Forum Post: Your doctor is FAR more likely to kill you than an armed criminal
Posted 11 years ago on Feb. 7, 2013, 9:31 p.m. EST by Shayneh
(-482)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Doctors kill 2,450% more Americans than all gun-related deaths combined
Your doctor is FAR more likely to kill you than an armed criminal It's true: You are 64 times more likely to be killed by your doctor than by someone else wielding a gun.
That's because 19,766 of the total 31,940 gun deaths in the USA (in the year 2011) were suicides. So the actual number of deaths from other people shooting you is only 12,174.
Doctors, comparatively, kill 783,936 people each year, which is 64 times higher than 12,174. Doctors shoot you not with bullets, but with vaccines, chemotherapy and pharmaceuticals... all of which turn out to be FAR more deadly than guns.
Here's two links that back up the info presented:
http://www.naturalnews.com/038889_doctors_guns_statistics.html#ixzz2KGl4udvv
http://www.naturalnews.com/038889_doctors_guns_statistics.html#ixzz2KGlKKjdU
Red Herring. Lots of different things kill people. Allowing one thing to keep killing people because another separate thing kills more people, makes absolutely zero sense.
You're saying that since medical science is imperfect, therefore, people should be able to own military explosives. That is some serious fucked up logic you got going on there.
Thank you! I'd say just because people who are well don't normally go to the doctor, then that, by design, will make doctors more likely to be associated with death.
Also, I bet doctors save more lives than guns do.
I'd say that people who are well don't normally shoot and kill innocent people with their guns, and yet, completely well people who own guns are being associated with murder and death. Why is that?
You don't like Shayneh comparing doctors to guns, but then you compared the number of lives saved by doctors...to the number saved by guns. I find that ironic, if not hypocritical.
I was being as absurd as he was.
Also, You're most likely right, people who are well financially, mentally, emotionally and spiritually probably don't shoot people. But if that is the case, why can't America keep her people from killing themselves and others? What about us creates more basket-cases per capita?
I know plenty of people who aren't "financially well" who haven't killed anyone, and most likely never will. I know people who don't believe in spirituality out-right who haven't killed anyone and most likely never will. I know emotionally fragile people who aren't a danger to society. Millions of Americans deal with all kinds of imperfection in their lives without shooting other people.
America isn't the only country in which fellow citizens shoot each other. We didn't invent murder, and if there was no America, we'd be talking about these supposed basket cases using some other nationality. The idea that America as a country, as a concept, as a nation is somehow responsible for the fact that human beings sometimes kill other human beings is irrational.
Forget it, I won't debate some one who glosses over the per capita reference and makes a "because people are bad we should do nothing" stance on a public health problem.
So if it ain't the deficiency of the individual that makes our percapita rate higher, mind you, as high as the drunk driving rate was in the '80s, then what caused such an explosion in incidences within our population?
I say it's a combination of the economy and our wars, but that is just what historical trends lead me to believe. But since most of our history has been shitty economic conditions for big swathes of her people and military diplomacy for everyone else, I could be wrong.
You have a nice day!
Wow. Perhaps you could have indicated that your "per capita" reference was so important to you that no direct response to it specifically qualified me as a "glosser" and a "because people are bad we should do nothing about public health problems" stander.
Obviously I wasted my time attempting to discuss anything with you while hoping for logic and reason to exercised on both sides.
You should really stop pretentiously projecting and give me your honest opinion as to why we have had an uptick in fire arms related death?
That is cool you think you are more logical and reasoned than me, but your inability to answer my question is not making those qualities shine.
So, let me clarify, you get to make irrational assumptions about people who do not respond to your every word in the exact manner you want them to, (and then accuse them of even more outrageous character flaws when they choose to disengage rather than catering to your demands) and then claim to be both logical and reasonable.
Why would anyone even want to talk to you further?
In response to your claim regarding an "explosion/uptick" in fire arms related death-
Less violence LESS murder today -according to the FBI and the GSS http://themonkeycage.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/violence.png
Crime Rates down across the board-FBI http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/december/crime_122010/crime_122010
"As a 2011 United Nations report notes, America has a “relatively high homicide rate compared to other countries with a similar socio-economic level,” but per-capita homicide rates in the Caribbean, Central America and Africa are often much higher and approach “crisis” levels there. The relationship between gun availability and homicide rates is, according to an American Journal of Criminal Justice paper, “not stable across nations.”
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/mass-murder-shooting-sprees-and-rampage-violence-research-roundup
The above link also has an extensive list of studies done regarding "mass shootings/shooters". I'll let the experts answer your questions.
guns ?
world champion imprisonment rates?
This is great!
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/ted-nugent-state-of-the-union-gun-control.php
the military structure should be reworked to provide public healthcare
NRA arguments are illogical.
