERCURY -- or other toxic substances -- in their bodies.

Otherwise, there would be NO connection to the vaccine/autistic discussion and Chelation.

[Posteritatis]

46. The main difference is that the OP's right to, unlike the pro-polio crowd. (nt)

[closeupready]

135. Your honesty about applying two different standards is refreshing.

One standard for your side, and a higher one for your opponents.

Relieves you and your kind of the need for principles.

[defendandprotect]

154. Advising caution re Big Pharma drugs and vaccines is being "pro-polio" ... ???

And that's not supposed to be inflammatory?

[closeupready]

165. I was always partial to Pestilence, my significant other, War.

I forget who the other two characters were, but I guess we now know one was Polio. Must be the guy with the arrow? :shrug:



So that leaves one unknown horseman. ;)

[HuckleB]

191. That ignores a great deal.

If someone is actually pursuing quackery, why is it wrong to point that out?

If someone is not actually pro-pharma, but is pointing out quackery, it makes no sense to claim they are pro-pharma.

Game over.

[X_Digger]

24. woo woo trumps science (for too many) n/t

[MicaelS]

26. I'm not a "shill for big pharma"......

They aren't paying me anything.

[bluestate10]

95. Casting unfounded aspersions on a person's motives does not invalidate the argument. nt

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FLAprogressive]

58. Quack practices such as homeopathy, are in fact very old....

...and were created based on a belief system and not actual science.

[CanSocDem]

84. The problem is....

Your "actual science" IS a belief system. If you had any experience with belief systems you would know this.

.

[eridani]

119. Yes. A belief system that is constantly cross-checked against reality

It's the only such belief system that our species has come up with.

[CanSocDem]

133. Your belief. Your reality. Understand?

We're not all the same, no matter what you've been told.

.

[blondeatlast]

169. Really? Something guaranteed to piss off Newt Gingrich and possibly make you a bit uncomfortable:

DNA survey finds all humans are 99.9pc the same

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1416706/DNA-survey-finds-all-humans-are-99.9pc-the-same.html

[eridani]

182. Not identical, but if we didn't have a great deal in common, no treatment for anything

--would ever work. Experiments cross-check hypostheses against reality.

[blondeatlast]

164. I live by injecting insulin. I believe insulin works. It can be clinically proven that

insulin reduces blood sugar.

I believe oil and water don't mix. It can be proven by scientific investigation that this is, in fact the case.

I believe in God. It cannot be proven that She exists. That's called FAITH. Homeopathy is faith. Science is not

[CanSocDem]

184. Live your life according to your beliefs.

A person lives AND dies by their beliefs don't they? I don't believe I will become diabetic even though my diet is atrocious by scientific standards. MY personal beliefs trump YOUR beliefs even if yours are "scientifically" proven and mine are based on intuition and metaphysics.

I make this claim because my education and experience has convinced me that it is so....

And, most importantly, it keeps me healthy and engaged in living my own life.


.

[blondeatlast]

190. FYI, I have juvenile diabetes --diet and exercise had nothing to do with it. nt

[defendandprotect]

155. Science is merely and only observation ....

If vaccines make our troops ill, we know something went wrong --

When we find they've had "bad batches" we know something went wrong --

When we see that this "for-profit" industry is leaving many with over priced

drugs vs what other nations are paying for the same drugs, we know something

is wrong.

One excellent example is the ancient knowledge re folate --

Only in the last decade or so was it disclosed that SPINA BIFIDA was caused

by a lack of folate in the diet of the mothers -- that it created neural cord

disoirders. Did our FDA immediately support a program to inform women and

families in America of these findings? NO!!

Not until they were sued by a physicians group did they finally add an artificial

form of folate to bread/flour. STILL NO CAMPAIGN TO INFORM WOMEN AND FAMILIES!


And, btw, a lack of folate also contributes in a smaller precentage to other

prenatal conditions -- including Down's Syndrome!

Eat your greens!

[defendandprotect]

178. Try this: Corporate-medicine is based on profit above all --

and tax payer supported research -- and artificially reproduces medicines based

on drug models, but with greatly increased side effects.

And with inflated prices to provide huge profits for the industry.


This system of engaging mercenaries in health care is damaging the health of our

citizens -- and our economy.


Meanwhile, older systems of medicine are not "quakery" -- they are based on natural

plants which are our medicines. All medications are based on these plants. There

are no medications without these plants which serve as a model for present day

medications. What you're saying seems to suggest that you have no idea of that?


Keep in mind also that many plants were purposefully destroyed * and many destroyed

thru ignorance and exploitation. They would have provided medications that are now

lost to us.



