Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 2:10 am

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Deepak Chopra attacks Skepticism
#31
RE: Deepak Chopra attacks Skepticism
It is not that only 6 people had allergic reactions, that is unlikley and beside the point. the point is that we as a group of concerned citizens voiced to our friends that there were saftey concerns about not testing the vaccines, especially if the company made has broken the law recently or repeatedly. So then there was a recall, and the numbers were stupefying...

I can't find the article I read a few weeks ago in the Globe or the citizen about how Manitoba had recalled tens of thousands of shots, but that they only had less than 100 un-administered. My point is that there seems to have been saftey concerns, and that the recall was ineffective.

And then we get to the question: How many people in the Ukraine got sick even though they got their shot? No answers as of yet. I mean, I think Baxter should have it's license revoked after it's recent failures. Look those up too, if you want.

The most dangerous conflict of interest is the pharma industry trying to drug everybody for profit. More dangerous to long term human survival, and especially quality of life than most other possible conflicts of interest that could exist.

Thanks,
-Pip
Reply
#32
RE: Deepak Chopra attacks Skepticism
(December 15, 2009 at 8:48 am)Pippy Wrote: It is not that only 6 people had allergic reactions, that is unlikley and beside the point. the point is that we as a group of concerned citizens voiced to our friends that there were saftey concerns about not testing the vaccines, especially if the company made has broken the law recently or repeatedly. So then there was a recall, and the numbers were stupefying...

So how many people have gotten sick from the vaccine? How many of the vaccinated caught swine flu since they got the vaccine compared to an equal number of people who caught the flu in the same length of time? If the number made sick by the vaccine is less than the number who got sick from the flu then it is still beneficial.

Quote:I can't find the article I read a few weeks ago in the Globe or the citizen about how Manitoba had recalled tens of thousands of shots, but that they only had less than 100 un-administered. My point is that there seems to have been saftey concerns, and that the recall was ineffective.

I'll see if i can find it.

Quote:And then we get to the question: How many people in the Ukraine got sick even though they got their shot? No answers as of yet. I mean, I think Baxter should have it's license revoked after it's recent failures. Look those up too, if you want.

So you are assuming that it has failed in the Ukraine and then added that assumption to your argument against vaccinations even though you admit the facts are not yet been known?

Quote:The most dangerous conflict of interest is the pharma industry trying to drug everybody for profit. More dangerous to long term human survival, and especially quality of life than most other possible conflicts of interest that could exist.

Out of every person i know well, very few are on long term prescriptions of pharmaceuticals and in all cases but two i can think of they are genuinely benefited by their medication. The two cases in question is one friend who i think was wrongly prescribed Methylphenidate even though he was clearly not that hyperactive in the first place and became actually more hyperactive over time because of the drug, another was a friend who had some problems with the anti depressant he was given and he's not quite the same anymore. Still, risks are inevitable and the use of pharmacology for treating patients is substantially more beneficial than it is harmful - and don't forget that as our knowledge continues to grow the treatments will continue to become more beneficial and less harmful. Human error is always going to be a factor, that is unavoidable and certainly does not strike a mark against the pharmaceutical companies.

I have no problem at all with pharmaceutical companies being big, it gives them more resources for research and development and spurs competition that leads to very good medicine coming on to the market. As long as big pharma is regulated effectively and drugs have to be approved by an independent and transparent organisation before they are allowed to be sold to the public, then let them continue to grow and develop - it's good for us all in the long run, it's fueling the entire medial boom.

Sure there are always the bad cases, but the benefit massively outweighs the harm and that can only improve as more research and knowledge is obtained.
.
Reply
#33
RE: Deepak Chopra attacks Skepticism
(December 3, 2009 at 11:07 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-cho...73788.html

It's disgusting to read. He has no idea the true nature of skepticism, he just hates us because we won't take his word for it. e_e

Phil Plait wrote a great response to the article: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badast...ing-wrong/

HA this guys hilarious. Just lost a debate with an athiest I guess the bitterness dripped.



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply
#34
RE: Deepak Chopra attacks Skepticism
Quote:I have no problem at all with pharmaceutical companies being big,

Here is a great article, try to slog through the middle where it shows all the litigation againt dug companies in America recently. It is a long section.

http://www.truthout.org/1213091
If pharmacy was good, why is almost every company facing charges?

You really think calling a 5-year old restless and giving her uppers is healthy?

I know a lot about drugs, and there is almost no case where psychotropic drugs are "good for you".

Drugs are bad, we know that,
-Pip
Reply
#35
RE: Deepak Chopra attacks Skepticism
(December 16, 2009 at 10:31 pm)Pippy Wrote:
Quote:I have no problem at all with pharmaceutical companies being big,

Here is a great article, try to slog through the middle where it shows all the litigation againt dug companies in America recently. It is a long section.

http://www.truthout.org/1213091
If pharmacy was good, why is almost every company facing charges?

You really think calling a 5-year old restless and giving her uppers is healthy?

I know a lot about drugs, and there is almost no case where psychotropic drugs are "good for you".

Drugs are bad, we know that,
-Pip

You are so drawn to the negative pippy, it's quite sad - i have to wonder what happened to made you so cynical.