NRA is backed by the military industrial complex
which want to sell weapons
The term “military industrial complex” was coined by President Eisenhower in his farewell address on January 17th, 1961. He warned us of the military industrial complex. Alas, we did not listen.
yah it's like asking for-profit insurance companies if they think we should have public option health care.
It's like asking the for profit prison industrial complex if we should have mandatory minimum sentences and maximum occupancy promises.
You're going to get a biased response every time, usually in the form of a bogus argument.
Responding to a red herring with another red herring is illogical as well.
How so?
Because a red herring is a logical fallacy no matter when or how it's used.
No no I mean where exactly did I commit a Red Herring. I don't see it.
Red Herrings can be unintentional.
Shayneh was comparing the number of doctor caused fatalities to the number of armed criminal fatalities. You then introduced the ideas about "allowing one thing to keep killing people..." and "owning" "military explosives" into the conversation-things Shayneh did not use in her comparison and as such are not relevant to her comparison.
Your use of these things distract from her point and attempt to lead the reader into supporting your conclusion about her logic. A conclusion you could only arrive at by CHANGING what she actually said into something completely different.
No. It's a continued discussion about gun control. Her Red Herring. Not mine.
the military structure is a socialistic system
Do you know for sure how many "gang drug" related killings there are per year?
Did you know that in the last two years 20,000 young adults were admitted to the emergency room because of taking drugs.
I never said that "medical science" is imperfect - you did. What I do recognize is that more people are dying because of "drugs" then any other means.
If you don't believe what I posted, do your own research.
Doctors and drugs - otherwise known as medical science.
'more people are dying of drugs' - I didn't dispute that.
'If you don't believe what I posted do your own research' - I never said I didn't believe it. What I said was - your logic is fucked up.
I'll restate it: Since 'drugs' kill more people than guns, therefore, people should be able to own military explosives. It's still fucked up logic.
I find it odd that you continue to include the term "military explosives" when responding to Shayneh instead of just using the term "guns" again. As far as I can tell, Shayneh hasn't used that term once, and most people would associate explosives used by the military with bombs, grenades, land mines etc. Since Shayneh hasn't said anything about people being allowed to own bombs, grenades, or land mines, it appears that you are intentionally using that term as some kind of emotional appeal designed to make Shayneh's argument look illogical.
And that is, in your own articulate words, fucked up logic.
'As far as I can tell' - that's the disconnect. On many other posts she has advocated for the individual right to own 'military explosives'. ie: AR-15, AK-47 etc. Those are military weapons. They are explosives.
I don't use the word 'gun' because it's too broad. There's a difference between the potential killing capability of a 7 round revolver and a military weapon with a 30 round magazine.
Taken altogether, my past discussions with her about military explosives, my logic is not faulty. Her post is not about doctors or drugs. It's about gun control. Red Herring.
Buttercup-
I'm sorry, but YOUR definition of AR-15, AK-47's as "military explosives" is a personal choice that acts as a false equivalence where there really isn't one. You say you don't use the word "gun" because it's too broad, and then use an even broader category of things that involve everything from gases under pressure to rocket propulsion!
The "potential" killing capability of ANY round of ammunition, is exactly the same no matter what kind of a gun it's fired from. It only has the ability to KILL someone, or something, if it strikes it's target in a manner that results in death and that is dependent upon a number of other things happening at the same time. A well trained gunman with a 7 round revolver might kill more people than an ill trained gunman with 30 rounds. Men with box cutters took down 4 airplanes on 9-11 and killed thousands of people with huge "civilian explosives".
Your past history with her does not grant you some kind of special authority that allows you to defy the rules of logic and reasoning with her in all future discussions. That isn't how logic works.
'military explosive' - appeal to emotion - no. Exaggeration - yes. Exaggeration is often used to point out the absurd. ie: individual civilians owning AK-47's for personal self defense or sport. Furthermore, it's a distraction to be on the gun terminology merry-go-round. So if it makes you feel better, I concede that 'military explosive' is intentionally exaggerated to make a point.
'A well trained gunman with a 7 round revolver might kill more people than an ill trained gunman with 30 rounds' - I'll clarify. All else being equal - there is a higher probability that more people would be killed or injured from a weapon that holds a 30 round magazine with a rate of fire of 40-60 rounds per minute than a 7 round handgun with a lower fire rate.
'Men with box cutters took down 4 airplanes ' - I already said that : 'Lots of different things kill people. Allowing one thing to keep killing people because another separate thing kills more people, makes absolutely zero sense'.
There are lots of other things that kill more people. I don't dispute that. I acknowledged it. That there are other things that kill more people is not justification for civilians to own 'semiautomatic military style, designed for the military, common use on the battlefield to lay ground fire in battle, type of weapons'.