*

Nature is pro-choice -

Many plants at one time provided birth control -- not only the ability to control

reproduction, but to end fertility entirely if desired. And to interrupt conception.

[diane in sf]

43. Short-term double-blind studies funded by pharmaceutical companies are not

any more valid than the long-term empirical observations of folk medicine. The number of deaths and disasters from approved drugs such as Vioxx are huge. Standard western medicine is great if you need surgery or a course of antibiotics, but it sucks at working with long-term metabolic issues.

[ismnotwasm]

44. Very Recommended

My husband has Multiple Sclerosis. I can't count the number of bullshit 'cures' and 'treatments' we've come across. And we check into a lot of different things, NOT just the very expensive, very toxic medication he needs to take once a month. The medication has MRI proven benefits, his disease progression has slowed down.

[RagAss]

45. Vitamin D.... go ahead and deny the suppression of that evidence !

[bluestate10]

96. Other than milk, Vit D has always been delivered as a pharma.

Vitamin D is not a holistic supplement. There are "natural" forms of vitamin D being sold by holistic stores.

[RagAss]

111. I was referring to 30 minutes of sunlight without Big Pharma sunblock slathered on.

[bluestate10]

188. Granted. You're right. nt.

[defendandprotect]

145. D-Mannose another natural medication --

which prevents visits to the doctor and huge bills!

[w8liftinglady]

48. I do have ussues with gov't witholding info on side effects

of some vaccinations.
http://navyvets.com/page/anthrax-shots-and

http://www.anthrax.osd.mil/documents/library/Imm12.pdf
(notice this one is funded by Bristol-Meyers)

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2009/06/08/bioterrorism-vaccine-puts-soldiers-risk/

http://www.mvrd.org/index.cfm

In many cases,research was driven by corporate profit and paybacks.

[defendandprotect]

146. Vaccines aren't perfect -- we've had bad batches ... and vaccines that made our troops ill....

[Raine]

50. That goes both ways, those of us who don't

fall for every pharma that comes down the pike and are skeptical don't like the dishonest wrong name calling coming our way either. :-(

[FLAprogressive]

55. Being skeptical of big pharma does not equal supporting quackery, unless you're not telling everyone

the entire story.

[MedicalAdmin]

93. I have a question, if I may.

Why do you choose to use the same techniques of argument that you acorn in those whose position you oppose?

[Warpy]

51. I disagree

A lot of people, myself included, are living longer and better lives because of the products Big Pharma sells. Without those products, my life expectancy would have been 7 years after I was diagnosed, meaning I'd never have seen the age of 35, much less been healthy enough to work as a nurse.

The best that quackery has ever offered is false hope, a depleted wallet (it doesn't come cheap), and no effect whatsoever on illness. The worst it offers is a miserable death that could have been averted had the person chosen standard medicine and Evil Big Pharma.

They are not two sides of the same coin, not in any way, shape or form. Yes, there is abuse in an industry that overcharges patients in the US but not anywhere else in the world and works on lifestyle drugs while ignoring very real disease processes, and tries to get healthy people to feel sick enough to clamor for new drugs through direct advertising. However, they produce more benefit than evil.

Quackery is just evil.

[MedicalAdmin]

91. As is indiscriminate labeling and scapegoating.

I run a medical clinic so I am not unmindful of efficacy, but the use of any broad label is damaging to the labeled and the label equally. It also denigrates the labeler equally.

What bothers me, beside seeing those who claim the high ground of rationality using such ridiculously infantile terms like "woo" while bandying about rw memes like politically correct, is to see the term quack applied without specific cause. It is the use of a broad brush when a rapier should be used and it diminished the argument.

Quacks, insofar as they are defined as pushers of fraud are evil. On the other hand claiming someone is evil or saying that they need to be marginized is equally odious.. It is a shoot first and ask questions later model applied to debate and conversation.

[Warpy]

156. I see you didn't read my post

or you'd have noticed I didn't use words that you found offensive.

This is about an unrelated post.

[MedicalAdmin]

189. Sorry about that. I should have been more clear.

I was speaking in general terms regarding the general use of certain argumental trends and approaches by those who should know better.

And yes I did read your post and yes you did use one of the argumentative techniques I refered to.

Final point, while taking within historical context one could argue that the pharmacological ( 19th century gross chemistry approach ) has, on the whole been beneficial, one could also argue that that approach is now reaching a level of diminishing returns. And the statistic of an average 100,000 deaths a year for the use of prescriptive drugs tha thane been properly prescribed and taken is a very high price to pay for diminishing returns.

