Deepak Chopra attacks Skepticism

[Tiberius]

Simple test to determine where you stand on this issue.

A population of 100 people has a plague that will eventually kill them over several months. They have a cure that has a fault where 50% of the people who take it will die within a day.

So, with no medicine the death toll is 100 in a couple of months. With the 'bad' medicine, the death toll is around 50 within a day, yet the remaining are cured.

It's a grim prospect either way you look at it, but the bad medicine does save 50 people. Of course, in reality, such a scenario never occurs, and the risks are much smaller (perhaps a few people in a population of 100,000).

I know which option I'd choose though.

[Pippy]

Look, you can make it all hypothetical and window dress it.

Baxter did in fact accidentally cross contaminate and ship H5N1 tainted material in a Bio security level 4 facility. Look up level 4, research how many eyes and test had to be bypassed for it even to be conceivable that a mistake could be made. It is nearly impossible that it was by accident. Should their license be revoked by almost infecting tens of thousands of people across multiple countries? No. Why not? Because it's either bad medicine or no medicine. That is insanity.

Call me crazy because you guys don't know enough about the world we live in, but all I hear is Baaaaa.

I mean listen to yourself. Well, the only option is bad medicine or no medicine. No, either we tell other people around us that there are rules to follow, or we don't. The only option is good medicine or bad medicine...

Fucking madness.

You guys can live in a world where Baxter (and the other corps also breaking the law) are somehow not doing anything wrong, or it is some inevitable loss leader. Hyperactivity in children is dangerous? Dangerous? Because they might jitter into traffic? Hyperactivity is annoying, so we give them speed. Think about it.

You guys can call me crazy, but I assure you, the whole "no, there is nothing wrong here" attitude appears to me to be absolutle insanity. Certifiable.

Keep you poor hyperbole, this is the real world and things are far more complex than that.
Flabbergasted,
-Pip

[Tiberius]

When did I ever say these companies shouldn't be prosecuted for killing people? Never, and I agree with you, they should. I just don't cling to conspiracy theories when they are based on nothing but speculation.

The last time I checked Pippy, "nearly impossible" isn't the same as "impossible", nor is it determined by you just looking through the tests they have to do. An investigation produces much more convincing results than your hearsay.

[Pippy]

If you asked Dawkins it would be. 'Nearly impossible' being synonymous with 'impossible'... but that is another story.

I am not accusing you of saying these companies are free form responsibility, I am saying that it seems foolish to defend them from my anger. When I say that we should hold all of them, and may be Baxter foremost, accountable, I am on your side. I am saying so from the point of view of the quality of life for everyone around us. So you can dismiss it as some hearsay conspiracy, and they would love it if you would... But do some research and you will learn that I am telling the truth about the exampled of abhorrent behavior. I didn't say that the Ukraine release of vaccine was in fact a eugenics program. That is crazy conspiracy talk. But the two charges I have laid upon them are part of the legal public record. At that point it is only hearsay in the fact that you hear me saying it, but it is far from untrue.

Why do I have to be so contrary all the time? I wonder.

[Autumnlicious]

Look, you can make it all hypothetical and window dress it.

Baxter did in fact accidentally cross contaminate and ship H5N1 tainted material in a Bio security level 4 facility. Look up level 4, research how many eyes and test had to be bypassed for it even to be conceivable that a mistake could be made. It is nearly impossible that it was by accident. Should their license be revoked by almost infecting tens of thousands of people across multiple countries? No. Why not? Because it's either bad medicine or no medicine. That is insanity.

Thanks for the shrieking harangue. Are you going to look at the CRU 11 breach and tell us that it means either bad science or no science? Companies take shortcuts - it is unethical and illegal yet corporations hold so much power that it is rare that anyone take them to court for their violations. This is a clear cut case for close regulation and anticompetitive practice breaking activities.

Almost infecting is different than infecting. You have a lack of information, which only proves a lack of information. You can use the evidence that they took shortcuts that ignored safety and established procedure. But not the former. No, it isn't insanity - it is letting a large entity cut procedure and get away with it for the most part. Work against that, not some arbitrary 'insanity'.

Call me crazy because you guys don't know enough about the world we live in, but all I hear is Baaaaa.

I mean listen to yourself. Well, the only option is bad medicine or no medicine. No, either we tell other people around us that there are rules to follow, or we don't. The only option is good medicine or bad medicine...

I appreciate that when you run out of points, you call us ignorant. I can take accusations of ignorance - I am not a doctor nor am I a medical researcher. I am, however, a researcher in training with a background in biological and physical sciences. Meaning I am trained in the scientific method. I apply my experiences in industry as well to better understand how things are going on. I have some credibility though. It may not be much, but it is more than the average citizen.