'Your past history with her does not grant you some kind of special authority that allows you to defy the rules of logic and reasoning with her in all future discussions' - I have not defied any rules of logic. It's a continuation of previous discussions. Nor do you have any special authority. I don't need your permission or approval to continue a discussion. My continuing a discussion is not a Red Herring. It's a continued discussion about gun control. That you were not aware of. That's fine. I explained it to you.
'you are intentionally using that term as some kind of emotional appeal designed to make Shayneh's argument look illogical - her argument is illogical on it's face. No matter what terminology I use -'military explosive', 'semi-automatic military assault weapon', 'gun', or 'semiautomatic military style, designed for the military, common use on the battlefield to lay ground fire in battle, type of weapons'.
But if it makes you happy, I'll restate it:
Since doctors and drugs kill more people than 'guns', therefore, people should be able to own 'guns'.
Or
Since doctors and drugs kill more people than 'guns', therefore, people should stop going to the doctor and own 'guns'.
Yes. It's still fucked up logic.
That you believe that owning semi automatic weapons is absurd is your personal opinion and your use of exaggeration feels like a desperate attempt to make Shayneh's opinion look more ridiculous so yours looks more credible.
"All else being equal" is important isn't it? Your higher probability theory REQUIRES that all of the conditions and factors in a gun related incident are EQUAL. It's absurd to think that they even, ever could be. So your argument that high capacity guns result in more deaths or injuries than small capacity guns isn't based on logic or facts. According to every crime statistic available, high capacity gun related deaths and injuries make up a very small percentage of overall gun deaths and injuries. Handguns are by far the weapon of choice. (Hint-they are easy to conceal and carry around, cost a lot less, and are easier to buy, operate, and steal)
IF Shayneh's argument IS that "since doctors and drugs kill more people than guns, therefore, people should be able to own guns"-then it is illogical. But by the same criteria, so is acknowledging that Shayneh's data is correct but arguing FOR the thing that kills more people and against the thing that kills less people. If people should be allowed to make their own decisions about their bodily health, then surely they should be allowed to make decisions about their LIFE. If doctors and medicines are valuable because they "keep more people from dying than they kill" then GUNS are valuable in the exact same way.
OldJohn keeps bringing up cancer, and you seem to make it clear that you would turn to medicine and doctors to help you fight for your life against dangerous, invasive cells, but you also think that someone protecting their life against dangerous, invasive humans is "absurd". You laughed about treating cancer with carrots and juice, hell no, you're all for the most aggressive treatments possible! But you're completely against people who don't want to fight off intruders with the most aggressive means possible.
'high capacity gun related deaths and injuries make up a very small percentage of overall gun deaths' - I don't dispute that. The point is they are unreasonable as a means of self defense. Common law and case law provides for the right of reasonable self defense. Automatic weapons/machine guns were made illegal in 1934. There is no compelling evidence that high ammunition semi-auto military style weapons are necessary for self defense. We aren't less safe as a result of the 1934/1968 Firearms Acts. There is no compelling evidence that any person would be less safe by banning high ammunition military style weapons as well.
There is good evidence that banning high ammunition military style weapons will reduce mass shooting. There were a dozen mass shootings in Australia in the decade prior to their assualt weapons ban. There have been none in the 15 years since their weapons ban.
'arguing FOR the thing that kills more people' - that any individual chooses to see doctors or use drugs, despite the risks, only threatens the life of the individual.
'If doctors and medicines are valuable because they "keep more people from dying than they kill" then GUNS are valuable in the exact same way' - no they're not. First, type of gun is the issue. Not all guns are equal. Otherwise, you could argue for repealing the the 1934/1968 Firearms Act. Second, guns threaten the lives of others. Doctors and drugs only threaten the life of the individual choosing to be treated.
'If doctors and medicines are valuable because they "keep more people from dying than they kill" then GUNS are valuable in the exact same way' - false premise. We know that doctors keep more people from dying than they kill. You have not made the case that guns keep more people from dying than they kill.
'you're completely against people who don't want to fight off intruders with the most aggressive means possible' - as a society, we recognize the right to reasonable self defense. Not self defense by the most aggressive means possible. Otherwise, we could all have fully automatic weapons and repeal the Firearms Act. If that were the standard that we operate under - 'most aggressive means possible'. It's not.
"Unreasonable as a means of self defense". How so? Anything that prevents someone else from killing or harming me, or my loved ones, is reasonable whether it's a knife, an AR-16, or my late Aunt Ethel's ugly lamp. As long as criminals can get their hands on them, then it's perfectly reasonable to defend ourselves accordingly. In fact, it would be unreasonable NOT to.