But again I have no horse in this race and no love for fraudulent behavior, but indiscriminate labeling serve no-one.

Thanks for an opportunity to clarify.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. Hypothetically of course, how would someone who is "pro-big-pharma" behave?

I hear a lot of sounds reminiscent of quacking from objects that walk and look a whole lot like ducks.

Many of the "beliefs" you are apparently objecting to, such as the environmental link to Autism aren't quackery.

I don't buy into junk science. More to the point, I don't buy into anyone else's beliefs about what constitutes junk science.

I'm ambivalent about big pharma; I acknowledge that in general, vaccines and new medicines have done a lot of good, but they are in the business of selling you stuff - their business needs are often at cross purposes with public health needs.

[FLAprogressive]

59. Where does it say that I "object" to a possible link between the enivronment and autism??? Where???

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. I'm sure I'm talking about some other "anti-quackery" poster.

You can't swing a dead cat in here without hitting a "anti-vaxxers are the devil!/Jenny McCarthy is a MURDERER!" post.

[FLAprogressive]

71. Well then who here said it?

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. .

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22no+epidemic%22+autism+site:democraticunderground.com

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

81. True that,

But the definitions of what is considered "quackery" around here many times simply shows up the ignorance of the poster.

[bluestate10]

85. My sweet lord. What has happened to my DU?

An OP and six posts in a row bashing quack left wing science and defending ethical business. What next, a post of the true Julian Assange or a post putting the egotist Nader in his relative place? Maybe, just maybe, we now have a DU where democrats can pound each other with ideas and no one cliche dominate that debate, how ever distorted their worldview.

[sendero]

89. So now..

.. big pharma is "ethical business"? Only a liar or someone who knows nothing about the industry could say that.

At least "quackery" doesn't kill thousands of people a year. I agree that some of this stuff is bs but a LOT of pharmaceuticals are not better - risky dangerous drugs whose benefits barely outweigh the risks, if at all.

[bluestate10]

99. A lot of big pharma is ethical, some deserves regulation.

But you make an unsupported claim. How do you "know" that quack treatments do not kill thousands of people per year? I won't make a claim that big pharma mistakes do not maim and even kill, but neither can you prove your assertion that quack treatments don't. Your arrogance in a nutshell is why I have issues with your worldview and the worldview of people that behave and think like you.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sendero]

106. Nice deletion..

... try deleting this one.

... well gee whiz you and your imaginary superior worldview. My worldview is based on reality, not whatever bullshit fairy bullshit you want to believe.

Do some die because they sought "quack" treatments instead of conventional care? Probably. But thousands die from "rare but serious side effects" that are not remotely rare (well known and highly advertised cholestrol medication. almost killed my wife) and definitely deadly serious.

The pharmaceutical industry is irretrievable corrupt like every other big business in america. They have practically stopped all research into creating new and better antibiotics because there is no money in them since they are only used episodically. They are only interested in chronic diseases where they can ding you every month. Real ethical.

The drugs they do produce are more and more dangerous, as any moron tracking the drugs that have had to be pulled from the market over the last decade can see.

More and more dangerous drugs, self tested with major bias, placed on the market on a wing and a prayer that they will succeed based on rigged testing. Yeah, real ethical.

[defendandprotect]

157. Thank you ... and this should be discussed more frequently here at DU ....

Do some die because they sought "quack" treatments instead of conventional care? Probably. But thousands die from "rare but serious side effects" that are not remotely rare (well known and highly advertised cholestrol medication. almost killed my wife) and definitely deadly serious.

Also want to comment that Sen. Bernie Sanders has long been gathering information on

drugs which have created problems -- and other poor outcomes of medical practice.

It is helpful to all of us to report these problems, imo. His office takes the info --

think also can be done thru his website?

[GoneOffShore]

117. Quack treatments don't kill people? Really?

Mrs GoS is presently on Tamoxifen and Herceptin.
Her breast cancer is no longer there.

Thanks Big Pharma.

Risky, dangerous drugs?

You obviously don't remember the Herceptin riots in Berkley.

[blondeatlast]

166. Have you counted how many lives the likes of penicillin, chemotherapy, and insulin have saved?

Hint--it's a whole fugging lot more than you'd like to admit. I'm one of them, my sister another (so far).

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

86. K&R

[Desertrose]

90. Anti-quackery. Nice.

In many instances, big pharma IS bad....but that doesn't make alternative medicine all "quackery".

Talk about logical fallacy......