Everything has a cost, including medicine, but the simple fact is that without the same companies that made those few mistakes we would have no cures for anything at all, leading to a far higher mortality rate than any downside from incompetence and accident in the big pharma.

In context big pharmas are far more beneficial than they are harmful, that is an overall trend for good for our species.
.
Reply
#36
RE: Deepak Chopra attacks Skepticism
I could not disagree more.

Few mistakes? Few? Did you see the legal actions being taken against dozens of corps?

Baxter/Bayer shipping a hemophilia shot that it can't deny knowing is tainted to europe? Oops.
The same company accidentially shipping 71 kilograms of attenuated virus material that happened to be contaminated with live bird flu? Do you think it is possible to make such a mistake in a level 4 bio seucre environment? If it is, do you think we should re-write those rules? I assume that it is more plausible that they did it on purpose, but the implications would be huge. Mostly eugenics and genocide.

I am not drawn to the negative, we could talk about things that are right in the world if you want, we just haven't had any of those conversations yet. And I would say that it is you, not I with the unrealistic world view. What overall good is coming from calling children hyperactive and drugging them? I was a drug addict for years, but where did I get my first drug experience? In school, against my will. Show me the positive of such a program, if there is one, and then demonstrate it being larger than the negative side of such behavior.

An overall trend for good. Cite something, anything. All I can do is shake my head.
And you are overgeneralizing. I am not saying that we should not have medical science, I am not a Luddite. I am saying that if a co-operation of buisinessmen are found to be in breach of the law, or of basic human ethics, they should be held accountable. If a pharma corp can not break the law, then they are free to continue saving lives. So no, you are incorrect in stating that w/o these same companies there would be a higher mortality rate. If a company breaks the law, should it not be held accountable? Or are these, like the banking structures, "too big to fail"?

Nothing happened to me to make me a cynic, I woke up in a house that is burning, and no one else seems to be able to cope with the undeniable reality. We could talk about positives, but I might have to mention god... Tongue

Thanks,
-Pip
Reply
#37
RE: Deepak Chopra attacks Skepticism
(December 17, 2009 at 8:36 am)Pippy Wrote: Few mistakes? Few? Did you see the legal actions being taken against dozens of corps?
All companies make mistakes. The fact that legal actions are being taken against them can only be viewed as a positive thing. They are being forced to pay for their mistakes.
Quote:Baxter/Bayer shipping a hemophilia shot that it can't deny knowing is tainted to europe? Oops.
The same company accidentially shipping 71 kilograms of attenuated virus material that happened to be contaminated with live bird flu? Do you think it is possible to make such a mistake in a level 4 bio seucre environment? If it is, do you think we should re-write those rules? I assume that it is more plausible that they did it on purpose, but the implications would be huge. Mostly eugenics and genocide.
Did it on purpose? Are you mad? These are drugs we are talking about, and yes, drugs are dangerous. They are being injected into human beings, thus care must be taken. It is awful that mistakes are made, but we aren't perfect, and nobody is claiming we are. However, the balance has to be made. Either some mistakes are made and some people die, or no medicine is produced, and everyone dies.
Quote:I am not drawn to the negative, we could talk about things that are right in the world if you want, we just haven't had any of those conversations yet. And I would say that it is you, not I with the unrealistic world view. What overall good is coming from calling children hyperactive and drugging them? I was a drug addict for years, but where did I get my first drug experience? In school, against my will. Show me the positive of such a program, if there is one, and then demonstrate it being larger than the negative side of such behavior.
A positive side? Sure. Hyperactivity can be dangerous for the child and for others. We aren't talking about hyperactivity in a general sense here (as you appear to be). Nobody is going around and drugging children who simply have had too much sugar. Hyperactivity is a well known mental disorder, and it needs to be treated.
Quote:An overall trend for good. Cite something, anything. All I can do is shake my head.
And you are overgeneralizing. I am not saying that we should not have medical science, I am not a Luddite. I am saying that if a co-operation of buisinessmen are found to be in breach of the law, or of basic human ethics, they should be held accountable. If a pharma corp can not break the law, then they are free to continue saving lives. So no, you are incorrect in stating that w/o these same companies there would be a higher mortality rate. If a company breaks the law, should it not be held accountable? Or are these, like the banking structures, "too big to fail"?
I agree, they should be prosecuted, which is exactly what is happening according to your first paragraph. You seem to be arguing for something that is already happening. Where does your problem lie exactly???
Reply
#38
RE: Deepak Chopra attacks Skepticism
Bad medicine > no medicine - it really is that simple.
.
Reply
#39
RE: Deepak Chopra attacks Skepticism
(December 17, 2009 at 6:55 pm)theVOID Wrote: Bad medicine > no medicine - it really is that simple.

Feeding someone a poison (under the illusion that it will help) is bad medicine. Bad medicine < no medicine. Tongue
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply
#40
RE: Deepak Chopra attacks Skepticism
(December 17, 2009 at 7:00 pm)Saerules Wrote:
(December 17, 2009 at 6:55 pm)theVOID Wrote: Bad medicine > no medicine - it really is that simple.

Feeding someone a poison (under the illusion that it will help) is bad medicine. Bad medicine < no medicine. Tongue

That's not medicine - it's poison.
.
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)