No, there has been no "mass shootings" in Australia since their ban. But, in a 2008 report conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology, which reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, it also reported an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults! The people of Australia are indeed "less safe" since their government banned "assault weapons". And currently in the US, we have the lowest homicide rates we've had since the 1960's with all those "assault style" weapons on the street. In fact, the murder date has dropped 17% in this country in the past decade. (Rate of murder drop in Australia was a modest 3.2% after the ban)
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/justice/us-violent-crime
The National Institute of Justice, the US Department of Justice, the Center for Disease Control, and the National Research Council all conducted studies in relation to the Federal Assault Weapons ban that expired in 2004 and ALL of them concluded essentially the same thing, "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence".
But the fact remains that violent crime HAS been dropping in this country even as the number of high capacity gun owners climbs.
You mentioned things that threaten the lives of others, like cars for example? Driving while drunk is "banned" in this country and yet in 2010, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 32,885 people died in traffic crashes in 2010 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,228 people who died in drunk driving crashes, accounting for 31% of all traffic deaths last year. We could save the lives of at least 10,000 people a year if we just banned alcohol completely. Made it illegal to buy or manufacture it. We don't need it to hunt or protect ourselves either.
Here's an article by James Alan Fox, a respected expert professor and criminologist-
http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2012/12/18/top-10-myths-about-mass-shootings/
And here's an excellent source for statistics that show overwhelmingly compelling evidence that guns do indeed protect more people than they harm every year. I'll let them make "my case". If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's a portion of the conclusion:
"Putting together all of these results, we find that there is a good correspondence among them. They are derived from different approaches, so that correspondence adds credibility to each method. Somewhere around 0.8 to 2.0 million violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians. In addition, another 1.5 to 2.5 million crimes are stopped by armed civilians. There may be some overlap in these two categories because of the ways in which the data are collected, but there are almost certainly some two to four million fewer completed crimes each year as the result of civilian gun ownership".
http://saf.org/LawReviews/SouthwickJr1.htm
'an AR-16' - is not reasonable. You can't make someone more dead. The purpose of a high magazine semi-automatic weapon is to be able to kill alot of people. Not make one assailant more dead. Most violent crime is committed by a single or two attackers. Not 20 or 50 attackers.
'As long as criminals can get their hands on them, then it's perfectly reasonable to defend ourselves accordingly' - assault weapons are only used in around 1-2% of violent crimes. So the likelihood that you would need an assault weapon to counter an assault weapon is very very low.
'As long as criminals can get their hands on them' - allowing something to be legal because criminals will always do it, is poor logic. Under that logic, we would get rid of all laws because criminals break them.
'insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence' - it may be decades before the supply dries up to have an effect. Just like with fully auto weapons. We know the fully automatic weapon ban worked. No reason to believe the same couldn't happen with high magazine semi automatics.
'the fact remains that violent crime HAS been dropping in this country even as the number of high capacity gun owners climbs' - correlation does not equal causation. Overall crime has been dropping for 30 years. Experts attribute this to demographic change, better more proactive policing and higher incarceration rates. Not more assault weapons. And high magazine assualt weapon ownership is not increasing as far as I'm aware. Less people own more weapons. Stockpiling.
Australia - 'an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults' - as awful as that is, the fact remains, there is less death. The Australian Institute of Criminology also says that there is an increase in the reporting rate ie: some people who are assualted, especially sexual assault, don't report it. Part of this increase includes the increase in reporting. Also, 'Other research suggests this increase is not a recent phenomenon, but started to rise in the 1970s (Chappell 1995).' So this all seems a bit squishy.
Drunk driving incidents, injuries and deaths are way way down. The fatality rate of drunk driving has been cut in half over the past 10 years. Because of stricter laws and increased penalties. Which is the purpose of gun control legislation.
The article you referenced about gun myths - I mostly agree with it. In fact, it supports much of what I've been saying. It's ironic the fact that many of those arguing for their 2nd Amendment rights, especially as if it is unlimited, and say we should focus on the mentally ill, are often the same ones that have advocated and are/have been reducing federal funding for mental health. That's a huge disconnect.
This expert that you cited is against conceal and carry laws and says it's a myth that, 'We just need to enforce existing gun laws'. He is advocating for gun control legislation. He ends with 'Sensible gun laws, affordable mental-health care, and reasonable security measures are all worthwhile, and would enhance the well being of millions of Americans. We shouldn’t, however, expect such efforts to take a big bite out of mass murder. Of course, a nibble or two would be reason enough.'
'violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians' - This article is about handguns. Not high magazine assault weapons. It specifically states:
'The ownership of other guns, rifles and shotguns, has not been included because the effect was not statistically significant'.
It also includes non deadly crimes, such as burglary and theft. Which is a little different than making a case that guns keep more people from dying than they kill. Basically the article says that violent crime is deterred by handguns. I don't dispute.