[muriel_volestrangler]

130. No, it's not a logical fallacy

The order of events is:

Some public figure does something in alternative medicine.
This is called quackery by someone on DU , because the figure pretended to have medical skill they do not have.
Someone else on DU replies saying the first DUer is "a big pharma shill" or similar.

What makes alternative medicine all "quackery" is the lack of evidence for its effectiveness, the physical impossibility of some of it (eg homeopathy), and the dangerous claims made for it by its more irresponsible marketers. Not what DU thinks about it. It'd be quackery if DU didn't exist.

[defendandprotect]

142. +1000% --

[TheKentuckian]

97. Some alternative medicines and treatments work and some pharma products are placebos and even poison

And vice versa.

Likely we'd find if we could peek behind the curtain that natural medicine has more to it than most think but all the research goes into chemically replicating effects so they can hit the big money.

I also believe the profit motive works as a powerful counter-incentive to find and make available cures.

No doubt there are some anti-science loons, snake oil salesmen, and moonbeams involved in natural medicine and they can get rather silly and nasty at times but if all your eggs are in the pharma basket then I think you have a limited field of vision and far too much trust in a for profit industry.

Hell, I remember when chiropractors were considered quacks but now even the insurance cartel pays no problem.
It isn't a very scientific mentality to believe you have all the answers. I take it all on a case by case basis. I see no issue with understanding vaccines are generally beneficial and having room to believe that certain types could or one day will have undesirable side effects.

[FLAprogressive]

102. Which ones other than Chiropractic....which has been used inappropriately at times.

Some chiropractors run sham tests and treat people for conditions other than back/neck pain, which can be dangerous....

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chiro.html

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chiroinv.html

[Capitalocracy]

112. Or claim that all diseases stem from back misalignment

Of cooourse!

[TheKentuckian]

175. That problem is a 100% penetration issue and even the best intentions with fairly commonplace

treatments and procedures fail.

Its your body so trust who you will with it but for me it is case by case with a firm conviction that we are all different enough that what might work for me won't do you a bit of good or even make matters worse whether it is a root, herb, fungus, technique, or standard modern medicine.

I pass on whole areas of pharmaceuticals and opt right in for more natural treatments.

The highest probability is that in a hundred or two hundred years that much of what we do now will look like leach craft does to us and some of that medicine won't be chemical compounds made in a corporate lab and some will (or the contemporary equivalent of such) and some will be the why didn't we think of that vein and others will be much like magic to our eyes.

I just can't get bogged down in single tracks, better to waste some time than ignore possibilities.

[neverforget]

100. The other side has climate science deniers

[ljm2002]

101. On the other hand...

...rejecting scientific papers because they do not agree with one's own mainstream views, and dismissing them out of hand with the term "junk science", is also dishonest and wrong.

I have seen both tactics employed here.

[NutmegYankee]

107. K&R!

[cbc5g]

109. Big Pharma has the money to make the research

And come up with whatever conclusions they want.

Big Pharma kills people and they lie. Sorry if I don't want to be another one of the millions taking their toxic drugs daily. I have already done so and I am still recovering.

[defendandprotect]

141. Think we don't have enough people here talking about those experiences ....

but Sen. Bernie Sanders is collecting information like that -- and it is

a benefit for us all that he is doing so. If you have anything to report,

you can simply contact his office or check his website.

[blondeatlast]

167. May you or a loved one never acquire insulin-dependent diabetes.

Ketoacidosis is a particularly horrible way to die--and worse to observe.

[Capitalocracy]

113. In other news...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-balancebracelets

Manufacturers of these ridiculous bracelets admit, under pressure from the Australian government, that they're worthless garbage that does nothing.

[GoneOffShore]

115. Kind of like homeopathetic medicine -

There's nothing in it.

[jallo]

121. If Baldwin runs

they are going to play that telephone message ad nauseum. I am referring to the one where he refers to his daughter as a "pig". It's going to be pretty hard to come off likable after that, and if people don't like you, they won't vote for you.

[ohheckyeah]

123. I have found that people

usually get what they give out. Maybe if you tried tempering your language in these discussions you would get a little more respect. Your superiority complex is showing.

[Lucian]

125. I hate big pharma and homeopathy equally.

Big Pharma is about making money. They couldn't care less if they supplied cures for people. Treatments, yes. Cures, no. There's no money in cures. And it really pisses me off that they charge $20 - $60 per pill for some antidepressants. I was on Abilify once, and they charged $20/pill, and it was the only pill that actually worked for me. When I lost my health insurance, I had to quit taking it because I can't afford $600/month for medication.

