(August 22, 2016 at 2:45 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(August 22, 2016 at 2:41 pm)Alex K Wrote: I'm not an expert, but would the situation for a cure for XY be much different from, say, how vaccines are sold?

I've never thought about how vaccines are sold since I've never had one that wasn't free or at least subsidized. But yes you're most likely right.

Vaccines are indeed givin' free but I'm not sure if cures are free.

(August 22, 2016 at 2:51 pm)ScienceAf Wrote:

(August 22, 2016 at 2:45 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I've never thought about how vaccines are sold since I've never had one that wasn't free or at least subsidized. But yes you're most likely right.

Vaccines are indeed givin' free but I'm not sure if cures are free.

Well are they not subsidized rather than free?  I think someone pays for them but it just isn't the person receiving them.

I'm not usually into conspiracies, but this is one I really can see there being some truth to.

I don't think they're holding off on cures, genuinely. They couldn't really, as others have said. However, even in countries like The UK, where we have an exemplary free healthcare service that does help a lot of people, the focus of healthcare is always to go and see a doctor when you are ill. There isn't a lot of emphasis put on overall health and well-being, holistic health, and ways to prevent illness in the first place. We're not given complex education on what the best foods are to eat and for what purpose, how to cook well, how to find healthy food on a budget, or exactly how bad the shit like Burger King and Coca Cola is for you.

It's more mis-education rather than outright lies. They'll tell you "eat 5 portions of fruit and veg a day" and you think that's all the advice you need to stay healthy.

And I think that's the way the powers that be (in this case, both healthcare services and fast-food companies) want it. If you educate people on how to better take care of their bodies so they're significantly less likely to end up with cancer, heart disease, diabetes or obesity, the fast-food industry crashes catastrophically, and then in turn the healthcare services do as well, because people aren't needing doctors so often. That would have devastating impact on the economy and no government wants that.

I can believe it is in the best interests of both healthcare companies and a lot of food/agriculture companies to promote "treat the symptom and not the cause" approach to health. I would go that far with the conspiracy theory.

This farmer has to wear a protective suit so he doesn't get poisoned by the chemicals he is putting on the crops;

Plenty of people are going to buy that food that he can't touch for his own health, and then consume it.

(August 22, 2016 at 2:53 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(August 22, 2016 at 2:51 pm)ScienceAf Wrote: Vaccines are indeed givin' free but I'm not sure if cures are free.

Well are they not subsidized rather than free?  I think someone pays for them but it just isn't the person receiving them.

Health Insurance mate.

(August 22, 2016 at 2:53 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: It's more mis-education rather than outright lies. They'll tell you "eat 5 portions of fruit and veg a day" and you think that's all the advice you need to stay healthy.

And I think that's the way the powers that be (in this case, both healthcare services and fast-food companies) want it. If you educate people on how to better take care of their bodies so they're significantly less likely to end up with cancer, heart disease, diabetes or obesity, the fast-food industry crashes catastrophically, and then in turn the healthcare services do as well, because people aren't needing doctors so often. That would have devastating impact on the economy and no government wants that.

I can believe it is in the best interests of both healthcare companies and a lot of food/agriculture companies to promote "treat the symptom and not the cause" approach to health. I would go that far with the conspiracy theory.

This farmer has to wear a protective suit so he doesn't get poisoned by the chemicals he is putting on the crops;

Plenty of people are going to buy that food that he can't touch for his own health, and then consume it.