The article states there are : '2,200 to 7,900 fewer murders per year, implying that the murder rate would have been some 10 to 37 percent higher than it actually was had civilians not had guns for self- defense.' You would have to reach 51% to prove that guns keep more people from dying than they kill. This says, at best, it's 37%.
I'm fine with sensible gun laws. Even background checks. But the AR-15 (not an AR-16...wrong key..my bad) available to civilians is just a rifle. Semi-auto fire only rifles of any caliber are not military grade "assault weapons" no matter how much they "look" like them. Period. Lots of handguns are semi auto too.
And again, the experts like Dr. Fox will tell you that mass shootings are not on the rise and the majority of mass murderers use weapons that are not considered assault weapons anyway.
What do you think about banning high magazine ammunitions? Over 10 rounds.
What stops someone from just learning how to quick load lower magazines and then just carrying extra mags? I'm guessing that's something that a person determined to kill a lot of people is going to do.
First off I never made any comment about anyone owning "explosives". All I have ever talked about was "firearm ownership".
Now with reagrd to your claim that the AR-15 and AK-47 are "military explosive weapons" indicates just how much you don't know about firearms.
So, I am going to "educate" you with regard to the definition of "Explosives" as defined by "federal law"
.FEDERAL EXPLOSIVES AND BOMBING LAWS
http://www.fedcoplaw.com/html/Federal%20Explosives%20and%20Bombing%20Laws.dwt.htm
Now if you need further education with regard to the definition of "military weapons" I can also provide you with a link to those laws.
Please, if you are going to get into a discussion about firearms and their uses, design and operation please take some time to do research on the subject.
I think mis-information is one of the biggest problem people who want to place more restrictions on "legal firearms owners" have. They just don't understand.
Now with regard to "military explosives" do you consider a "bullet" an explosive device
I'm not interested in your terminology merry-go-round as distraction.
Your post is illogical on it's face no matter what term I use.
Since doctors and drugs kill more people than 'guns', therefore, people should be able to own 'guns'.
Or -
Since doctors and drugs kill more people than 'guns', therefore, people should stop going to the doctor and own 'guns'.
Trollin trollin trollin
And your ego's swollen
Keep them untruths rolling ...
medical science is research
doctors are usual public service
Trollin trollin trollin
And your ego's swollen
Keep them untruths rolling ...
Trollin trollin trollin
And your ego's swollen
Keep them untruths rolling ...
Your argument was a logical fallacy. A dumb one at that.
When you get cancer do us a favor and don't take chemo. Just drink juice or grind on carrots.
'grind on carrots' lol. Good point. She doesn't need military explosives. She just needs to never see a doctor again or take any prescription drugs ever again and she'll be alot safer. Way safer than owning a gun.
See now your statement is a perfect example of a person who is miserable and you feel a need to take out your "vengence" on others - just like others do on this site.
Look, if you don't want to participate in the conversation with logic - You know like prove me wrong with facts - then no sense in getting "emotional" about it. .
Trollin trollin trollin
And your ego's swollen
Keep them untruths rolling ...
You don't prove a logical fallacy wrong with facts, you simply point to it being a logical fallacy. Your post is so illogical that it doesn't deserve a proper response.
Then how come you need military explosives?
Without having read your links, i am well aware of the corrupting influence that the pharmaceutical industry has on the medical profession
Unless big pharma can slap a patent on something and sell it, it is berated by them
How long have they resisted the benefits of good nutrition, herbal medicines, and excercise
Their answer is always, more drugs
These have all been 'people' revolutions with the medical field being dragged along
~Odin~
Odin, please, you're a smart guy. Don't buy into the "big pharma" conspiracy nonsense. You're making me sad.
They're not in the business of creating healthy cereals, making herbal medicines, nor of making exercise routines or selling fitness equipment. They have labs and they make drugs. That's their business, it's normal. Do you see Intel selling cheese?
Your argument makes no sense. In what way is a drug company refusing good nutrition. They just make drugs. They don't force you to take them.
Doctors prescribe remedies, not "big pharma".
Nonsense. Conspiracy theory hogwash. You don't need a patent to make money. Some people make millions selling water. Big companies want to make big money period. If they have medication that makes one better and can sell, they will sell it.
And, you hate "big pharma", they're an evil conspiracy, so who cares? Don't use drugs. Your choice. Gnarl on bio-friendly carrots if you get cancer.
I don't get this "big pharma" nonsense at all.
Just by calling it "conspiracy nonsense" does not make it so.
Haven't you gotten the memo that arguing your case with cute little catch phrases is no longer acceptable.
I respectfully suggest that you read up on the subject as I did years, and years ago. Below link can be a start
When you say, "Big companies want to make big money period," well...that seems to bolster my case more than yours, doesn't it?
I would add to that; 'and they have little conscience in how they make it....$ that is.
And that same factor is why most of us are here, isn't it?
