[HarryPotter]

just eat what the upper echelon eat and you'll be fine. Once you're a member of the Kobe System youll finally learn the truths. You're welcome

[CollectiveConfusion]

Originally Posted by perceptrons

You can, I'm just saying the label isn't helpful. There are more accurate diagnostic terms than "crazy."

Oh no, it certaintly isn't helpful.. that wasn't my implication.

[caveBEAR]

Originally Posted by HarryPotter

just eat what the upper echelon eat and you'll be fine. Once you're a member of the Kobe System youll finally learn the truths. You're welcome

Kobe beef?

[perceptrons]

Originally Posted by caveBEAR

Kobe beef?

Fun Fact: Beef labelled as Kobe Beef in the USA is not Kobe Beef, as it is illegal to import/sell real Kobe Beef.

[caveBEAR]

Originally Posted by perceptrons

Fun Fact: Beef labelled as Kobe Beef in the USA is not Kobe Beef, as it is illegal to import/sell real Kobe Beef.

Was going to say the same thing. You just never know with HarryPotter...he could have meant Kobe beef or Kobe Bryant.

[CollectiveConfusion]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjBMznQDWJk

EDIT: It's the Kobe system. I don't know how to embed I guess.

[bladerdude360]

Originally Posted by suicidesaints

I should be more clear. While it's not "illegal", it is illegal for a doctor to recommend the treatment or even mention the treatment. A doctor will try chemo and then tell you that you're shit out of luck, even though there are tons of other options. A cancer patient on their deathbed is not going to have the strength or energy to seek out alternative treatments and then administer the treatments to themselves. The problem that I have is that there is lots of suppressed knowledge and information, and it's just not right to keep the sick uninformed and unhealthy just for the sake of profits.

Yeah, there might be other options, but those options have not been sufficiently tested to determine whether or not they work, or if they could in fact be MORE harmful to you! I don't see how not recommending something that does not have any, or at least insufficient, scientific backing is unethical. In fact, I would argue that it would be irresponsible to recommend such treatments that have not been studied.

As for "keeping people sick" I think that's just wrong. How are they keeping us sick? By hiding the "real" cures to cancer? It's possible that some more effective medications and/or treatments exist, but at this point may be so expensive that they can't develop them, and even if they did, nobody would be able to pay for them! If something is so expensive that nobody can afford it, it doesn't make sense for a company to invest in it. Is that kind of shitty? Sure, it sucks that people are going to die. But it's a virtue of our economic system, and not a conspiracy to keep the masses sick and consuming.

[perceptrons]

Originally Posted by caveBEAR

Was going to say the same thing. You just never know with HarryPotter...he could have meant Kobe beef or Kobe Bryant.

I don't appreciate you influencing my thoughts with your witchcraft, Bear.

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by bladerdude360

Yeah, there might be other options, but those options have not been sufficiently tested to determine whether or not they work, or if they could in fact be MORE harmful to you! I don't see how not recommending something that does not have any, or at least insufficient, scientific backing is unethical. In fact, I would argue that it would be irresponsible to recommend such treatments that have not been studied.

As for "keeping people sick" I think that's just wrong. How are they keeping us sick? By hiding the "real" cures to cancer? It's possible that some more effective medications and/or treatments exist, but at this point may be so expensive that they can't develop them, and even if they did, nobody would be able to pay for them! If something is so expensive that nobody can afford it, it doesn't make sense for a company to invest in it. Is that kind of shitty? Sure, it sucks that people are going to die. But it's a virtue of our economic system, and not a conspiracy to keep the masses sick and consuming.

I agree that it is unethical to recommend a cancer treatment that has not been properly evaluated, however I think it's more unethical for a doctor to not be allowed to treat a patient using a method that the patient themselves want to use. And I do think there are "real" cures that are staying hidden, for whatever reason. Magic Johnson has been living with AIDS for over 20 years. While there may not be a cure, they have found some way to keep him alive and (seemingly) healthy. Sure he has a shit ton of money, but there are solutions out there for things, and lots of them are suppressed.

[bladerdude360]

Originally Posted by suicidesaints

I agree that it is unethical to recommend a cancer treatment that has not been properly evaluated, however I think it's more unethical for a doctor to not be allowed to treat a patient using a method that the patient themselves want to use. And I do think there are "real" cures that are staying hidden, for whatever reason. Magic Johnson has been living with AIDS for over 20 years. While there may not be a cure, they have found some way to keep him alive and (seemingly) healthy. Sure he has a shit ton of money, but there are solutions out there for things, and lots of them are suppressed.

Because the patient is an expert and can properly evaluate the risks and benefits of certain medicines or regimens and understand how that will interact with their other medications and ultimately what impact it may have on their life and well-being? That's why we have doctors in the first place.