They wouldn't be -poisonous- if they weren't poisons, they wouldn;t do the job.  "Those chemicals" have a known rate of decay, which is to say that they are designed (or simply do) break down after "x" amount opf time.  In the field, we call it the return entry interval. You have to put up a sign and no one is allowed in the field until the timeframe has elapsed - this all has to be rigorously documented and you will, on a long enough timescale, be audited by the EPA and/or USDA.  You have to wear PPE just to spray enough -baking soda- to combat mildew, but neither the baking soda nor "those chemicals" pose a risk to the end consumer of the product if properly applied. Even improperly applied....almost all of them are water soluble (so that we can actually -use- them in our sprayers) and a simple wash will deal with it. You cannot, by law, spray a field with a chemical whose rei exceeds it's projected harvest date..nor can you, obviously, go into a field which is still under rei restrictions to harvest it in the first place. Now some of us do this for a living, and we enjoy a simple pleasure that yall don't.....there aren't many farmers that wouldn't eat their own produce off their own vine without even wiping it down. It's a point of pride for us, if nothing else.

I'd worry more about commercial organics...which don't have -some- of "those chemicals" on them, but do have a higher rate of having things on them that actually are known to harm the end consumer.

(August 22, 2016 at 3:12 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'd worry more about commercial organics...which don't have -some- of "those chemicals" on them, but do have a higher rate of having things on them that actually are known to harm the end consumer.

quote system is fucking me up again, ugh

Tbh I still wouldn't trust it. "Decayed" chemicals are still decayed chemicals, almost makes it sound worse tbh. But still, if you say so haha

But yeah even if it's not from that process of the farm, food has so much put into it that's harmful. It's so bad.

(August 22, 2016 at 3:22 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote:

(August 22, 2016 at 3:12 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'd worry more about commercial organics...which don't have -some- of "those chemicals" on them, but do have a higher rate of having things on them that actually are known to harm the end consumer.

quote system is fucking me up again, ugh

Tbh I still wouldn't trust it. "Decayed" chemicals are still decayed chemicals, almost makes it sound worse tbh

But yeah even if it's not from that process of the farm, food has so much put into it that's harmful. It's so bad.

Everything is chemicals, everything decays, these decay at a faster rate so they would become less effective and bad over time.

Their half life's are very short.

(August 22, 2016 at 3:22 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: Tbh I still wouldn't trust it. "Decayed" chemicals are still decayed chemicals, almost makes it sound worse tbh. But still, if you say so haha

 
You -do- trust it.....don't tell me you don't eat...or that you actually know how whatever it is you eat is produced?  I'd shit a brick.  

Quote:But yeah even if it's not from that process of the farm, food has so much put into it that's harmful. It's so bad.

No more or less harmful than the food itself can be, in many cases.  Don't get me wrong, our model does some strange stuff...but it's actually one thing that we can have unmitigated pride in regards to.  Our food safety systems and organizations are the model upon which all modern commercial food production is based (and we're crushing it in the alternatives sector, my sector, as well).  The whole world has cribbed our shit...because it's just that good.  People sometimes don't realize that many of our issues in this regard (even issues we might have with post harvest processing) are actually a direct effect of our almost tragic overabundance of safe, high quality agricultural products.

Globally, it's not our cars, or our houses....or the tv with a billion channels that really engenders the deepest envy in others........it's all that food...glorious food. They see us fat and happy, and very fat..did I already say that (because they can't seem to say it enough)? It becomes the context of whatever other sleight they might mull over. We just seem so well off, while we're shittifying the lives of others. You don't even have to know anything about us, you can just -look- at us...ebven the poor ones who don;t have the cars and the houses and the tv, nary a single exposed rib.

(I'll talk your ear off about this shit btw, I'm a registered EPA pesticide handling trainer - a guy like me has to sign off on you before you can even buy the sorts of chemicals you worry about. They're federally restricted substances with a long and detailed paper trail and chain of accountability.)

(August 22, 2016 at 2:54 pm)ScienceAf Wrote:

(August 22, 2016 at 2:53 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Well are they not subsidized rather than free?  I think someone pays for them but it just isn't the person receiving them.

Health Insurance mate.

Health insurance is free? Grow up.

Yep, the medical professions and medical industry are all in cahoots. The main goal is to suck you dry, even if you're not sick. That's the capitalist way. I think you need to go to the emergency room right away.

Homeopathy is the way to go.

I mean, sure, if you don't value your life.