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/?pagination=false
~Odin~
No, it doesn't. All companies want to make money. That's what they do. You argued that the "bigpharma" resisted the benefits of good nutrition, herbal medicines, and exercise. That's like arguing that a natural health food store resists the benefits of modern medicine. They are two different things!
Why do you think a drug company should build exercise machines???
I'm not the one who originally called it that. There's all kinds of website that explain this conspiracy theory. Read them.
By stating the obvious...using twisted logic....ignoring the link that I put up, and continuing to label it a "conspiracy theory"...that does not bolster your argument
I suggest you research the corruption that clearly exists within the pharmaceutical industry, and the medical profession, and then get back to me in a year or so.
~Odin~
I did read your link. I'm still wondering why you think a drug making company should worry about exercise, or anything else apart from making drugs. Care to explain?
Please don't make silly assumptions with me
Go do your research and get back to me sometime in 2014-15, and we'll discuss it further.
~Odin~
Assumption? You said:
And so I ask, why does it matter if "big pharma" resists the benefits of good nutrition, herbal medicines, and exercise. This is not their business.
What is your point?
I do not have the time or inclination to educate you on the corrupt relationship that the pharmaceutical industry has with the medical profession
Do your homework, a lot of it is Googable, and we will continue this conversation in a year or two
~Odin~
Oh, there's corruption. There's no conspiracy theory though.
Conspiracy was your word, not mine.
~Odin~
Your original description had hallmarks of conspiracy theories, that's why I called it that. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and screws like a duck, then it's most likely a duck. The idea that companies need patents to make money is one of those hallmarks. A quick look around the market place and you'll see many non-patented products like water selling in the millions.
Well it's part of todays society - we have a "sick drug society". Now that is not to say that there are those who actually need to be on drugs but it is the "drug society" that is causing most of the problems in this country.
Hell they are giving children tylnol as soon as they can speak and say "I have a headache".
C-SPAN today had a really good program on about drugs in America - big problem - bigger then 'gun violence" but it is being kept "silent".
Trollin trollin trollin
And your ego's swollen
Keep them untruths rolling ...
Yes we do have a "sick drug society" where either people are convinced that there is a pill for every ailment, or powerful drugs are being used for recreational purposes
But the pharmaceutical industry that promotes these drugs, and physicians who prescribe them also should incur much of the blame too
Nowhere, perhaps is this more evident than the mind altering drugs that are far to readily given to kids
Both my sister who has worked a lifetime with mentally challenged children, and one of my daughters who is a public defender are well aware of what a huge problem this is
~Odin~
Hey I don't disagree with you - I think it would be great if everyone that didn't need a "quick fix" would quit - but you know as well as I that that isn't going to happen.
I agree with you too that people who have let drugs take control of their lives aren't go to quit taking them any time soon
Some questions I think we have to ask ourselves are; How or what caused these kids to get on drugs in the first place?
Will the problems get worse as these kids realize that their futures don't add up?
And how big a part do physician prescribed drugs play in our problems?
Almost exactly two years ago in a town near me, three kids made a suicide pact, and drove their car into the school that the driver had attended elementary school in years earlier. That tragedy hit me hard because that was the school I attended decades earlier.
These are middle-class kids we are talking about here. The car was new, the father of the driver was a town councilman in the town where this school was located. It was just really sad.
~Odin~
like the credit cards trying o survive in an ATM world. Those companies had to give out credit more loosely just to stay in Business
Only this time the consequences are probably far worse.
~Odin~
"Animals prey on each other physically. Man, with his superior intelligence doesn't prey on his fellow man physically, but rather financially. Man is so avaricious that every conceivable law regarding has to be passed to protect man from his fellow man regarding money!"
The medical industry ( which should have never become an industry) is failing mainly due to it's profit-mongering nature that only works by creating and sustaining illness. America has the best emergency care in the world but that's all and I'll bet that many hospitals will even quit providing emergency care once Obamacare kicks in full gear. We have extremely poor outcomes in general medical treatments and in veterinarian medicine and dentistry. BEWARE..do your own homework.
Dental care -just as corrupt and many corporate owned dental offices are popping up all over the country- again, paying doctors by commission. All that fluoride that was supposed to be good for our teeth is literally destroying our teeth and our bones- especially children's. Read the label...it's always said, ' DO NOT SWALLOW" and yet we put fluoride in our mouths? I guess that means it's safe to gargle with arsenic as long as you don't swallow.
This video is a MUST WATCH: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/dollars-and-dentists/
http://money.msn.com/health-and-life-insurance/article.aspx?post=80dec1ef-6790-4ba5-95a1-a01b28f83e4e&ucsort=4
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/13/how-doctors-do-harm.aspx
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2003/01/15/doctors-drugs-part-two.aspx
Dr. Mercola is a very trustworthy doctor . He has many articles and videos about vaccines, dentistry, death by medicine, pet care, and more. I highly recommend joining his site to stay up to date on medical topics.
