Water does not prevent dehydration......

[One Brow]

You are pretty ignorant if you equate the right to make your own fundamental judgments concerning your health with a "right to be defrauded".

Am I as ignorant as a person who thinks that, by individual study, they can rationally determine the difference between valid medical treatment, placebo, and unhelpful-yet-harmful substance for every communicalble disease, each of the hundreds of varieties of cancer, every breakdown of the bodies' systems, ewtrc., while they are sick and suffering from said conditions? Thinking that people suffering from cancer are in the best position to make ratioal decisions on cancer treatments is ignoring human nature. You can decry that as elitism, bemoan it as liberalism, or condemn it as totalitarianism, but it remains true, nonetheless. We don't, can't, and shouldn't stop people from taking a coffee ***** insteadof chemotherapy. We do, can, and should recognize and announce officially that coffee enemas never help to cure cancers, but chemotherapy does, and require that the purveyors of coffee enemas themselves acknowledge this difference.

Perhaps you might mention to your pupils that the best use of their minds is in getting informed enough to make competent choices for themselves, instead of reliance on government authority.

That's always the best choice, but the era of Renaissance men is over. The studyand work required to be a Fields-medal-winning mathematician precludes the study and work required to be a Nobel-prize-winning biologist. No one can know enough to be fully informed on every topic.

 

[LogGrad98]

Take a wild guess.

Either way you made a judgement call without knowing anything more about what was being said and felt strongly enough about that uneducated assessment to comment on it in the thread. Nice.

 

[moevillini]

Typical liberals raise the charge of "conspiracy theory" when they have no facts to discuss.

Here is a link to the alleged international conspiracy that is the fundamental source of regional governance/national governance in regard to medical claims regulations on food or supplements or medicines:

https://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp

And yes, this whole process is an end-run around individual rights once considered fundamental to our Constitutional form of government. And it is heavily supported politically and financially by the Rockefeller circle of Big Pharma companies.

It's just not at all clear to me how removing this statement from appearing on the labels of bottled water is in any way inhibiting anyone from purchasing bottled water. Calling something like this an "end-run around individual rights" seems to be stretching things a bit.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Money does not prevent poverty...
Food does not prevent starvation...
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink...

Discuss.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Either way you made a judgement call without knowing anything more about what was being said and felt strongly enough about that uneducated assessment to comment on it in the thread. Nice.

Interesting that you are making a judgment call by assuming I made a judgment call when I did nothing of the sort. I simply find the derisive generalizations by the left and right of their "opposition" nauseating. His point may have been valid. It may not have. But starting it off in the tone that he did does nothing too help bring the masses together and cure our political system. It's simply driving the wedge even further in.

 

[LogGrad98]

Interesting that you are making a judgment call by assuming I made a judgment call when I did nothing of the sort. I simply find the derisive generalizations by the left and right of their "opposition" nauseating. His point may have been valid. It may not have. But starting it off in the tone that he did does nothing too help bring the masses together and cure out political system. It's simply driving the wedge even further in.

Can't argue with that.

At some point people have to open up their minds and begin to take in and consider ideas they may not previously have considered, rather than just taking in barely enough to automatically argue against ideas they do not already agree with.

 

[babe]

Unless the FDA fails to approve the drug for arthritis at all, or the approval is delayed for several years, in which case Merck would be subject to much greater action.



Not Merck nor Bayer, who are marketing "drugs" (that is, under the rules for drugs), while supplementers market "food" (that is, under the rules for food.

I don't see the need for any rules. Not made up by "government". I don't even see a need for doctors to be licensed. If we have government "authorizing" medical practitioners, that means someone in the government is deciding what medical practices are effective or "in the public interest". That's not the government's training or expertise. It's not a lot different from a "state-sanctioned religion". You have some special folks in government with the power to determine what we should accept or believe or choose in regard to our own fundamental personal right to life.

If the government didn't try to do this, doctors wouldn't be regimented the same way. But even old tribal witch doctors had norms, shaman norms, and so would contemporary "experts". It would be a matter of each doctor deciding whether no not to have a reputation for being effective or competent, looking at other doctors who had tried a brand of medicine and what the results were. There would be some doctors out there trying different things and reporting results in a medical journal somewhere. I bet doctors would also be looking at what insurance companies would pay for, and insurance companies would be looking at medical journals where reports of treaments and results were being reported, maybe paying some doctors to do some surveys/studies. . . . and then maybe writing some rules themselves. . . . you want us to pay for a treatment, you get to choose from the effective ones we've approved. Some insurance companies might arouse suspicions if their ways were not producing good results. Maybe people would stop patronizing ineffective or fraudulent organizations. . . .might be some companies that just don't do the job well enough to sustain people's confidence. You wouldn't have to wait for an election or try to get congress to change your provider. . . . you wouldn't have to subject your health to a democratic process to make a different choice.

Point is, if government didn't weigh in on medical practices, there would be some other organized effort at standardizing practices. Maybe you want your politicians doing this kind of business. I don't.