Fucking madness.

You guys can live in a world where Baxter (and the other corps also breaking the law) are somehow not doing anything wrong, or it is some inevitable loss leader. Hyperactivity in children is dangerous? Dangerous? Because they might jitter into traffic? Hyperactivity is annoying, so we give them speed. Think about it.

We all live together in an imperfect world. Laws are broken, people die. Does that prove that laws are no longer useful? No. All it proves is that a particular group of laws were ineffective or more probably ill enforced. So the logical course of action is to make said laws more effective and better enforced, as well as recognize that probability dictates that while you can never reduce chances of possible outcomes to zero, one can reduce said chances to near zero.

You then digress into a rant against hyperactivity. I will not honor such a discussion. That is for another thread.

You guys can call me crazy, but I assure you, the whole "no, there is nothing wrong here" attitude appears to me to be absolutle insanity. Certifiable.

Keep you poor hyperbole, this is the real world and things are far more complex than that.
Flabbergasted,
-Pip

You are crazy. Please keep your highly simplified world of disappointment to yourself.

[Pippy]

Thanks for that

You are crazy, please keep your rose coloured glasses away from me. I have made a few points as to why I dislike modern Pharma, and I think they stand. Argue my points, not you opinion of them. Did Baxter knowingly release HIV tainted material? Did they ship live bird flu virus accidentally (although I have also shown that is is almost impossible for that to be an accident)? Did they or did they not? Should they be held accountable or not?

Does the drugging of children make you feel safer? Is it healthy to give them chemical drugs to make them better fit into modern society? I think it is the absolute lowest form of profiteering. I'm glad you have more credibility that the average citizen. Good for you. I have the most credibility to myself, and I would thank you not to assume that I should have to listen to you foremost. I will make up my own mind, use my own grey matter to come to my own conclusions. You do the same. I am happy to discuss though.

Do you agree with the "No medicine, or bad medicine" thing? I mean, that comes off as a little crazy to me. Enabling abhorrent behavior from the industry. You have cited my lack of information, please if you will inform me yourself. Is the information I have posted, the facts on which I base my opinions, lacking? Is there a moral imperative to drug children? Is Baxter not breaking the highest of human moral code? As per the article, are not almost every Pharma corp and their subsidiary being dragged through court? I do think there is a positive, in that the courts kind of work. but they need to revoke business charters and also use the billions in settlements to help the victims of the crime.

I mean, by all means call me cray and uninformed, but please point it out lest it become petty name calling.

I mean bottom line, drugs are bad, aren't they? Especially unnecessary mood altering drugs.

Thanks,
-Pip

[theVOID]

Thanks for that

You are crazy, please keep your rose coloured glasses away from me. I have made a few points as to why I dislike modern Pharma, and I think they stand. Argue my points, not you opinion of them. Did Baxter knowingly release HIV tainted material? Did they ship live bird flu virus accidentally (although I have also shown that is is almost impossible for that to be an accident)? Did they or did they not? Should they be held accountable or not?

Nobody ever said they should not be held accountable for neither incompetence nor accident - Did they knowingly ship HIV tainted material? I hope not, is their any proof that it was intentional? No. Did they accidentally ship live bird flu viruses? Again, i hope not, and i have no reason to believe that it was anything more than an accident - but Does it mean they shouldn't be accountable because it was likely an accident? Of course not, it just means that accidents are imminent and while retribution will ensure for the companies who made the mistakes, it is not treated in any where near the same light as intentional malpractice.

Does the drugging of children make you feel safer? Is it healthy to give them chemical drugs to make them better fit into modern society? I think it is the absolute lowest form of profiteering.

Again it's so black and white right Pip? Of course you are ignoring the fact that only a small minority of children are on behavioral medication and that most of the time it does help. Does it make me feel safer? Of course not, but:

Does it make the children with a violence/hyperactivity problem less violent/hyperactive? Yes.
Is it better than continual punishment for something the child cannot control? Yes
Is it better than doing nothing and letting these disorders escalate? Yes

There is no easy solution, we can either try and intervene with medicine to suppress violent or hyperactive behavior so the children can live relatively normal lives or we can continually punish them to no avail and watch as they continually disrupt, attack, destroy and are sent back for punishment over and over again never being able to fit in, to be civil and behave and continually become more isolated from society.

Do you agree with the "No medicine, or bad medicine" thing?

What about Good medicine being the overwhelming majority of cases with alarmists such as yourself tainting perception with nightmare cases? Contextually the pharma industry is a very good thing.

I mean, that comes off as a little crazy to me. Enabling abhorrent behavior from the industry.