Look for a good doctor that is an osteopath ( in America), an NMD, Naturopathic Medical Doctor or a doctor of Integrative Medicine.
Although natural medicine, eastern medicine and other integrative therapies have become popular over the years, once big pharma patents their own synthetic version of any natural therapy, you can bet that all that is good for us today will become poison tomorrow. The FDA, under the influence of big pharma and guidance of Codex Alimentarius has been aggressively trying to classify most vitamins, herbs and supplements as drugs, thereby forcing the consumer to visit a doctor for a prescription ( a synthetic version, not natural). By creating " safe upper limits" of a vitamin, you will be forced to purchase more in order to meet the human requirement.
Ever seen this video with Mel Gibson from the 90's? Hilarious? or maybe not?
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=434629701570
I don't know where the quote at the beginning comes from, but man preys on his fellow man physically all the time. Beatings, rapes, mutilations, murders. Man also preys on his fellow man emotionally all the time-lies, slander, propaganda, spin, abuse, name calling, accusations. And spiritually.
Not all animals prey on other animals. And the whole of man kind does not prey on all of mankind either.
The writer is referring to an animal's dependence on prey to survive. You're assigning a more figurative definition to prey. We don't prey on each other for food but we do need money to survive and we must get that money from other humans.
That's fine, but my point was that humans ALSO prey on each other physically, and verbally, and emotionally even when we receive no monetary benefit/food/survival benefits from it at all.
I understood you but you're using it in figurative terms, not biological. People don't rape or abuse in order to seek food, they do so for psychological needs, not physical survival. However, money is needed for survival..it buys our food.
More people die in the hospital than in armed robberies. Duh-uh! No shit?!
How many doctors have been arrested for killing patients last year?
The biggest cause of death - is birth - ban that sukka!
Your ban on birth is called Government funded abortion and it's already endorsed by Obama and the Dems. Obama even believes that after a botched abortion the Doctor should still kill the baby. How's that for your cold blooded? Barry the Drone Master strikes again.
Not sure about those stats - but as you can see we ae losing a lot of folks to drugs and doctors aren't we?
Not much of a success rate. Natural healing is on will soon be an option for us all. Nicholas Culpepper stood alone when they doctors went quack he tried to show/tell in warning and they called him crazy and worse though he earned the term "Original Bad Boy" I am not one to go doctor. The ills are from the meat eating you are what you eat and flesh=death
No. Doctors save lives. Most people who die from drug overdoses weren't prescribed those drugs by their doctors. Do a bit of research. You sound really dumb. Learn a tad.
Just because we have doctors who save lives that doesn't mean all doctors are smart. Remember the child that was electrocuted because the doctor reversed the electrical terminals - well maybe you don't.
How about all the "mis-perscribed" medication because doctors have a tendency to scribble instead of write out in plain english the perscription.
I could go on and on but I think you get the message.
That's right. Not all doctors graduate at the top of their class...there is a bottom rung. But, even so, not all doctors who were at the top of their class make good doctors. Some would be better suited to research. There are plenty of doctors who abuse substances as well and conduct surgeries while intoxicated. It's kind of hard to instantly sober up when you're paged for an emergency during a cocktail party. Aside from those things, the problem really begins with their corporate funded educations that prepare them for being receptive to drug reps that entice them with lots of kickbacks and expensive vacations, cars and TV's and for allowing the FDA and insurance companies to decide what is best for the patient.
the medical schooling system is unnecessarily geared in the US to keep doctors rare
Look, you're an idiot trying to build an argument with logical fallacies. It's lame and a waste of time for Occupy. Just go back to your right with conspiracy theory websites. Alex Jones misses you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkTb9GP9lVI
Don't want to face the facts do you?
The fact is that you are a cheap ol' Craig's List troll
Come on now, be nice - I have always been nice to you. At least prove what I posted as being wrong or something.
You are letting your emotions get in the way of "practical thinking".
No, you haven't. No love lost between you and I. I know why you're here and you know why you are here. Let's just skip the bullshit and get right to it. I do prefer the practical approach.
I don't even know you so how could there be "love" lost between us?
Which is why we should just skip the bullshit and get down to what you are really about.
So what am i really about - I have been posting on this site for several months now and the information I posted varies - not specific - and not intended to change peoples minds just posts to "inform"
I have never condemmed someone because they disagree with me nor have I ever called people names because they disagree with me.
You start out pretty damn condescending. You are pretty anti OWS. So, why are you here?
There is a build-up of angst and misdirected ire happening here, GF.
It's what happens when issues get dragged out, and nothing positive seems to be happening.
This is bullshit, Builder. You know it.
Shayneh, you mean?
A symptom of the issue of which I speak.