Homeopathy is the same way. They're in it to make money. But they don't back their claims up with science.

But if I had to choose between homeopathy and Big Pharma, at least Big Pharma is backed up by science and research.

[Withywindle]

128. Thank you. When your pet study is revealed to be a total fraud, move on!

If you're insulting people who don't share your pet theory, well...

[VeryConfused]

131. Agreed, we can't ignore science like the right wingers do

[Gormy Cuss]

137. It cuts both ways. Knee-jerk labeling of anyone who questions whether a new product or therapy

gets labeled "anti-vaxxer" or "woo-woo" ad nauseum, even when the question is based on whether the drug or therapy has lowered risk or improved efficacy over older approaches. In the case of vaccinations, whether the disease or illness prevented is serious enough to warrant mandatory vaccinations and the associated costs of same. Pharmaceutical companies, like most for-profit businesses will always lobby for a solution that fattens the corporate bottom line even if alternatives are just as effective and cost less. With plenty of money to throw at that effort via political lobbying and advertisement the large pharmaceutical companies can achieve an inflated demand for even a pretty mediocre product (not to mention the companies' sometimes underhanded attempts to secure FDA approval by suppressing negative data on the product.) That's how "Big Pharma" got the derisive moniker.

I agree with you that flat out quackery deserves to be called the same, and that "Big Quakery" most certainly would fit some of the alternative medicine industry.

But for discussion board, if the only reply that one has to a post is to label the person, it's probably best to step away from the keyboard. Arguing on the facts takes more work, but it's also the only productive way to have a dialogue.

[closeupready]

138. Yes, arguing facts is difficult and takes experience, therefore, most 'anti-quacks' here are young.

You won't find too many adults amongst the "anti-quackery" brigade here on DU.

Cheers. :)

[stevenleser]

173. I'm always willing to listen to doctors (MDs) and other folks with the appropriate credentials and

are identified as such. Anonymous people on an internet discussion forum claiming that vaccines are conspiracies? Not so much.

[Gormy Cuss]

181. Doctors aren't always the best resource for current scientific data on a subject.

Doctors can also be influenced by drug manufacturers marketing and promotions, as can health care plans. It pays to read actual research publications.

My point in my previous and admittedly somewhat muddled post was that there is room to discuss and debate topics here, in the anonymous world of the internet, without jumping to the conclusion that someone who questions is automatically "anti-vax" or "pro-Pharma."

[defendandprotect]

139. Interesting strawman you have going here ...

Calling people who are anti-quackery "pro-big pharma" is dishonest and wrong.


You're against challenges and advice of caution re the vaccine industry, but you expect

that your challenge to alternative medicine should be automatically respected and accepted?

What you're trying to suggest is that "All the saints are in corporate medicine and all the

sinners are outside of it."


Calling all alternative medicine and natural medications "quakery" is certainly "dishonest

and wrong." And, that's among your many other knee-jerk reactions to alternative medicine --

"junk science" -- ?


Meanwhile, it would be a huge mistake imo to not question Big Pharma and its medications --

including vaccines. Does that mean that anyone is advocating doing away with vaccines? No.

Nor does it mean that anyone is advocating anything but caution and more studies.

And, also, a full realization that we are are dealing with corporations who have defrauded

government/Medicare.

And that Big Pharma is part of the overall private for-profit health care industry we are

all struggling against.

This is also the industry which is charging Americans 3X, 4X, 5X, 6X what citizens in other

nations are paying for these same drugs.

Maybe everyone agrees that this is an industry which should only be esteemed and never

questioned -- I don't share that reality!

[closeupready]

149. Well at least those on the threadstarter's side are honest with us here.

One such person states in very concise terms upthread that it's okay if the threadstarter (and those on his side) calls his presumed adversaries bad names, but it's not okay if the "pro-polio crowd" calls the threadstarter (and those on his side) bad names. I think that's a refreshing admission of how some openly embrace applying a high standard to their opponents while holding their ideological brethren to a standard which is so low, it's nearly invisible. I mean, this is an enlightening admission, don't you think? :rofl:

We here on DU makes jokes about Republicans telling others to "do as I say, not as I do", when we need go no further than right here to find such examples.

Cheers. :hi:

[defendandprotect]

158. Thank you ... and you have said more clearly what I was trying to say ....

Cheers -- :hi:

Watching your posts -- interesting!!

[Prometheus Bound]

177. Indeed. My thoughts exactly!

[old mark]

140. K&R. Homeopathy IS bullshit and always has been, and you are correct-

people make very wide leaps of association in condemning others.


mark