Food or supplements would probably not be something medical schools or insurance companies would aggressively study, but there would be a market for information in this area as well. As long as folks have free speech and free choice, some folks would be chattering about subjects like this. If you had a problem, you could probably find something about your particular problem. Might be a lot of different ideas going around. Maybe some different products available. If you wanted you could spend some time trying to figure out what makes sense, maybe try some different things. Some folks might be sorta "expert" about all this. Maybe write some books for others to read. Might be interesting.

Might just give some folks a headache doing all that reading. Maybe some folks would rather have politicians deciding what we should eat, or what kinds of supplements are effective. I think people who are just lazy or stupid should not be trusted with the power to make decisions for me. If we did that I bet some supplement and food providers would try to influence legislation and set up some kind of favorable racket for their stuff. I'd like to keep my stupid government from having the power to mess with my choices.

 

[One Brow]

I don't see the need for any rules. Not made up by "government". I don't even see a need for doctors to be licensed.

When some quack offers your son some ill-conceived, untested protocol that happens to be fatal, you might be able to sue the quack if you can find them, and if they have any assessts, but it doesn't bring your son back. Licensing ensures a minimal standard of appropriate care. I have no desire to return to the era where the surgeons were the barbers.

If we have government "authorizing" medical practitioners, that means someone in the government is deciding what medical practices are effective or "in the public interest". That's not the government's training or expertise.

"The government" has no training or expertise in anything. Individual government employees and consultants have training and expertise. Do you think the government fails to hire/consult medical organizations like the AMA as well as individual doctors?

It's not a lot different from a "state-sanctioned religion". You have some special folks in government with the power to determine what we should accept or believe or choose in regard to our own fundamental personal right to life.

Nonesense and stupidity. There is no law forbidding you from indulging in any sort of quackery for your own benefit. Licensing just recognizes that the needles they are sticking in you don't actually do anything medically, that the shaken water doesn't really cure anything, that the coffee enemas don't really draw out cancer cells. It does not stop you from throwing your money away, although it prevents quacks from billing insurance companies, and throwing other people's money away.

If the government didn't try to do this, doctors wouldn't be regimented the same way. But even old tribal witch doctors had norms, shaman norms, and so would contemporary "experts". It would be a matter of each doctor deciding whether no not to have a reputation for being effective or competent, looking at other doctors who had tried a brand of medicine and what the results were.

Doctors are still human. They are still vunerable to confirmation bias, the Dunning Kruger effect, overlooking the effects of the regression to the mean, pareidolia, etc. So, your recommendation means that every time I have to get a new doctor, I have to grill them on their methodology for selection of treatments, ask to see the peer-reviewed studies, etc. The indsurance companies will need to make the same determinations individually. While you should never put blind trust in a doctor, there is no need to create a deeper chasm of suspicion between doctor and patient. Except for those patients who'll just trust the doctor, anyhow, so if they get sick and die from inefective medicine, it's their own fault for not taking a couple of hours researching every suggestion their doctor makes.

There would be some doctors out there trying different things and reporting results in a medical journal somewhere. I bet doctors would also be looking at what insurance companies would pay for, and insurance companies would be looking at medical journals where reports of treaments and results were being reported, maybe paying some doctors to do some surveys/studies. . . . and then maybe writing some rules themselves. . . .

That's what we have today. Doctors, often through their medical societies, do write the rules themselves, and are the primary enforcers of them.

Maybe people would stop patronizing ineffective or fraudulent organizations. . . .

That doesn't happen today. Why would that change?

Point is, if government didn't weigh in on medical practices, there would be some other organized effort at standardizing practices. Maybe you want your politicians doing this kind of business. I don't.

I'd rather the politiciaqns get the insight of the doctors, which they do, combining medical expertise with legal expertise. I'm just crazy that was.

Food or supplements would probably not be something medical schools or insurance companies would aggressively study, but there would be a market for information in this area as well. As long as folks have free speech and free choice, some folks would be chattering about subjects like this. If you had a problem, you could probably find something about your particular problem. Might be a lot of different ideas going around. Maybe some different products available. If you wanted you could spend some time trying to figure out what makes sense, maybe try some different things. Some folks might be sorta "expert" about all this. Maybe write some books for others to read. Might be interesting.

Sounds like what we already have.

Might just give some folks a headache doing all that reading. Maybe some folks would rather have politicians deciding what we should eat, or what kinds of supplements are effective.

Personally, I'm becoming quite fond of the idea of some quack selling you medicine made from rotting leaves, urine, and snake-oil, telling you it's so cheap and effective the big pharmaceutical companies can't make a profit from creating it, so they are burying it, and that's why you can't find any independent information; telling about the one person who recovered from their cancer and not the nineteen who died; having you drink it while you are at the height of a cold, and then watching you miraculously recover from it in 2-3 days. It's the world you would create for everyone, and it's what you deserve on some levels.

I think people who are just lazy or stupid should not be trusted with the power to make decisions for me. If we did that I bet some supplement and food providers would try to influence legislation and set up some kind of favorable racket for their stuff.

They have.

 

[Gameface]

This is something I've wanted to say for a while...