And again, you are using anecdotal evidence that is in no way, in any form, whatsoever, indicative of what the usual outcome is. Of course there are some people who live long and prosperous lives in the face of terrible diseases. Magic Johnson happens to be one of them. We hear more about them because he's a celebrity. I'm sure there are many more non-famous people who have lived that long as well. But guess what? Many, many more have died, including celebrities, such as Freddy Mercury. You are making an extremely poor argument and holding it up as a shining beacon of fact that because this one person hasn't died of HIV/AIDS yet, then there MUST be some conspiracy and reason that the rest of these people are. It is such a stupid point if you take a step back and think about it. In any given set of circumstances, there will be some people who do not act or respond like others. They are statistical outliers or anomalies. That's all they are.

[richter915]

Originally Posted by suicidesaints

I understand that the risk/benefit analysis is not there, and therefore it would be irresponsible for a doctor to prescribe something "alternative" - The problem however is that the pharmaceutical companies are doing everything that can to make sure that the analysis will never be there

but that's not a conspiracy theory. In a capitalist market, that's a "good business model".

If you'd like some more fuel to your flame, consider the well-known case of vioxx (or any withdrawn drug) which had misreported safety indications from fabricated studies leading to stroke/heart attack related deaths. Merck was aware of this but "somehow" the drug was pushed through the FDA and administered. It had made merck billions before it was eventually retracted. The point is, it goes both ways, some good drugs are ignored while dangerous ones are pushed forward.

[CollectiveConfusion]

The day my doctor lets me choose my own treatment is the day I get a new doctor.

[richter915]

Originally Posted by suicidesaints

I agree that it is unethical to recommend a cancer treatment that has not been properly evaluated, however I think it's more unethical for a doctor to not be allowed to treat a patient using a method that the patient themselves want to use. And I do think there are "real" cures that are staying hidden, for whatever reason. Magic Johnson has been living with AIDS for over 20 years. While there may not be a cure, they have found some way to keep him alive and (seemingly) healthy. Sure he has a shit ton of money, but there are solutions out there for things, and lots of them are suppressed.

The reason a patient sees a doctor in the first place is to get help from the doctor. Not to boss the doctor into prescribing pills. If a patient is so inclined towards a certain treatment (that does not require a prescription) he or she is allowed to get it. Further, doctors must respect patient autonomy (it's in the contract) so if a patient does not want, let's say, chemo, he or she is not required to receive it. It's illegal for the doctor to force a mentally sound patient to receive any treatment. Lastly, the point of a physician is to let a sick individual know the best course of action in order to be healthy as shown by modern science. Alternative treatments are alternative because their is no scientific merit to their value. But science is open - penicillin was discovered by random mold spores coming in through an open window. Other cures are in the works.

I'm sure Johnson receives top of the line cocktail therapy to keep him from falling into AIDS but you should know that there are certain individuals who are genetically "immune" to AIDS. Specifically, they have a certain protein on their white blood cells which pretty much prevents them from being attacked by the HIV virus (this was discovered in a large number of homosexual men who were HIV positive but did not have AIDS). It wouldn't surprise me if Johnson had some variant of that.

[HarryPotter]

I'm on mobile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=aky_1oyHnX4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=aky_1oyHnX4

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by bladerdude360

Because the patient is an expert and can properly evaluate the risks and benefits of certain medicines or regimens and understand how that will interact with their other medications and ultimately what impact it may have on their life and well-being? That's why we have doctors in the first place.

And again, you are using anecdotal evidence that is in no way, in any form, whatsoever, indicative of what the usual outcome is. Of course there are some people who live long and prosperous lives in the face of terrible diseases. Magic Johnson happens to be one of them. We hear more about them because he's a celebrity. I'm sure there are many more non-famous people who have lived that long as well. But guess what? Many, many more have died, including celebrities, such as Freddy Mercury. You are making an extremely poor argument and holding it up as a shining beacon of fact that because this one person hasn't died of HIV/AIDS yet, then there MUST be some conspiracy and reason that the rest of these people are. It is such a stupid point if you take a step back and think about it. In any given set of circumstances, there will be some people who do not act or respond like others. They are statistical outliers or anomalies. That's all they are.

I'm sorry but I believe in a person having the right to decide what medications and treatments are given to them. If a doctor doesn't feel comfortable performing a certain treatment that a patient has requested, fine. But, to tell a doctor that they are not allowed to, even if the doctor might believe it to be effective is just asinine.

I'll agree that there are anomalies and maybe Magic Johnson is one of them, but the reason we hear about him is not just because he's a celebrity, it's because he's lived for 20 years with AIDS. If your next door neighbor survived 20 years with AIDS we'd hear about him too.