We are defending ourselves against idiotic attacks from repeat offenders. Wasting our time on dolts and dorks, when we need to be regrouping for an aggregate assault on mediocrity.
Please don't fall into this cycle of circular crapola, GF.
I just want to make sure that I heard you correctly. You said: Don't fight the trolls, pat them on the head instead? Really?
let trolls expend their energy not one's own energy
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (13579) 13 minutes ago GirlFriday
That's what I love about you. You talk about shit that you know nothing about. How 'bout you go out and get a fucking real job? Stop living off your dear ol' Dad?
A job is doing something for someone who has money. Substance or production value is not money.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Matt,
A real job, in this instance, would be not making up 50 different IDs to be a dick head.
I know it's hard, but if you ignore them, they end up talking to themselves.
Why not use all your time and energy to discuss and implement projects that would make America better. Oh yeah, because in the year+ you've been using this site you haven't made one single tangible contribution to your community. You'd rather talk in the wind and waste time attacking those you perceive as trolls instead of doing effort to build a better world. Incidentally, efforts to create a better world have long lasting effects, attacking a troll is useless just after the attack.
Why do you post useless stuff here? Attacking the trolls is wasting your time. The best way to piss off republicans is to get out and do positive change in your society.
That's what I love about you. You talk about shit that you know nothing about. How 'bout you go out and get a fucking real job? Stop living off your dear ol' Dad?
GirlFriday
A job is doing something for someone who has money. Substance or production value is not money.
sounds a bit like a dis on the internet
claiming public communication is irrelevant
Yes I am "condescending" because I like to tell it like it is instead of being "politically correct".
As far as being "anti OWS" if I were I would be criticizing, condemming, name calling or anything else that would be derogatory towards OWS.
But I am not - I just like to put information out there for people to think about and respond to. Doesn't matter if they agree or not, it gets them thinking.
If we only focused on just the "negatives" then there would be very few people blogging on this site. There has to be some "positivitism" light shed on this site to at least let people know there are other options when it comes to life and living.
I like to tell it like it is too. You kinda make yourself sound like a Wonder Bread commercial. I like that. It demonstrates that you are paid to post.
Great post! Mike Adams is the BEST ! !
this argument reminds me of watching the show ancient aliens.
"we can't be sure, therefore aliens."
You have no argument here. If anything this just shows we need to better fund health care and make it better than it is.
Also I find it absurd when people try to minimize death by saying "only"
What a distraction.
I wish all the "pro guns" people saying "constitution" would speak up about the assaults on freedom of speech, the brutality against protesters, spying on Americans, and acting within the constitution in acts of war. Or maybe mention the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This means implementing reforms for economic equality.
I wish all the "ban guns" people would speak up about banning drone strikes and ending wars and demilitarizing the police. As well as make suggestions of providing opportunity to steer people away from resorting to a life that utilizes gun violence. This means implementing reforms for economic equality.
Modern globalization, Coupled with condemnations, Unnecessary death, Matador corporations, Puppeting your frustrations, With the blinded flag!
"Manufacturing consent is the name of the game, The bottom line is money, Nobody gives a fuck.
"4000 hungry children leave us per hour, From starvation, While billions are spent on bombs, Creating death showers.
You will never get "all" of "any group of people" to speak up for all of the same things. I know many "pro-gun people", and many "ban guns" people and they all speak up about different things. What you are really wishing for is a world where values the same things, wants the same things, sees things the same way, and acts in the same ways.
There is no such world. There never has been. Wishing for it is a distraction too.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57856066@N02/8418883828/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57856066@N02/8360821179/in/photostream
Wow, that was a blatant and lame logical fallacy.
Well if you disagree then provide some factual information - I don't have a problem with that. I mean it's easy to criticize when you disagree but at least have some substance to back up your disagreement - ok.
Trollin trollin trollin
And your ego's swollen
Keep them untruths rolling ...
Your post is based on a logical fallacy. I don't have the will nor time to educate you on the principles of logic. I'll let others do it.
Well provide some of your own "facts" to prove what I posted was wrong - If you are going to disagree at leaset provide some of your own stats.
Trollin trollin trollin
And your ego's swollen
Keep them untruths rolling ...
It's below me. I don't argue against ridiculous arguments. If you can't see the logical fallacies in your position that's fine. What I'll say is that if those are the arguments used by gun advocates at this time, it looks like you guys are pretty damn desperate.
I got to thinking about why there is disagreement with the information provided and I think I figured it out - it's probably because those of you who disagreed are on drugs and reset the fact that a comparison is made between "doctors" and fireamrs.
But the truth is what it is - deal with it - unless you can provide factual information to prove othewise when it comes to "doctors and death".
Lets also not forget the 'deth panel" that Obama is putting in place to control costs for his Obama care.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojrQq6yc_2w