You are arguing a strawman, i haven't seen anyone here claim that pharma should not be regulated and accountable.

Is there a moral imperative to drug children? Is Baxter not breaking the highest of human moral code? As per the article, are not almost every Pharma corp and their subsidiary being dragged through court? I do think there is a positive, in that the courts kind of work. but they need to revoke business charters and also use the billions in settlements to help the victims of the crime.

The more i hear from you the more i am convinced that you have absolutely no sense of context. You cannot consider the bad alone when making these statements, you also need to consider the benefit from having a drug industry in the first place and then compare the overall good against the overall harm to discern whether or not they are truly beneficial for mankind, which they overwhelmingly are, because countless many more people would die in the absence of drugs than they would from side effects.

I mean bottom line, drugs are bad, aren't they? Especially unnecessary mood altering drugs.

Speak for yourself, i take many mood (more correctly mind) altering drugs and thoroughly enjoy them.

[Autumnlicious]

I mean bottom line, drugs are bad, aren't they? Especially unnecessary mood altering drugs.

Let me clearly state this, and for your sake I hope you listen:
Drugs are not "bad". They are merely what they are. There is no morality attached to them. Repeat after me: Drugs are not a manifestation of moral ideals - they are more akin to a tool in society and society uses them that way.

Is the hammer evil when it is used to murder a living, thinking being, or does that assertion belong to the wielder of it? Pro-tip: the answer is not the former.

Drugs are used all the time - they come with your vaccines, are in your drinking water, allow you to endure surgery, etc. As a drug is any artificial substance that alters normal body functions, you'll find that many things qualify as "drugs".

[Pippy]

Thank you for the lesson on drugs, and moral relativity. This is not kindergarten.

My point is that in my opinion it does not cancel out that one day some corps allow people access to insulin and other days they break the law. I know there is a good and bad, and that we need to weigh one against the other. I have done that process, and I believe that pharma is causing more harm than good, even taking insulin, and the more necessary spectrum of medicines and drugs. you think that instead they are causing more good than bad, and I appreciate your opinion on the matter. We just disagree, but it may be more fun for you to tell yourself I am just out of context with reality.

Look it up, I would posit that a literal majority of kids in the US and Canada are on mood altering drugs, and certainly not a small minority as you suggest. That it helps them fit in and live productive lives is subjective. It represents poor problem solving, and the lack of casual thinking endemic to the entire pharma industry. Are children now more mentally ill than before in history? If so, is it that there are causes for this change? Should we asses and control the causes of mental illness, or just perpetually medicate the symptoms? Flawed problem solving.

Did they knowingly ship HIV tainted material? I hope not, is their any proof that it was intentional?

It stops being hearsay when you look it up yourself. Access to free information is one of the hallmarks of the early 21st century my friend. Don't take my word on it. And we've been over this already. They have to have known that the Hemophilia injections were tainted with HIV, they were removed from the American market for that exact documented reason. And then instead of being disposed or destroyed, they shipped them out the Europe. It is provable that they new those vaccines were tainted in as much as the public record of them losing a lawsuit about it. It could be a most unfortunate accident in the shipping department, but if so that doesn't change the need for full accountability. It would have been beyond tragedy for a bunch of children with a blood disorder to get HIV from the action, accident or no.

Then the second case, which I have also already explained. The storage of live H5N1 is supposed to be more than a little secure. It is listed as a bio-weapon, and it may even be patented. So for an accident to occur in the Level 4 facility they housed it in should be an impossibility. Granted, it could be an accident, but it seems overwhelmingly unlikely when you start to research the level of security involved. But by all means, look it up. You don't have to know what you're arguing about, but it helps.

Now you're saying that I am not weighing the good against two strong examples of malpractice, and I say you are not looking at it from the right angle.

If I kill someone, either by negligence or intent, but I am an overall decent guy, should I walk?
Weighing the good against such flagrant misconduct is beside the point.

Everything I say on this website seems to be taken as poorly as possible. I am trying to be coherent.

-Pip

[leo-rcc]

If I kill someone, either by negligence or intent, but I am an overall decent guy, should I walk?
Weighing the good against such flagrant misconduct is beside the point.

Again with the straw man. No one here has argued that the pharmaceutical companies should not be prosecuted when they deliberately do something wrong. They do not "walk". If there is an accidental case of a bad batch or something went wrong, there will be an investigation into criminal negligence, or criminal intent, even up to manslaughter or murder. But not without evidence.

If you run over a person by accident and there is nothing you could do to avoid it, there will be an investigation and with a high probability you will be acquitted of any charges. If it turns out you were deliberately driving into that person, or were DUI at the time, you don't. Intent has to be proven first though. How much punishment one might get varies on the situation.