One Brow, breaking up every ****ing post into several single-sentence quotes and responses doesn't make the post easier to read or more effective. I personally hate it and skip a bunch of your posts because I hate it so damn bad. I think it's one of the reasons you and Salty are considered annoying by so many people. Just stop. If you must, break things up into a few large chunks. Or don't. It's not my place to tell you how to post. I'm really just venting.

 

[One Brow]

This is something I've wanted to say for a while...

One Brow, breaking up every ****ing post into several single-sentence quotes and responses doesn't make the post easier to read or more effective. I personally hate it and skip a bunch of your posts because I hate it so damn bad. I think it's one of the reasons you and Salty are considered annoying by so many people. Just stop. If you must, break things up into a few large chunks. Or don't. It's not my place to tell you how to post. I'm really just venting.

I appreciate that. Personally, I find posts harder to read when you have a response to a point that is three paragraphs/twelve sentences higher up in the post; the response seems to come out of thin air. I'll try to cut things into bigger chunks.

 

[Gameface]

...If we did that I bet some supplement and food providers would try to influence legislation and set up some kind of favorable racket for their stuff. I'd like to keep my stupid government from having the power to mess with my choices.

This is something that finally clicked for me some time ago. I've pretty much been a libertarian my whole life--in my teens, up to about 17, I considered myself a liberal Democrat. Right up until my school newspaper adviser (who was also my English teacher and school lit mag adviser) made a comment in regard to a story I had read about a Utah town that required heads-of-household to own a gun. He said, "That's just the opposite of what 'we're' trying to do." And I realized that he was a liberal douche and I was not--but I failed to see exactly what was wrong with a government that actively protected us from evil capitalists. What I finally realized was that by taking an active role in deciding what private parties could and couldn't do they established a system that could be manipulated by select evil capitalists and carried the force of law. If the government stayed in their proper place they would simply protect individual rights and only intervene when one party was using force against another party. Then there would be no avenue for evil capitalist to force their interests on others, especially not with the full force of the law. All interactions would be mutually voluntary. Perfect? No, not hardly. This isn't a path to utopia. This is a path to freedom, which is dangerous and complicated. Good thing we're intelligent beings capable of making these decisions for ourselves...as long as our rulers allow us to anyway.

 

[babe]

I don't respond to all the knitty-gritty details of One Brow analysis because after thinking about it for a while I consider that type of discussion "cancerous". One argument involving fundamentally different choices in general which just break up into thousands of issues with no end in sight.

One Brow believes in taking care of everybody his way. A lot of very smart folks are like that. It can be a good thing sometimes. Depends on the intelligence and wisdom and benevolence of somebody else, maybe lots of them.

Being a teacher can become a sort of habit. It can be good or bad. . . . depends on what the goal of the "teaching" is. Some people want to use a baseball bat on me and scare me into submission to their teaching. One Brow doesn't actually think that's an effective teaching method, but he thinks government is "compassionate and competent" for some reason, so it's OK to use the force of law liberally.

Before the turn of the twentieth century, 1900 or so, our schools were not systematically organized for the purposes of statism. We had various philosophies at work among educators. You still needed to get a license to teach, but the requirements were few. If you could read, knew arithmetic, and were willing to teach they'd be glad to give you the l icense. There was one school of methodology which was considered "Classical", and the very best teachers followed that idea. They believed people should not just settle for reading, writing, and arithmetic. They taugh classical Greek and Latin languages and literature, and tried to furnish the student with the rudiments of every sort of knowledge. With the idea of bringing out the inate capacity of Man for critical thinking, creativity, and informed comprehension of whatever subjects the student would ever encounter. Some of those old line teachers considered the American ideals of human rights to be among the highest of developments mankind had reached yet.

But the progressive socialists have changed all that. John Dewey, and a host of other "modern" philosophers arose to insist that the goal of education was to serve society's needs. Train workers, produce tradesmen. . . . train to the task. No need to do any more than that. Today we have doctors and nurses trained to that ideal who can follow protocols perhaps, but have no comprehension of the fundamentals of health. A lot of doctors and nurses are like rats in a cage, stressed beyond the carrying capacity of a normal human being. Many become addicted to meth or other "performance enhancing" medications, and die in their fifties. They are trained to the task, to stay safely within standard protocols so they will not be sued, and their case loads are probably two or three times too large. The AMA, a literal bastion of socialism, has acted to restrict the available medical professionals and raise the cost of service. And has been leading the charge in every effort to increase the power of government over our healthcare. A few doctors are rebeling against the AMA but the pharmaceutical companies are pouring millions into this kind of influence.

I think it's time we let freedom back into the whole situation. Scare tactics, fear-mongering, and exploiting the ignorance of the masses are major obstacles to the real solution . . . . educated leadership. Not the kind of 'education' John Dewey envisioned, but the more classical sort that produces true "liberal"==== in the sense of respectful, well-rounded understanding and compassion for humanity and love for liberty===educators. Leadership like that interested in cultivating the best in humanity in general.

I happen to believe people can do a lot better in general if they have the information and the power that is necessary to make their own fundamental choices. And no, we don't all have to be brain surgeons and do it ourselves. We just need access to the information when we need it, and capable to select better professional caregivers who aren't hiding behind their government credentials.